Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Sweeney v. Savings First Mortgage Limited Liability Company
No. C-04-0471 (Md. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55932
Description
Mortgage Brokers Are Not Creditors Under Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act; Maryland State Law Not Preempted
Abstract
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the Depository
Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, 12 U.S.C.
§ 1735f-7a, does not preempt Maryland’s Finder’s
Fee Law. The court said that preemption under the Act applied only
to state laws regulating the creditor involved in a covered loan
transaction, and the Maryland law covered only mortgage brokers who
were not “creditors.” Using defendant as her mortgage
broker, plaintiff refinanced her residential mortgage loan twice:
first for $140,250, with defendant receiving a fee of $8,427, and
again for $158,400, with defendant’s fee of $10,788.
Plaintiff later sued, contending that under Maryland’s
Finder’s Fee Law the maximum fee defendant was allowed to
charge for the second loan was $1,452, or 8 percent of the amount
by which the second loan exceeded the first. Defendant moved to
dismiss, arguing that the Act expressly preempted the state law.
The lower court granted defendant’s motion, with prejudice.
On plaintiff’s appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s
arguments that preemption under the Act applied only to aspects of
covered loans affecting interest and did not extend to state
consumer protection statutes such as the Finder’s Fee Law and
that the Act applied only to purchase money loans and not to
refinance mortgage loans. However, the court agreed with plaintiff
that the Act’s preemption provision applied only to creditors
and not to mortgage brokers. Examining legislative history, the
court concluded that defendant, as a mortgage broker, did not
qualify as a creditor. The court said that Congress’ intent
in passing the Act’s preemption provision was to protect
lenders from state regulation and promote a national housing
policy, not to protect all other parties to the transaction.
