In Culpepper v. Irwin Mortgage Corp., 253 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 930 (2002), a panel of the circuit affirmed class certification in a similar case where mortgagors brought a class action against a mortgage lender, arguing that the lender's payment of YSPs (yield spread premium) to a mortgage broker violated the anti-kickback provision of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Id. The court rejected the lender's contrary argument, stating "if the lender has read the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Statement correctly . . . HUD has now decided that 8(c) of RESPA deems some such referral fees legal-that is, referral fees that are paid by lenders and that would be reasonable service fees, if that's what they were." Id. at 1330. The Eleventh Circuit interpreted HUD Policy Statement I, an interpretation now repudiated by HUD, see HUD Policy Statement II, and ultimately found that "the first step in the test for liability under 8 is not only whether the broker performed some of the services described in the HUD Statement, but also whether the yield spread premium is payment for those services rather than for a referral." Culpepper, 253 F.3d at 1331. The court in Culpepper reasoned that if the purpose of the lender payment is only for referrals and not for services, you do not get to step two of HUD's two-part test. Id.