In a unanimous decision decided May 24, 2012, in Freeman, et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 2034 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to give deference to HUD’s undivided unearned fee interpretation expressed in Statement of Policy 2001-1 and ruled that Section 8(b) of RESPA (12 U.S.C. §2607(b))1 does not prohibit a settlement service provider from charging an unearned fee when the provider retains the entire fee. The Court stated, “§2607(b) unambiguously covers only a settlement-service provider’s splitting of a fee with one or more other persons; it cannot be understood to reach a single provider’s retention of an unearned fee.” The Court held that in order to establish a violation of Section 8(b), it must be demonstrated that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons.