In the combined court cases of  Carter vs. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc and Grezki vs. The Danbury Co, et al a US District Court judge has reviewed HUD’s affiliated business arrangement (aba) Policy Statement 1996-2, in which HUD set forth ten factors to aid in determining whether an aba is a bona fide provider of settlement services under RESPA. The court has determined that the Policy Statement is unconstitutionally vague, concluding that the tests raised serious constitutional concerns by using overly broad terms such as “sufficient,” “substantial,” and “reasonable” without providing guidance as to how to determine the meaning of such terms in the context of the title insurance business.