Tracey v. First American Title Ins., 950 F. Supp. 2d 807

Plaintiffs sue First American Title Ins. Co. and United General for RICO violations and related claims arising from alleged title-insurance overcharges.
Plaintiffs allege premiums charged exceeded Maryland-law rates, with a 40% discounted reissue rate approved by the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) instead being replaced by higher basic rates.
Excess premiums were split with local title producers/agents that procured the policies.
Mitchell Tracey and Larry Austin were charged unlawful premiums in connection with their 2005 and 2008 refinancings.
Contracts at issue are fully executed; the money had and received claim is analyzed post-Bourgeois v. Live Nation.
Court denied First American’s supplemental motion to dismiss the money had and received claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Bourgeois preclude money had and received where contracts are fully executed?	Bourgeois should not bar recovery given special circumstances and culpability.	Bourgeois bars recovery when the contract is fully executed.	Bourgeois does not bar the claim; money had and received remains viable.
Are plaintiffs precluded by in pari delicto under Bourgeois analysis?	Plaintiffs’ signatures on HUD-1 forms and consumer protection intent avoid pari delicto.	Equal fault precludes recovery absent a distinct exception.	Not precluded; circumstances under Maryland law support recovery.

Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entm’t, Inc., 430 Md. 14 (Md. 2013) (recognizes limitations of money had and received; executory vs. executed contracts; usury exception)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Thomas v. City of Richmond, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 349 (U.S. 1870) (pari delicto where one party is principal offender)