When state law is inconsistent with RESPA regulations, which takes priority?

The correct choice is that whichever is more consumer protective takes priority. This principle is rooted in the notion that consumer protection laws are intended to safeguard the interests of individuals and ensure fair treatment in real estate transactions. When there is a conflict between state laws and federal laws such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the emphasis is placed on which regulation provides greater protection to consumers.

In practice, this means that if a state law offers more stringent protections or benefits to consumers than RESPA, then that state law would prevail. Conversely, if RESPA regulations are more protective, those would take precedence. This approach is designed to enhance consumer rights and ensure that individuals are not left vulnerable due to conflicts between differing sets of regulations.

Understanding this principle is essential for professionals in real estate and title insurance, as it underscores the importance of compliance with both federal and state laws in protecting the interests of consumers.