The RESPA Manual: A Complete Guide to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act - Publication 4824 Release 34 July 2024 - Update highlights

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jasmine

Publication 4824 Release 34 July 2024 provides the first 2024 update to The RESPA Manual: A Complete Guide to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, keeping the manual current through developments from the prior months. Highlights summarize new court decisions affecting RESPA claims and related issues, including force-placed insurance payments from escrow, timely QWR handling and designated addresses, definitions of QWR requests, borrower status, negative credit reporting, and dual tracking under foreclosure timelines, with references to specific sections.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryPresentations

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time4 min

AccessFree to download

Publication Update

Highlights

Court Decisions

PUBLICATION UPDATE The RESPA Manual: A Complete Guide to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Publication 4824 Release 34 July 2024 | HIGHLIGHTS | | --- | | We are pleased to enclose the ﬁrst 2024 update of The RESPA Manual: A Complete Guide to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The update brings your manual current by incorporating signiﬁcant developments that have occurred in the past several months and enhances the manual by including additional materials. | Court Decisions Personal. A federal district court in Louisiana denied a motion to dismiss a RESPA claim, rejecting the lender’s argument that the loan was clearly for a commercial, not personal, purpose. Ho v. Jefferson Fin. Fed. Credit Union. See § 4 .02[2] . Manufactured Home/No Land. A federal bankruptcy court in New York denied a RESPA claim in bankruptcy because the property securing the borrower’s loan appeared to be a manufactured home not located on land owned by the borrower, so RESPA did not apply. In re Ditech Holding Corp. See §§ 4.01 and 4.05[3] . UCL Claim Based on RESPA Violation. A federal district court in California dismissed an unfair competition claim based on an alleged violation of RESPA § 8 . Homelight, Inc. v. Shkipin. See § 8.04[8][d] . Timely Payment from Escrow. A federal district court in California granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, ﬁnding that although a servicer had complied with RESPA’s force-placed insurance requirements, it had failed to pay the borrower’s insurance premiums from escrow; fact issues remained as to mental distress damagesand whether the force-placed coverage had made the borrower whole. Hickcox v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC. See § 13 . 18[2] . Borrower. A federal district court in West Virginia dismissed a RESPAqualiﬁed written request (QWR) claim because the plaintiff was not a“borrower,” as she had neither become obligated on the loan or been conﬁrmed as a sucessor in interest. Parsley v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC. See § 14 .01[2][e] and [f] . Designated Address for QWRs. A federal district court in New Jersey allowed a QWR claim to proceed because the borrowers sent their ﬁrst QWR to the designated address and sufficiently alleged that it triggered RESPA obligations, even though they sent their second QWR to a different address. Lenchitz v. Cenlar FSB. See §§ 14 .05[2][b] and 14.05[4][b] . Failure to Refrain from Negative Credit Reporting. A federal district court in Maryland granted partial summary judgment for a borrower whose servicer the court found violated RESPA by sending an AUD toa credir reporting agency three days after receiving a QWR, but denied summary judgment regarding damages. Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. See § 14 .05[3][b] . Deﬁnition of QWR. A federal district court in California dismissed a purported QWR claim because the borrower had merely requested a copy of the promissory note and a payoff quote. Zepeda v. BMO Harris Bank. See § 14 .05[3][b] . Private Right of Action for RFI Violations. A federal district court in Nevada mentioned a conﬂict in court decisions regarding the existence of a private right of action for violations of the Request for Information requirements, but did not need to address the issue because the borrower did not state an actionable claim. The decisions ﬁnding no private right of action are most likely incorrect. Dahar v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC. See § 14 .05[5] . Force-Placed Insurance. A federal district court in New Jersey granted summary judgment for a servicer that presented evidence of compliance with RESPA’s force-placed insurance requirements, while the borrower presented no evidence. Kareem v. PHH Mortgage Corp. See § 14 .06[2][c][i] . Dual Tracking. A federal district court in New Jersey denied a borrower’s motion to stay foreclosure proceedings, because the borrower had failed to produce any evidence supporting his claim that he had ﬁled a loss mitigation application. Bank of N.

FAQs

What does the July 2024 Release 34 update include for the RESPA Manual?

It incorporates significant developments from the prior months and adds additional materials to keep the manual current.

Which RESPA issues are covered in the court decision highlights?

The update covers topics such as force-placed insurance and escrow payment timing, timely responses to QWRs, borrower status, designated addresses for QWRs, negative credit reporting, and dual tracking/foreclosure timing.

How does the update describe the treatment of QWR claims based on the definition of a valid request?

It notes decisions dismissing purported QWRs where the borrower’s request did not qualify as a QWR, such as requests limited to copies of a promissory note and payoff quotes.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jasmine