RESPA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, requires lenders and servicers to provide information in response to borrowers' letters or other "Qualified Written Requests." 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). However, the statutory duty to respond does not include a duty to respond to every inquiry.
There are actually only two types of written requests that trigger a statutory response:
Rather, the statute covers only written requests alleging an account error or seeking information relating to loan servicing.... So a qualified written request can't be used to collect information about, or allege an error in, the underlying mortgage loan.
Perron ex rel. Jackson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 15-2206, 2017 WL 104466, at *4 (7th Cir. January 11, 2017).
Mr. Perron and Ms. Jackson sent several written requests to Chase for information about their mortgage. Chase serviced the Perron-Jackson note and mortgage. As noted above, "RESPA requires mortgage servicers to correct account errors and disclose account information when a borrower sends a written request for information." Perron ex rel. Jackson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 15-2206, 2017 WL 104466, at *1 (7th Cir. January 11, 2017).
Even in those two instances, RESPA does not require a reply when the borrowers already have the information. In this case, Mr. Perron and Ms. Jackson already had the information in Chase's past replies to their past written requests for information. There came a time when Chase did not provide all the information it had already provided, when Chase was faced with responding to the most recent Perron-Jackson written request.
Perron and Jackson sued Chase for damages for failure to comply with RESPA, in pertinent part, including alleged damages for wrecking their marriage. The District Court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed because none of the damages they alleged -- including their divorce -- was caused by Chase's noncompliance with RESPA in this instance, and the damages simply were not substantiated with record evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact:
But of course Perron and Jackson already knew that information; the bank had supplied it in earlier correspondence. So even if Chase's response fell slightly short of full compliance as a technical matter, the couple cannot show that they suffered any actual damages “as a result of” any failure to comply with RESPA response duties. § 2605(f)(1)(A).
* * *
Simply put, Perron and Jackson weren't harmed by being in the dark because the lights were on the whole time.
Perron ex rel. Jackson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 15-2206, 2017 WL 104466, at *4 (7th Cir. January 11, 2017).
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments