robinson v nationstar settlement

For a class action brought for violations of Regulation X, a servicer is liable for "actual damages to each of the borrowers in the class" and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of noncompliance, statutory damages amounting to a maximum of $2,000 per class member up to a total of the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the servicer's net worth. The lawsuit alleges, however, that Nationstar has not made interest payments to the plaintiffs, nor provided any record that interest was accruing and due to the homeowners, at any time during or after December 1, 2018 to March 22, 2019 or May 1, 2020 through the present. Rather than striking the testimony, the Court may need to consider permitting supplemental discovery to correct for the lack of relevant data not previously made available to Oliver. 2010). Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. Fed. 1024.41(a). that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." The plaintiff's claim "cannot be so different from the claims of absent class members that their claims will not be advanced by" proof of the plaintiff's own individual claim. Reg. LLC, No. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . EQT Prod. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. 2004). Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. This Court previously held that a loan modification application can be an inquiry under the MCPA that triggers a duty to respond, and that in the case of the Robinsons, the loan modification application that was "submitted at the request of Nationstar[] necessarily seeks a response." 1024.41(c) and (d) impose obligations on a loan servicer once it receives a "complete loss mitigation application" and once the completed application is denied. Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. Distribution of funds to Class Members, however, could not occur because a member of the Class filed an objection to the Settlement and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging. Others, however, have concluded that "all expenses, costs, fees, and injuries fairly attributable to" a servicer's RESPA violation are damages, "even if incurred before the" violation, because the "wrongful act . State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. If the loan servicer denies a loan modification application where the complete application was received more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it by stating in writing whether the appeal was granted and a loan modification will be offered. 2019) (noting that the purpose of certifying a class "is not to identify every class member at the time of certification, but to define a class in such a way as to ensure that there will be some administratively feasible [way] for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member at some point" (internal citation omitted) (quoting EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 2011), the court held that a plaintiff who signed a deed of trust on a property and was a joint tenant with her son, but did not sign the promissory note, had constitutional standing to bring a RESPA claim because she stood to be injured if a default on her son's loan led to the loss of her equitable interest in the property. Indeed, since previous versions of the Maryland rule expressly stated that contingency fee arrangements for experts were forbidden, but that explicit language was removed, it is reasonable to conclude that the amendment changed the rule in Maryland to no longer bar contingency fee arrangements. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. . Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. Id. Compl. 19-303.4 cmt.3. For the Regulation X provisions that require the servicer to communicate specific information to a borrower, Oliver's methodology involves reviewing a sample of loan files and identifying a specific communication to a borrower based on the file name. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. A complete loss mitigation application is "an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower." 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. The distinction is crucial. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. Although similar to Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, the test for predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is "far more demanding" and "tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. Id. 3d at 1014. Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. Id. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Strike will be DENIED; and the Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. 1990) (citing Universal Athletic favorably for this proposition). Nationstar Mortgage agreed to settle an action commenced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for $91 million to resolve allegations surrounding mortgage servicing misconduct and deceptive practices that resulted in financial harm to borrowers. P. 23(a)(1). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Nationstar's claim that the above-described coding is not dispositive, because an underwriter could subsequently determine that more information was needed after all, is not persuasive. MCC JR 318, 530-531. 12 C.F.R. 222. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. The trial court granted the motion over the Robinsons' objection, noting in its order that Nationstar had now waived its claim for attorney feesthe claim that had been the sole impediment to a final judgment being entered after the trial court granted Nationstar's request to reopen the evidence after entry of the initial final judgment. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. The Complaint asserts two claims. Similarly, though the precise nature of the fees imposed was not specified, it is reasonable to infer that some were attributable to delays linked to RESPA violations. 2005))). 12 U.S.C. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. at 248-49. Class certification will be granted, with Demetrius Robinson as the named plaintiff, as to both the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Class for the claims under 12 C.F.R. Although the Robinsons contend that they would have pursued other loss mitigation options in the absence of the RESPA violations, they have not identified any such options in a way that would permit a calculation of damages associated with any lost opportunity. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. Before relating the facts relevant to the Motion for Class Certification, the Court will highlight the relevant procedural history affecting the record before the Court. As the Supreme Court noted in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), Daubert "made clear that its list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive," and it is not always the case that an expert witness's claim will have been subjected to peer review. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Your Email Please enter your email. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. Fed. R. Civ. All but $28.6 million of its. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. 120. MSJ JR 0284. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. While it is not necessary to identify every class member at the time of certification for a class to be "ascertainable," a class cannot be certified if its membership must be determined through "individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. Particularly where a class may be certified even if individualized damages calculations would be necessary, the incomplete nature of the damages analysis does not provide a basis for striking Oliver's expert testimony. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. The use of a class action is primarily justified on the grounds of efficiency, because it advances judicial economy to resolve common issues affecting all class members in a single action. Furthermore, Oliver states that since Nationstar employees used templates to communicate with borrowers, he could determine whether there were violations of certain RESPA provisions based on entries showing that Nationstar employees used templates that did not comply with RESPA. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Since the Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied, the Court will now consider whether the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority considerations are met. 2605(f)(1). Compl. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). See 12 C.F.R. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. Questions? Code Ann., Com. WASHINGTON, D.C. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered Nationstar Mortgage LLC to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for violating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 through 2014. For the claims that rely on the timing of a response, Oliver and the Robinsons propose using changes in the Remedy Star substatus or LSAMS codes and documents stored in FileNet to identify the date a loan modification application was received or marked as complete, to identify the date a response was sent, and to count the number of days between events. Amchem Prods. After attempts to modify the loan failed, the Robinsons filed a class action Complaint against Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar") for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. A $3.8 million settlement has been reached in a Nationstar convenience fee class action lawsuit, which claimed that the mortgage lender wrongfully charged convenience fees to their consumers when making payments on past due accounts. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . 1024.41(a). On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 1:2021cv00452 | US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | Justia Log In Sign Up Find a Lawyer Ask a Lawyer Research the Law Law Schools Laws & Regs Newsletters Marketing Solutions Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Robinson v. Although Nationstar argues that Mr. Robinson has a conflict of interest because he wishes to avoid foreclosure and to delay payments on his mortgage, the record does not reflect that proposition. Nationstar seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' RESPA claims on the grounds that (1) Mrs. Robinson is not a proper plaintiff because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA; (2) RESPA is inapplicable because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to the Robinsons' first loss mitigation application; (3) there is no evidence to support a violation of 12 C.F.R. Id. See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. Id. Id. From January 2012 to December 2016, the CFPB and 50 state attorneys general claim Nationstar, which is now doing business asMr. Cooper, engaged in a number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. P. 23(b)(3). The Motion will be otherwise denied. Section 13-316(c) governs "mortgage servicing" and, among other requirements, provides that a "servicer shall designate a contact to whom mortgagors may direct complaints and inquiries" and that the "contact shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested." The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." In Frank, due to the state's community property laws, the mortgage was "a community debt," and after her husband died, the plaintiff "was therefore obligated to make the loan payments" because of her interest in the home. Law 13-316(c). Law 13 . Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). That notice must be provided within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application. . During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. While Demetrius Robinson did appeal Nationstar's March 15, 2014 offer of an in-house modification, the requirements of subsection (h) were not triggered because the offer was not a denial of a loan modification application. 2010). Ins. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. Under a provision of Regulation X entitled "Loss mitigation procedures," mortgage servicers must take certain steps when a borrower applies for loss mitigation measures, such as the loan modifications sought in this case. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. If the settlements are approved by the D.C. district court, Nationstar will be required to immediately set aside about $15.6 million to pay borrowers it has not yet remediated. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." As for typicality, the named plaintiff must be "typical" of the class, such that that the class representative's claim and defenses are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class" in that prosecution of the claim will "simultaneously tend to advance the interests of the absent class members." 1024.41(i). The fact that Oliver's methodology has not been subjected to peer review and that he has not published any articles about it does not invalidate it. Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) ("[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." In Washington v. Am. 1972). In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar moves to strike the report of the Robinsons' expert witness, Geoffrey Oliver, on the grounds that (1) Oliver was hired pursuant to an ethically improper contingency fee agreement; and (2) his testimony does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Where the results of such an analysis would apply to any individual claim, it would be highly inefficient and wasteful to require duplicative analysis in each such case. In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. R. Civ. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. J. Wright et al. 2014))). They do not seek damages in the Amended Complaint for emotional distress or include such a claim in their itemized list of damages submitted in discovery. A class action may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) if common questions of law or fact "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" and a "class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The court, however, did not explain how in the absence of any obligation to pay back to the Note, the plaintiff qualified as a "borrower" under the RESPA statute. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. See 12 C.F.R. Nationstar's criticism that Oliver failed to use the correct data field to identify the date when a loss mitigation application was complete, and failed to consider the timing of application relative to the date of scheduled foreclosure sale, ring hollow because Nationstar provided to Oliver only limited data fields, which did not contain clear field names or definitions. Class litigation would also promote consistent results on the common question whether Nationstar engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X and would provide Nationstar with finality and closure on that issue. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. at *5. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. Because such a common question would have to be resolved in many if not all individual cases, it advances, rather than undermines, the argument in favor of predominance. Id. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion will be granted as to all of Tamara Robinson's claims and as to Demetrius Robinson's claims under 12 C.F.R. 2013)). He asserts that damages to borrowers can be calculated based on entries in LSAMS and other data showing that fees were assessed, and that it would be possible to identify which fees would not have been assessed but for a RESPA violation. 2013) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded actual injury or loss under the MCPA where he alleged that he suffered "bogus late fees," damage to his credit, and attorney's fees); see also Cole v. Fed'l Nat'l Mortg. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 2010). The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. Docket for Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 8:14-cv-03667 Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. "); cf. Furthermore, determining whether statutory damages are available will require no individualized consideration, because the pattern-or-practice claim "would be based solely on" Nationstar's conduct and can be established through sampling. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. 1976). Nationstar also seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under the MCPA, which include claims of misleading statements in connection with the collection of consumer debts, in violation of section 13-301(1), (3) and section 13-303(4)-(5) of the MCPA, and claims that Nationstar did not respond to consumer inquiries within 15 days, in violation of section 13-316(c) of the MCPA. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. The record is undisputed that as of September 25, 2017, Nationstar had neither started foreclosure proceedings nor moved for foreclosure judgment on the Robinsons' home. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. While the date that Nationstar's systems came into compliance, is unknown, Nationstar's systematic noncompliance presents common questions of law and fact for all class members. While she is trained as a bookkeeper, at the time of the Robinsons' 2014 application for a loan modification and in the subsequent months, Mrs. Robinson was not employed in any capacity. 1024.41(d). 2015). If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive a payment. Bouchat v. Balt. Accordingly, Nationstar did not send the Robinsons an acknowledgment letter within five days stating that it had received the application, as required by Regulation X.

Eddie V's Hope Diamond Cocktail Recipe, Brahmin Caste Category List, Letter From Harris County Attorney, Articles R