Website Advertising Payments to a Realty Brokerage
Brooke Whitaker is a loan officer at a Kentucky mortgage broker. Harmon Realty, a 22-agent brokerage, owns Bluegrass Home Services LLC. Bluegrass offers Brooke a 12-month “marketing agreement”: $1,800 per month for a banner ad and a link on Harmon's website. Bluegrass will provide no office space, no customer leads, and no co-marketing events; Harmon's agents will receive a weekly list of “preferred lenders,” and Brooke's company will be added if she signs. Harmon's managing broker says the fee is “just advertising” and that other lenders pay it. Brooke's manager encourages her to sign before month-end to capture spring purchase business. The mortgage broker is not an affiliate of Harmon. Brooke wonders whether the arrangement is permissible and how to document it.
1. Does the proposed $1,800 monthly payment violate RESPA Section 8? Explain the distinction between a prohibited referral fee and a bona fide marketing services arrangement.
Read the worked answer
Section 8 of RESPA prohibits giving or receiving anything of value for the referral of settlement service business. A payment can be for advertising only if it is for bona fide services, at fair market value, and not contingent on referrals. Here the $1,800 per month buys a banner and link, but the same arrangement puts Brooke's company on Harmon's “preferred lender” list. If the payment is really buying referrals, or if $1,800 exceeds the fair market value of the advertising, it is a disguised kickback. The fact that other lenders pay it does not make it lawful. The lack of an affiliate relationship also means no affiliated business arrangement safe harbor is available.
2. What factors would make the arrangement more defensible, and what should Brooke do if the broker insists?
Read the worked answer
To make an advertising arrangement more defensible, the parties should use a written agreement that describes specific advertising services, set a price supported by a fair-market-value analysis, avoid any referral quota or pay-per-referral term, and separate the ad from any preferred-lender list. They should track actual delivery of services and avoid duplicative payments. If Harmon insists on payment tied to the preferred list, Brooke should refuse and escalate to compliance. She should document the refusal and not sign before month-end just to capture business.
3. Could this also raise UDAAP or Kentucky licensing concerns? Explain.
Read the worked answer
Steering borrowers based on undisclosed payments can be deceptive or unfair under UDAAP, and the Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions can treat RESPA violations as prohibited conduct affecting the mortgage company's license. The loan officer and company could face refunds, fines, license discipline, and, for knowing Section 8 violations, criminal exposure. Consumers may also have claims if they were steered to a more expensive lender. Brooke should treat the arrangement as high risk and get written compliance approval before any payment.