Good -v- Deutsche Bank, No. 4D11-1167, slip op. (Fla. 4th DCA, October 17, 2012)
In response to a foreclosure action the homeowners responded with an affirmative defense alleging violations of the Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and seeking recoupment against the bank as successor in interest. Following entry of a summary judgment of foreclosure, the homeowners appealed arguing that the trial court erred because the bank failed to negate the affirmative defense. The appellate court found that RESPA imposed no liability against the bank since liability was not imputable to it as successor.
Only the actual persons or entities who violated RESPA can be pursued under RESPA. The court reasoned that if Congress wanted to create successor liability under RESPA it would have expressly done so as it did under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), see 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (2011).