The D.C. Circuit’s 2016 decision in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 839 F.3d 1, reshaped how lenders, brokers, and partners structure referral arrangements under RESPA Section 8. The case rejected the CFPB’s view that captive reinsurance arrangements automatically violate Section 8, holding that §2607(c)(2) permits payments that reflect bona fide value for services actually performed.

What did the PHH case actually decide?

PHH Mortgage operated a captive reinsurance arrangement: mortgage insurers paid premiums to a PHH-affiliated reinsurer in exchange for ceded reinsurance of policies on PHH-originated loans. The CFPB charged a Section 8(a) violation and demanded a nine-figure disgorgement. The D.C. Circuit panel — in an opinion authored by then-Judge Kavanaugh — read §2607(c)(2) as a permission for arrangements that exchange fair-market-value services. The court held the CFPB had erred by treating the reinsurance arrangement as a per-se kickback rather than examining whether the payments were for services actually performed at reasonable value. The full court reheard the case en banc and affirmed the panel’s constitutional reading; the §2607 analysis carried forward.

What is RESPA Section 8 in plain language?

12 U.S.C. §2607(a) prohibits giving or accepting “any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding… that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred.” §2607(b) prohibits fee-splitting except for services actually performed. §2607(c) carves out: (1) payments between a lender and its duly appointed agent, (2) payments for goods or services actually furnished at fair market value, and (3) employer-employee payments. The Section 8 framework treats every kickback as suspect; the §2607(c) carve-outs are the only defended structures.

What does PHH allow that the CFPB previously rejected?

Pre-PHH, the CFPB read §2607(c)(2) narrowly: a service-for-payment arrangement that included any referral component sat outside the safe harbor. PHH read §2607(c)(2) at face value: a service-for-payment arrangement that pays bona fide value for services actually performed sits inside the safe harbor, even when the parties also have a referral relationship. The decision opened space for marketing services agreements, desk-rental arrangements, and co-marketing structures — as long as the payment compensates services actually rendered at fair market value, and not the referral itself.

What did the CFPB do after the PHH decision?

The CFPB issued an October 2020 FAQ on RESPA Section 8 that accepted PHH’s reading of §2607(c)(2). The FAQ confirmed that marketing services agreements between settlement-service providers are permitted when (1) the payments compensate services actually performed, (2) the payments reflect fair market value, and (3) the agreement is not structured to disguise referral compensation. The FAQ is the operational guidance lenders, brokers, and partners work from today.

Where do post-decision arrangements still fail 12 U.S.C. §2607?

Three failure modes recur in enforcement actions. First, payment that varies with referral count — a per-deal bonus, a volume-based marketing fee, a sliding-scale arrangement that pays more for more referrals. Second, payment for services not actually performed — a marketing fee for “marketing services” that the paying party cannot document. Third, payment above fair market value — an inflated desk rent, an above-market marketing fee. Each failure mode signals the arrangement is compensating the referral, not the service, and lands the arrangement outside §2607(c)(2).

How should a private lender structure a referral program?

The CFPB’s 2020 FAQ guidance and the PHH framework support three structures with disciplined design. A marketing services agreement that pays fair-market value for marketing services actually performed, documented with deliverables and time records. A desk-rental arrangement at market rent for office space actually used. A co-marketing arrangement where each party pays its pro-rata share of joint marketing costs. Every structure should be papered, valued at arm’s length, and reviewed by qualified counsel before launch. The lender that follows this discipline runs a compliant referral program; the lender that does not eats the disgorgement.

Related Topics