Originally posted by grigerny:
Thanks (for the link) Pikes Peak.
After a close read of the link, what Grigerny proposes is still very much illegal even if the real estate agent performs 5 or more services on the RESPA list (which Grigerny has not asked for in the first place):
--snip--
Statement of Policy 1999-1 went on to express HUD's opinion that compensable services would be performed if it were found that: (1) the lender's agent or contractor (the real estate broker in this context) took the application information (under item (a) above) and performed at least five additional items on the preceding list; and (2) the payment was not a fee given for steering a customer to a particular lender disguised as compensation for purported "counseling type" services (taking the application plus performing only the additional services identified in (b), (c), (d), (j) and (k) above).
--snip--
Furthermore, Grigerny's proposal is illegal because it's based on a percentage of the loan fee as opposed to market value of the services rendered by the agent. Thus, Grigerny's proposal is illegal for at least 3 reasons:
1) payment is not conditional on agent performing at least 5 of the services outlined in RESPA; and,
2) payment is given because the agent steered the client to Grigerny; and,
3) payment is based on a percentage of the fee instead of normal market value of services rendered (which Grigerny didn't even ask for in the first place).