451 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2006), 05-3068, Mitchell v. Beneficial Loan & Thrift Co.
|Citation:||451 F.3d 913|
|Party Name:||Ty S. MITCHELL; Kimberly S. Mitchell, Appellants, Christopher Mauer; Mary Jo Mauer; James L. Engstrom; Kathleen P. Engstrom, Plaintiffs, v. BENEFICIAL LOAN & THRIFT COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Appellee, Household Industrial Finance Company, Defendant.|
|Case Date:||June 21, 2006|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Little Canada, MN, and Eric L. Crandall, New Richmond, WI, for appellant.
Chad A. Snyder, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges
The district court1 granted summary judgment to Beneficial Loan & Thrift Company. Ty S. Mitchell and Kimberly S. Mitchell appeal.
The Mitchells assert that Beneficial violated the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA). HOEPA, as relevant here, requires creditors to make additional disclosures to borrowers if the total points and fees payable at closing exceed 8 percent of the total loan amount, or $400, whichever is greater. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1602(aa)(1)(B), 1639(a). The Mitchells argue that the $355 appraisal fee, $821 title insurance fee, $67 phone-bill charge, or $1,178 principal disbursement should be included in the total points and fees of their loan. If any one of these were included, the total points and fees would exceed 8 percent of the total loan amount, making the loan subject to HOEPA.
Appraisal and title insurance fees, if bona fide and reasonable, are excluded from HOEPA's definition of total points and fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1605(e); 12 C.F.R. § 226.4(c)(7). On appeal, the Mitchells claim that these fees are not bona fide and not reasonable because they violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b). The district court correctly found that these fees did not violate RESPA because they were paid to an unaffiliated third party for services actually performed, and, in any event, Beneficial derived no benefit from the payments. See Haug v. Bank of America, 317 F.3d 832, 836 (8th Cir. 2003). As for the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP