By: Joshua A. Huber
On July 14, 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Parker, holding that a qualified written request (“QWR”) pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (“RESPA”), does not encompass a borrower’s written request for proof of a lender’s status as the noteholder, or its authority to collect payments under a promissory note and deed of trust.
The borrowers in In re Parker served their lender with correspondence titled “RESPA Qualified Written Request, Complaint, Dispute of Debt & Validation of Debt Letter,” which primarily questioned whether the lender was the owner of their promissory note with authority to collect payments. The borrowers alleged in their subsequent lawsuit against the lender that this letter constituted a valid QWR and that the lender was liable under RESPA for its failure to respond and provide evidence of its authority.
In rejecting the borrowers’ claim, the Fifth Circuit first noted that the borrowers were required to demonstrate, as a threshold matter, that the correspondence they sent to the lender was in fact a QWR within the meaning of RESPA. The court observed that a valid QWR “must be related to the servicing of the loan,” which RESPA defines as “receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any loan . . . and making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the loan.” Because the borrowers’ purported “QWR” requested only proof of the lender’s authority to collect payments under the promissory note and deed of trust, which does not relate to “servicing of the loan” under RESPA, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the borrowers’ claim.
This is a significant development in RESPA jurisprudence, as it clarifies the limited scope and purpose of a QWR. The decision also provides lenders in the Fifth Circuit with a strong defense to RESPA violation claims premised on failure to respond to “show-me-the-note” correspondence from borrowers, as opposed to legitimate servicing-related inquiries.
 In re Parker, No. 15-41477, 2016 WL 3771837, at *4 & n.26 (5th Cir. Jul. 14, 2016).
 Id. at *1.
 Id. at *1 & n.4.
 Id. at *4.
 Id. (quoting 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(e)(1)(A) & (i)(3))(emphasis added).
 Id. at *4 & n.6 (emphasis added).