• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
*
The Honorable Judith M. Barzilay, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade,sitting by designation.
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206File Name: 09a0024p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT_________________
E
RICK
C.
 
C
ARTER
, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
A
MERICA
,
 Intervenor,v.
W
ELLES
-B
OWEN
R
EALTY
,
 
I
NC
., et al.,
 Defendants-Appellees.
X----
>
,-------N
No. 07-3965Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.No. 05-07427—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.Argued: April 28, 2008Decided and Filed: January 23, 2009Before: BATCHELDER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; BARZILAY, Judge.
*
_________________
COUNSELARGUED:
John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A., Sandusky, Ohio, forAppellants. Richard H. Carr, BALK, HESS & MILLER, Toledo, Ohio, Andrew S.Pollis, HAHN LOESER, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF:
John T. Murray,MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A., Sandusky, Ohio, for Appellants. Richard H. Carr,BALK, HESS & MILLER, Toledo, Ohio, Stuart J. Goldberg, Barry W. Fissel,EASTMAN & SMITH, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellees. Christine N. Kohl, Michael JaySinger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., forIntervenor.
1
Case: 07-3965 Document: 00615370956 Filed: 01/23/2009 Page: 1
 
No. 07-3965
Carter, et al. v. Welles-Bowen Realty, et al.
Page 2
1
The former owns a 49.9% share of Welles-Bowen Title Agency, LLC (“WB Title”), while thelatter owns the remaining 51.1% share.
_________________OPINION_________________
BARZILAY, Judge. This appeal involves the issue of whether an allegation thatsection 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C.§ 2607, has been violated confers standing even if the consumer does not allege anabove-market rate charge for services,
i.e.
an “overcharge.” The district court, in anopinion and order granting the Defendants-Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, heldPlaintiffs-Appellants lacked standing to bring a claim under § 2607 because they did notallege any overcharge or other concrete injury.
See Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc.
,493 F. Supp. 2d 921, 927 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (“
Carter I 
”). Appellants now appeal,arguing that this court should reject the district court’s “overcharge approach” tostanding. For the reasons stated below, the court reverses the decision of the districtcourt and remands the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent withthis opinion.
I. Background
On September 1, 2005, Appellants Erick and Whitney Carter (“the Carters”)entered into a residential real estate purchase agreement for a home in Perrysburg, Ohio.The Carters were represented in this transaction by the real estate agency of AppelleeWelles-Bowen Realty, Inc. (“WB Realty”). WB Realty is co-owned by AppelleesWelles-Bowen Investors, LLC (“WB Investors”) and Chicago Title Insurance Company(“Chicago Title”).
1
Based on WB Realty’s referral, the Carters utilized WB Title at theclose of their purchase agreement to perform real estate settlement services. WB Titlecharged the Carters $946.28 for title insurance, which consisted of $696.28 for anowner’s policy, $75.00 for a title commitment or binder, $100.00 for survey coverage,and $75.00 for an Environmental Protection Lien (“EPL”) endorsement. JA 221. Each
Case: 07-3965 Document: 00615370956 Filed: 01/23/2009 Page: 2
 
No. 07-3965
Carter, et al. v. Welles-Bowen Realty, et al.
Page 3
of these charges was detailed in an Affiliated Business Arrangement DisclosureStatement, which the Carters reviewed prior to closing.The Carters filed a complaint on November 9, 2005, alleging that the Appelleesviolated sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 2607 (a) and (b).Specifically, the Carters alleged that WB Title violates RESPA’s anti-kickback and anti-fee-splitting provisions because the entity itself does not and can not provide settlementservices. WB Title is allegedly a sham title company which does not perform anysettlement work but still receives unearned revenues while the real settlement work isactually performed by Chicago Title. Further, the Carters claim that the Appellees’arrangement allows Chicago Title to provide illegal kickbacks to WB Realty in exchangefor the referral of settlement work; WB Realty would receive kickbacks or splits in theform of their share of WB Title’s profits, while Chicago Title would be paid for its work through its share of the ownership of WB Title. Crucially, the Carters do not allege thatthey were overcharged for the title insurance or settlement services. In December 2005,the Appellees responded that WB Title is permissible as an “affiliated businessarrangement” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 2602 (7). They further asserted that WB Titledoes not violate § 2607(a) or (b) because it satisfies the safe-harbor provision laid outin § 2607(c)(4).Nearly a year later, the Carters filed a Motion for Class Certification seeking tocertify a class which would include any other similarly situated persons. The proposedclass would consist of any individuals who paid WB Title for real estate settlementservices if they were referred by WB Realty. In response to this motion, the Appelleesfiled a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), alleging thatthe court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Carters had suffered no injury-in-fact and thus have no standing.The District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the Carters did not allege any concrete, particularizedinjury and thus lacked standing to bring a claim under § 2607(a) or (b).
See Carter I 
,
Case: 07-3965 Document: 00615370956 Filed: 01/23/2009 Page: 3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...