The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued its long-awaited ruling in the PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case, finding the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is constitutional, but reinstating the previous panel decision rejecting CFPB’s interpretations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the relevant statute of limitations. While most of the attention has been paid to the constitutional rule, equally important is that the court’s Jan. 31, ruling reinstated a panel ruling rejecting CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA.

Background

The case stems from a 2014 administrative proceeding before CFPB, in which the bureau alleged that PHH, a mortgage originator, created a kick-back scheme that violated RESPA through the practice of referring mortgage insurance business in exchange for reinsurance business for PHH’s reinsurance affiliate.