Respa Compliance And Marketing Services Agreements

In addition, HUD indicated that any marketing tax or other payment under the agreement could only apply to eligible and compensable services. In other words, payment must be made for actual, necessary and provided services by the person`s primary services that are not nominative and for which no duplicates are applied. Moreover, and above all, the payment must be reasonable and proportionate to the fair value of the services actually provided. Second, the services required under the MSA must indeed be provided. The simple enumeration of the services envisaged is insufficient. Fifth, the services provided under the MSA must be more than nominal. Token or minimus services should not be the basis of an MSA. Other indications on nominal services would have been helpful, but the general intent seems clear; Failure to provide essential services would ner and void the legality of an ASM. On the basis of this conclusion, the Agency also pointed out that MMAs “present greater and less controllable risks by the parties to such agreements” and that monitoring compliance with MSA-prescribed services by suppliers is “inherently difficult”, even though the MSA contract “has been carefully formulated to be technically compliant with the …

Respa.┬áThe newly withdrawn MSA Bulletin 2015 has often been criticized for expressing the GFPB`s overt hostility to MMAs, but has not provided clear clarity or guidelines, so parties to such agreements have been reasonably confident that they can comply with the RESPA restrictions. Fedor Kamensky is a member of Weiner Brodsky Kider and focuses on issues related to compliance with federal and regional legislation for the financial services sector. He can be reached at However, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) transferred the enforcement and interpretation power of the RESPA to the Consumer Financial Protection Office (the Bureau) and, although the language of RESPA has not changed, the Bureau has interpreted the provisions of RESPA 8 differently, at least initially. Under the leadership of former Director Richard Cordray, the Bureau has demonstrated its opposition to certain marketing agreements through several enforcement measures, including a September 2014 approval order against Lighthouse Title, Inc. (Lighthouse), a Michigan-based title insurance agency. MMAs often include relationships between two billing service providers or other third parties, one of the parties committing to market or promote the service of others for a “marketing” or similar fee.