Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO MARTINEZ; ALINDA 

MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves

and a class of others similarly

situated, No. 07-17277

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.

v.  CV-06-03327-

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, RMW/RS

INC.; WFC HOLDINGS CORPORATION; OPINION

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS

FARGO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

December 9, 2009—San Francisco, California

Filed March 9, 2010

Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Consuelo M. Callahan,

Circuit Judges, and Barbara M.G. Lynn,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Lynn

*The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

3763

3766 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

COUNSEL

Timothy G. Blood, Joseph D. Daley, Leslie E. Hurst, and

Thomas J. O’Reardon II, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &

Robbins LLP, on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants Armando and

Alinda Martinez.

Robert B. Bader, Thomas M. Hefferon, and William F. Shee-

han, Goodwin Procter LLP, on behalf of defendants-appellees

MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 3767

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.,

Wells Fargo Financial Services, Inc., and Wells Fargo Real

Estate Tax Services, LLC.

OPINION

LYNN, District Judge:

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Alinda and Armando Martinez (the “Martinezes”)

seek review of the dismissal of their claims under Section 8(b)

of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12

U.S.C. § 2607(b), and California’s Unfair Competition Law

(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. The Mar-

tinezes contend that RESPA Section 8(b)’s prohibition against

“unearned fees” reaches the “overcharging” allegedly com-

mitted by Wells Fargo in this case. They also argue that Wells

Fargo’s conduct was “unfair,” “fraudulent” and “illegal,” all

in violation of the UCL.

We affirm the dismissal of the RESPA claim because the

clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) does

not reach the practice of “overcharging.” We affirm the dis-

missal of the three UCL state law claims because the claims

alleging “unfair” and “fraudulent” conduct are preempted by

the National Bank Act, and because the allegations of “ille-

gal” conduct fail to state a claim.

II. Facts and Procedural Background

According to the complaint, the Martinezes refinanced their

California home mortgage loan through Wells Fargo. Wells

Fargo charged the Martinezes an underwriting fee of $800 for

the refinancing.1 The Martinezes allege that this fee was

1

“Underwriting” analyzes the risk involved in making a loan, to deter-

mine whether that risk is acceptable to the lender.

3768 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

excessive because it was not reasonably related to Wells

Fargo’s actual costs of performing the underwriting, and thus

violated RESPA Section 8(b) and California’s UCL. This

allegation of excessive fees is also referred to as an “over-

charge.”2

The Martinezes first sought to intervene in an earlier law-

suit filed in New York, in which identical claims were being

alleged against Wells Fargo. The New York district court dis-

missed the case. See Kruse v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,

Inc., 383 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing the district

court’s decision, which was delivered orally from the bench).

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and remanded,

holding that RESPA Section 8(b) clearly and unambiguously

does not apply to excessive fees charged by a lender. See id.

at 56, 62. On remand, the Martinezes attempted to intervene.

The district court denied intervention. See Kruse v. Wells

Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., No. 02-3089, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 26092, at *12-21 (E.D.N.Y. May 3, 2006).

The Martinezes then brought this action on behalf of a

nationwide class of similarly situated home mortgage borrow-

ers,3 alleging that Wells Fargo marked up certain charges and

overcharged for services in connection with mortgage loans,

in violation of federal and state law.

The district court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss

the claims for RESPA overcharge and UCL violations. It

held, as to the RESPA claim, that even if Wells Fargo had

overcharged the Martinezes for its services, it did not violate

2

The Martinezes also contend that the $75 Wells Fargo charged them

for tax services provided by its affiliate was more than what the affiliate

had charged Wells Fargo, in violation of RESPA Section 8(b) and the

UCL. This allegation targets a practice commonly referred to as a “mark-

up.” The Martinezes do not pursue the RESPA “mark-up” claim on

appeal.

3

No class was certified before the appeal.

MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 3769

RESPA Section 8(b) in doing so because Wells Fargo pro-

vided a service in exchange for the fee. It also held that the

Martinezes’ claims of “unfair” and “fraudulent” conduct

under the UCL were preempted by the National Bank Act and

related federal regulations, and dismissed the third UCL claim

of “unlawful” conduct because the Martinezes failed to iden-

tify an underlying illegal predicate act.

The Martinezes appeal the district court’s dismissal of the

RESPA “overcharge” claim and the three UCL-related claims.

III. Analysis

This Court reviews issues of statutory interpretation and

preemption de novo. Silvas v. E*Trade Mortgage Corp., 514

F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2008). A district court’s decision to

grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is also

reviewed de novo. Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d

593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

A. “The “Overcharge” Claim under RESPA

The Martinezes allege that the $800 underwriting fee

charged by Wells Fargo violates Section 8(b) of RESPA,

which provides:

(b) Splitting charges. No person shall give and no

person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage

of any charge made or received for the rendering of

a real estate settlement service in connection with a

transaction involving a federally related mortgage

loan other than for services actually performed.

12 U.S.C. § 2607(b).

[1] The Department of Housing and Urban Development

(“HUD”), which Congress authorized to administer RESPA,4

4

See 12 U.S.C. § 2617(a); Schuetz v. Banc One Mortgage Corp., 292

F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002).

3770 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

interprets this section as prohibiting overcharges. See RESPA

Statement of Policy 2001-1, 66 Fed. Reg. 53,052, 53,057-58

(Oct. 18, 2001) (citing 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14(g)(2) (“If the pay-

ment of a thing of value bears no reasonable relationship to

the market value of the goods or services provided, then the

excess is not for services or goods actually performed or pro-

vided.”)).

[2] Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), established a two-step test

for judicial review of an agency’s construction of a statute it

administers. First, the court must consider “whether Congress

has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at

842. If the intent of Congress is clear, the inquiry ends,

because the court “must give effect to the unambiguously

expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 842-43. But if a court

concludes that the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect

to the specific issue,” the court must consider whether the

agency’s interpretation of the ambiguous provision is “based

on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843. At the

second step, the court must accord “considerable weight” to

the agency’s interpretation of a statutory scheme it is

entrusted to administer. Id. at 844.

[3] The language of Section 8(b) prohibits only the prac-

tice of giving or accepting money where no service whatso-

ever is performed in exchange for that money: “No person

shall give and no person shall accept . . . any charge made or

received . . . other than for services actually performed.” 12

U.S.C. § 2607(b) (emphasis added). By negative implication,

Section 8(b) cannot be read to prohibit charging fees, exces-

sive or otherwise, when those fees are for services that were

actually performed.5

5

The Martinezes assert that Section 8(b) prohibits overcharges, arguing

that “RESPA § 8(b) does not specifically address the situation at bar” and

thus “is sufficiently silent on the precise matter as to be ambiguous.”

However, Section 8(b)’s “silence” on the subject of overcharges does not

MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 3771

[4] Although this is an issue of first impression in this circuit,6

three other circuits have considered whether a mortgage

lender or other settlement service provider violates RESPA

Section 8(b) by charging “excessive” fees for a settlement ser-

vice it provided, and all have held that it does not. See Fried-

man v. Mkt. St. Mortgage, 520 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir.

2008) (holding that “subsection 8(b) does not apply to settle-

ment fees that are alleged to be excessive”); Santiago v.

GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc., 417 F.3d 384, 385 (3d Cir.

2005) (finding that “RESPA does not provide a cause of

action for overcharges”); Kruse, 383 F.3d at 56 (“We con-

clude that section 8(b) clearly and unambiguously does not

extend to overcharges.”).

[5] The reasoning of the Kruse court is particularly instruc-

tive here because it involved claims against Wells Fargo that

are identical to those alleged by the Martinezes.7 The Second

Circuit ruled in Kruse that, whatever its size, the alleged over-

charge by Wells Fargo was “for” the services actually ren-

dered by Wells Fargo and received by the borrowers, and

therefore was not prohibited by Section 8(b). 383 F.3d at 56.

[6] We join our sister circuits in holding that the text of

mean that Congress’s actions were ambiguous on that subject. Congress

simply did not legislate at all on overcharges. Cf. Krzalic v. Republic Title

Co., 314 F.3d 875, 881 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding, in the context of mark-

up charges, that “if the practice of repricing incidental charges is a fraud

or market failure or abuse of some sort, still it is not a market failure that

section 8(b) can reasonably be thought to address, and so a reading of the

section that leaves the failure uncured is not a reading that creates a loop-

hole”).

6

In dicta, we have previously described Section 8(b) as a law that “pro-

hibits the payment of any percentage or division of a charge except for

services actually rendered.” Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, 347 F.3d 749,

751 (9th Cir. 2003).

7

This is the case in which the Martinezes sought, unsuccessfully, to

intervene.

3772 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

Section 8(b) is unambiguous and does not extend to over-

charges, and therefore we do not reach the second step of a

Chevron analysis by determining if HUD’s interpretation war-

rants deference.

B. The Unfair Competition Law Claims

[7] California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &

Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., prohibits business acts or prac-

tices that are “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent.” Id.

§ 17200. Each of these three prongs constitutes a separate and

independent cause of action. See Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v.

Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 539-40 (Cal.

1999) (citations omitted).

The Martinezes allege that Wells Fargo: (1) committed

“unfair” competition by overcharging underwriting fees and

marking up tax service fees; (2) engaged in “fraudulent” prac-

tices by failing to disclose actual costs of its underwriting and

tax services; and (3) that these actions violated multiple state

and federal laws, which predicate violations are independently

actionable under the UCL as “unlawful” conduct.

1. Preemption by the National Bank Act

[8] The National Bank Act (the “Act”) vests national banks

such as Wells Fargo with authority to exercise “all such inci-

dental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business

of banking.” 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Seventh). Real estate lending is

expressly designated as part of the business of banking. 12

U.S.C. § 371(a).

[9] As the agency charged with administering the Act, the

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) has the

primary responsibility for the surveillance of the “business of

banking” authorized by the Act. Nationsbank of N.C., N.A. v.

Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256 (1995). To

carry out this responsibility, the OCC has the power to pro-

MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 3773

mulgate regulations and to use its rulemaking authority to

define the “incidental powers” of national banks beyond those

specifically enumerated in the statute. See 12 U.S.C. § 93a

(authorizing the OCC “to prescribe rules and regulations to

carry out the responsibilities of the office”); Wachovia Bank,

N.A. v. Burke, 414 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir. 2005). OCC regula-

tions possess the same preemptive effect as the Act itself. See

Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141,

153 (1982).

[10] The Act (and OCC regulations thereunder) does not

“preempt the field” of banking. “Federally chartered banks

are subject to state laws of general application in their daily

business to the extent such laws do not conflict with the letter

or the general purposes of the [Act].” Watters v. Wachovia

Bank, N.A., 550 U.S. 1, 11 (2007) (citations omitted). How-

ever, state laws that “obstruct, impair, or condition a national

bank’s ability to fully exercise its Federally authorized real

estate lending powers” are preempted. 12 C.F.R. § 34.4(a);

see Watters, 550 U.S. at 13 (“Beyond genuine dispute, state

law may not significantly burden a national bank’s own exer-

cise of its real estate lending power . . . .” ); Bank of Am. v.

City and County of S.F., 309 F.3d 551, 561 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“State attempts to control the conduct of national banks are

void if they conflict with federal law, frustrate the purposes

of the National Bank Act, or impair the efficiency of national

banks to discharge their duties.” (citation omitted)).

State laws of general application, which merely require all

businesses (including national banks) to refrain from fraudu-

lent, unfair, or illegal behavior, do not necessarily impair a

bank’s ability to exercise its real estate lending powers. Such

laws are not designed to regulate real estate lending, nor do

they have a disproportionate or other substantial effect on

lending. In fact, the OCC has specifically cited the UCL in an

advisory letter cautioning banks that they may be subject to

such laws that prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

See OCC Advisory Letter, Guidance on Unfair or Deceptive

3774 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

Acts or Practices, 2002 WL 521380, at *2, *7 n.2 (Mar. 22,

2002).

Thus, for example, various district courts have held that the

Act does not preempt a claim of express deception asserted

under state law. See, e.g., Mann v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 09-

1062, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106015 (D.N.J. Nov. 12, 2009)

(holding that claims brought under the New Jersey Consumer

Fraud Act regarding a bank’s advertising of “free” and “no

fee” gift cards was deceptive, misleading, and unlawful

because it failed to disclose the existence of dormancy and

replacement fees was not preempted); White v. Wachovia

Bank, N.A., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (holding

that a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act

that a bank engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices

by manipulating the posting of transactions to an account in

order to impose overdraft fees was not preempted); Jefferson

v. Chase Home Finance, No. 06-6510, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

94652 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) (holding that a UCL claim

regarding a bank’s alleged misrepresentations in crediting

prepayments to customers’ accounts was not preempted).

[11] These cases notwithstanding, we conclude that two

different OCC regulations preempt the Martinezes’ claims.

The first is 12 C.F.R. § 7.4002(b)(2), which relates to setting

fees and which states, in part:

The establishment of non-interest charges and fees,

their amounts, and the method of calculating them

are business decisions to be made by each bank, in

its discretion, according to sound banking judgment

and safe and sound banking principles.

[12] We hold that the Martinezes’ claim of unfair conduct

is preempted under this regulation. The underlying conduct

the Martinezes allege is “unfair” is the overcharging of under-

writing fees and the marking up of tax service fees. In

essence, the Martinezes argue that these fees are too high, and

MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 3775

ask the court to decide how much an appropriate fee would

be. However, the OCC has clearly provided how the fees are

to be determined. Under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4002(b)(2), these are

business decisions to be made by each bank. The Martinezes’

“unfair” claim under the UCL is therefore preempted by the

Act. Cf. Monroe Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 589 F.3d

274, 283-84 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that interpreting an Ohio

statute to prohibit banks from deducting service fees after

receiving a garnishment order on an account held at the bank

would allow state law to “significantly interfere” with the

national bank’s ability to collect and set service fees as pro-

vided for in 12 C.F.R. §§ 7.4002(a) and (b)(2)).8

[13] The “unfair” claim is also preempted under subsection

10 of the second OCC regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 34.4(a), which

addresses “Real Estate Lending and Appraisals” and provides,

under the heading “Applicability of state law”:

Except where made applicable by Federal law, state

laws that obstruct, impair, or condition a national

bank’s ability to fully exercise its Federally autho-

rized real estate lending powers do not apply to

national banks. Specifically, a national bank may

make real estate loans under 12 U.S.C. 371 and

8

The Martinezes urge reversal because Wells Fargo allegedly failed to

pursue “safe and sound banking principles” when charging the fees in dis-

pute. They discuss four factors listed in § 7.4002(b)(2) that the OCC con-

siders in determining whether a bank has engaged in “safe and sound

banking.”

The Martinezes’ argument does not support their position that their

UCL claims are not preempted by the Act; rather, it goes to whether Wells

Fargo has abided by the OCC regulation. Such an inquiry, besides being

inapposite to the issue of preemption, is fruitless because the regulation of

a national bank’s adherence to OCC regulations is within the exclusive

purview of the OCC. See, e.g., Watters, 550 U.S. at 13 (“In particular, real

estate lending, when conducted by a national bank, is immune from state

visitorial control: The [Act] specifically vests exclusive authority to exam-

ine and inspect in OCC.” (citing 12 U.S.C. § 484(A)).

3776 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

§ 34.3, without regard to state law limitations con-

cerning . . . (9) [d]isclosure and advertising, includ-

ing laws requiring specific statements, information,

or other content to be included in [credit-related doc-

uments] . . . [and] (10) [p]rocessing, origination, ser-

vicing, sale or purchase of, or investment or

participation in, mortgages . . . .”

Id. §§ 34.4(a)(9), (10).

[14] The Martinezes further allege “fraudulent” conduct

with respect to Wells Fargo’s failure to disclose the costs it

incurs for services, instead of just its charges for rendering

those services to borrowers. But subsection (9) of this same

regulation expressly authorizes banks to “make real estate

loans . . . without regard to state law limitations concerning

. . . [d]isclosure and advertising, including laws requiring spe-

cific statements, information, or other content to be included

in [credit-related documents].”

[15] The Martinezes’ “fraudulent” claim under the UCL

therefore is also preempted by the Act. See OCC Interpretive

Letter No. 1005, 2004 WL 3465750 (June 10, 2004) (stating

that the types and features of state laws specifically enumer-

ated in 12 C.F.R. § 34.4 interfere with the ability of national

banks to operate under uniform federal standards, and are thus

preempted).

2. Failure to State a Claim for Unlawful Practices

[16] The UCL’s “unlawful” prong is essentially an

incorporate-by-reference provision. See Cel-Tech, 973 P.2d at

539-40 (“By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice,

section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats

them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes indepen-

dently actionable.” (citations and some internal quotation

marks omitted)).

MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 3777

[17] The Martinezes allege that Wells Fargo’s alleged

overcharges and mark-ups, together with the failure to dis-

close their costs, violated various state and federal laws and

thereby constitute “unlawful” business practices, in violation

of the UCL. To the extent that any of these state laws address

overcharges, mark-ups, and disclosure duties, by or of a

national bank, they are preempted and cannot serve as predi-

cate violations for the claim of “unlawful” conduct.

The Martinezes also allege, as a predicate violation, that

Wells Fargo knowingly made a false statement on the HUD-

1 Settlement Statement by listing the amounts charged to the

Martinezes for underwriting and tax services, rather than what

it cost Wells Fargo to perform or to subcontract those ser-

vices. The Martinezes argue that this conduct violates 18

U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1010, which generally proscribe false

statements in matters involving the federal government and

HUD, respectively.

The HUD-1 Settlement Statement is a standard form that

must be used for the statement of settlement costs in every

federally related mortgage loan. RESPA Section 4, 12 U.S.C.

§ 2603(a); 24 C.F.R. § 3500.8(a). On this form, the settlement

service provider must “conspicuously and clearly itemize all

charges imposed upon the borrower . . . in connection with the

settlement . . . .” 12 U.S.C. § 2603(a).9

[18] No express cause of action was created by Congress

under RESPA Section 4. Even if we were to conclude that

there is a private cause of action for alleged violations of

§ 2603, the language of the statute is clear that the HUD-1

Settlement Statement requires only a list of “charges imposed

upon the borrower.” 12 U.S.C. § 2603(a). This clearly means

that Wells Fargo must list the amounts it is charging the Mar-

9

Appendix A to 24 C.F.R. § 3500.8 (the instructions for the HUD-1

form) does refer to “settlement costs,” but the plain language of the statute

and regulation refers to “charges.” See 24 C.F.R. § 3500.8(b).

3778 MARTINEZ v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

tinezes for its settlement services, not that it must list the costs

it incurred in providing those services. In support of their

position, the Martinezes contend that the distinction between

a “charge” and a “cost” is a hypertechnical one that cannot be

squared with common usage, as well as with the purpose of

the HUD-1 statement. This argument cannot stand. It is

beyond dispute that there is a difference between what a busi-

ness “charges” its customers for a service or product, and

what that service or product “costs” the business. That differ-

ence is called “profit,” and it is the motive for businesses to

sell services or products. The Martinezes’ recourse to general

congressional intent—here, that Congress intended, in enact-

ing RESPA, for home loan consumers to receive more disclo-

sure, not less—cannot support their position in light of the

plain language of the statute. Because there is no requirement

for it to disclose actual costs on the HUD-1 Settlement State-

ment, Wells Fargo’s conduct in not doing so cannot be

“fraudulent” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1010.

The predicate violations alleged by the Martinezes are

either preempted by the National Bank Act, or do not violate

any law. Therefore, the district court properly held that the

Martinezes failed to state a claim that Wells Fargo engaged in

“unlawful” conduct in violation of the UCL.

CONCLUSION

The clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section

8(b) does not reach the practice of “overcharging.” The

National Bank Act preempts the Martinezes’ UCL state law

claims alleging “unfair” and “fraudulent” conduct, and the

allegations of “illegal” conduct fail to state a claim. The judg-

ment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.