Ballard Spahr Attorneys Weigh in on Lawsuit Alleging Collection of Illegal Finder's Fees


Last month, Ballard Spahr attorneys Gary C. Tepper and Daniel J. Tobin filed an amicus brief for the Mortgage Bankers Association in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Petry et al. v. Prosperity Mortgage Co., et al., No. 13-1869.

Petry is a multimillion-dollar class action filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Prosperity Mortgage Co. involving the scope of the Maryland Finder's Fee Act (MFFA). The MFFA prohibits a mortgage broker from accepting a "finder's fee" in a transaction in which it or an affiliate is also the lender. Ultimately, after allowing the plaintiffs' ample discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defense, reasoning that the plaintiffs had failed to uncover any evidence of a finder's fee. Nonetheless, the lower court had earlier refused to dismiss the case outright, allowing a lender that table funds to be treated as a "broker" subject to the MFFA.

Although there was no finder's fee assessed per se, the plaintiffs had alleged that the finder's fees were "disguised" as a part or all of a table-funded lender's customary fees. The district court permitted the case to go forward based in part on a very successful run of decisions the plaintiffs' counsel garnered in state court. The district court's ruling on the broker issue conflicts with the plain words of the MFFA, which make it impossible for a lender that table funds to be subject to the MFFA. Now that the case is before the Fourth Circuit, there is an opportunity for the appeals court to reverse that earlier decision.

The MFFA table-funding issue is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars, as it likely touches the fees in (and provides statutory damages for) every table-funded loan made in Maryland over the last 12 years. Petry was but the first of a series of federal class actions involving other major lenders. Despite the fact that the district court eventually granted the Petry lenders summary judgment, the earlier opinions still stand and will likely be addressed by the Fourth Circuit.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.