robinson v nationstar settlement

LLC, No. Where the PaCE consulting fee was a one-time fee to advise the Robinsons in their interactions with Nationstar paid in August 2013, several months before they first submitted the March 2014 loan modification application, this cost was incurred "whether or not [Nationstar] complied with its obligations." 26-1. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. "); cf. After two more extensions were granted, based on a finding by the Magistrate Judge that "Defendant has failed to comply" with its discovery obligations and delayed the process, discovery closed on March 22, 2018. Home Loans, No. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. Because there are, at a minimum, disputed issues of fact as to what fees, administrative costs, and interest constitute damages, the Court will deny the motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual damages. 1024.41(a). While Mrs. Robinson stated that she was conducting bookkeeping for Green Earth Services during the relevant time frame, she testified that her work was less than six hours per week, and the Robinsons have not shown that her time spent communicating with Nationstar "resulted in actual pecuniary loss" to Mr. Robinson or the business. See 12 C.F.R. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. Code Ann., Com. 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. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." The proposed settlement with the CFPB requires Nationstar to pay $73 million in restitution to affected borrowers, as well as a $1.5 million civil penalty to the agency. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2d at 1366. Since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nationstar violated subsection (h), summary judgment will be entered for Nationstar on that claim. Filed by Janie Robinson. 2601(a). The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. Where the Robinsons may be able to show that they have suffered actual damages, their claim for statutory damages, upon a showing that Nationstar has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, remains viable. Mar. If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. Part 1024). 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. Code Ann., Com. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. Id. On September 9, 2014, Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson a letter denying the loan modification application and stating that it could not offer him any modification because his income was not high enough to cover the mortgage payments under any modification option. The Robinsons' designated expert, Geoffrey Oliver, has offered a methodology for identifying class members and when their rights under RESPA and the MCPA have been violated. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. R. Evid. Order, ECF No. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Since Mr. Robinson has the same goal as the other class members of establishing that Nationstar violated Regulation X with respect to his loan, he will adequately protect their interests. Notably, although a borrower may recover up to $2,000 in statutory damages upon a showing of a "pattern or practice of non-compliance with the requirements" of Regulation X, 12 U.S.C. (2000) (reflecting that the prior version of the rules of professional conduct prohibited an attorney from "acquiesc[ing] in the payment of compensation to a witness contingent on the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case"). Id. Id. 1024.41 Summ. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. Nationstar also does not argue that the class is not numerous, as there approximately 33,855 members who submitted loss mitigation applications from January 10, 2014 to March 30, 2014. R. Civ. Furthermore, the Robinsons have made a sufficient showing that a central computerized analysis of Nationstar data would substantially, if not completely, resolve questions of whether RESPA violations occurred. Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements, Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018, Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois, latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. The MCPA prohibits the use of an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" in the "[t]he extension of consumer credit" or "[t]he collection of consumer debts" and provides for a private right of action. Moreover, because borrowers often submit multiple loan modification applications, and because Nationstar's data is stored at the loan level, not at the application level, Nationstar claims that it is not possible to tell from the data alone, without reviewing the files, whether a status or code change is in response to a specific loan modification application. Compl. . The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. Code Ann., Com. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. 2. 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. See 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. The Deed specifies that a person who signs it but "does not execute the note" is a co-signer of the Deed in order to mortgage and convey that person's interest in the Property under the terms of the Deed, but "is not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument," and her consent is not required to alter the terms of the Deed or the Note. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. Fed. Potentially eligible class members for all of these provisions can be identified through the LSAMS and Remedy data that marks that an application was received, identified as complete, and denied. 2605(f)(2). This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Id. You will receive no benefits from the Settlement, but will retain any rights you currently have to sue Nationstar about the same claims in this case. 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. See D. Md. HARRISBURG Attorney General Josh Shapiro, as part of a multistate effort, today announced that his office obtained an $86.3 million settlement from Nationstar Mortgage, the country's fourth-largest mortgage servicer. Id. 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." 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. For example, since default fees are often paid by sources other than the borrower, such as in a short sale or refinancing, Nationstar challenges Oliver's assessment that fees identified through LSAMS can be deemed to constitute damages from RESPA violations, because the software does not reflect who paid the fee. Subsequent to the Court's approval, one of the objectors to the settlement filed an appeal. Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. 164. Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . Because Oliver's methodology is reliable within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and Daubert, Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be denied. 2010). Presently pending is Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, Nationstar's Motion to Strike, and the Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification. 12 C.F.R. Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. As to the third denial on November 7, 2013, Nationstar informed the Robinsons that the loan modification application was denied because the mortgage loan was not in default. Aug. 19, 2015). As a result, on January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted the Robinsons' Motion to Compel in which the Robinsons had sought to have the Court order Nationstar to accept and run scripts created by the Robinsons' expert to extract the relevant data from Nationstar's databases on the sample of loans from which they could test their methodology for identifying members of the proposed classes. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. 1024.41(i). 2018). Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. 1972). 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. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. . Law 13-301 and 303. See 12 C.F.R. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. 2005))). Courts have held that a person who did not sign the promissory note is not a "borrower" for the purposes of RESPA because that individual has not "assumed the loan." Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. When those scripts did not produce data that allowed the Robinsons to conduct the sampling, the Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar on April 3, 2018 to run certain "structural scripts" on two of its four databases. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. 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 . The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. "Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. 20-cv, -2202, 2021 WL 4462909, at *1 (S.D. 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. 2605(f). Code Ann., Com. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. In contrast, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the administrative costs and fees incurred by the Robinsons resulted from Nationstar's RESPA violations. 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Although the parties have not offered specific details on the nature and timing of those costs and fees, it is reasonable to infer that at least some portion of them were incurred after they submitted their March 7, 2014 loan modification application and after Nationstar had violated Regulation X. Where it is now apparent, in hindsight, that Nationstar was permitted to withhold relevant and necessary data in the discovery process, it is unsurprising that Nationstar employees would then review loan files, with their complete data, and identify problems. On March 8, 2014, Nationstar sent to Mr. Robinson a letter stating that he was ineligible for a HAMP modification, but on March 15, 2014, it sent a different letter offering a loan modification under which Mr. Robinson would receive a reduced interest rate for two years. Rule 702 permits an expert to testify if the testimony "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," "is based on sufficient facts or data," and "is the product of reliable principles and methods," and if the expert has "reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." See Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. While the Nationstar employee who conducts the initial processing of an application may refer it to an underwriter based on its facial completeness, the underwriter makes the final determination of whether the application is complete and is responsible for obtaining any additional required documentation. A dispute of material fact is only "genuine" if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists for the trier of fact to return a verdict for that party. 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. Plaintiff and Class Representative Demetrius Robinson, along with Class Counsel Tycko & Zavareei LLP and The Bestor Law Firm, respectfully move this Court for an award of $1,300,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as a $5,000 service award for Mr. Robinson. . 2601 et seq. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. See MCC JR0529-31. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. R. Civ. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. Fed. 89, 90, ECF No. 2010). Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. To prepare his expert report, Oliver reviewed a randomly selected sample of 400 loans serviced by Nationstar in which a loan modification application was submitted. R. Civ. While the particulars of Mr. Robinson's application process will not necessarily prove that Nationstar mishandled the applications of other individual class members, these facts fairly encompass the types of claims that would be brought by the members of the class. Sep. 9, 2019). A letter noting receipt of the application is automatically generated and sent to the borrower, and a Nationstar employee checks the application's documentation to determine if it is complete based on a checklist. In Accrued Financial, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that where commercial real estate tenants assigned their potential claims against their landlords to a commercial real estate auditor under an arrangement through which the auditor would receive a percentage of any recovery in litigation, the assignments violated public policy because where the auditor's employees could testify in such litigation, the assignments "provide for supplying expert testimony for a contingent fee." 12 U.S.C. Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". However, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that other class members exist and that their joinder is impracticable; a court may not rely on mere speculation that numerosity has been satisfied. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. P. 23(b)(3). During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. Id. A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar" or "Defendant") violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by failing to adhere to its requirements with respect to its customers' loss mitigation applications and that Nationstar violated Maryland law by not timely responding "[N]amed class representatives [must] demonstrate standing through a 'requisite case or controversy between themselves personally and defendants,' not merely allege that 'injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" During discovery, Oliver revealed that his fee arrangement with the Robinsons includes a flat fee for his expert services, but that a portion of the fee is contingent on the certification of a class in this case. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that postage costs incurred by the plaintiff to send the "initial request for information is not a cost to the borrower 'as a result of the failure' to comply with a RESPA obligation," because a violation has not occurred and will not "necessarily occur" at the time the plaintiff paid the postage. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." . Relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Nationstar's partial Motion to Dismiss. Id. 2014). Moreover, Nationstar cites no authority for the proposition that a loss mitigation application would not be deemed "complete" for purposes of RESPA upon such a formal designation, and any rule that would deem such an application incomplete in the event that an underwriter subsequently decided to ask for additional material would be entirely unworkable. 1024.41(a). Mot. The predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) are designed to ensure that the class action "achieve[s] economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote[s] . A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. That notice must be provided within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application. 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. To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." Thus, the nature of the proof of whether there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations provides substantial support for a finding of predominance. For example, in EQT, the court concluded that a proposed class of all individuals who owned an interest in a gas estate was not ascertainable because the actual owners could be determined only through an individualized review of land records. J. 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. A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 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. McAdams v. Nationstar Mortg. 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. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. 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. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. Id. 14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.. Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Since it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met and Mr. Robinson has failed to do so, the Motion for Class Certification will be denied as to any claims that Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. Questions? For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 1024.41(a). Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.4 cmt. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 1976). The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. Law 13 . 2013)). For example, it was undisputed that on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson, in response to Nationstar's requests for additional information, resubmitted the same information sent with his March 2014 loan modification application. Although this data was not provided to Oliver, there is no reason it could not be produced and used to make determinations on the timeliness of decisions on loss mitigation applications. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. Wesleyan Coll. The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application."

Marta Mobility Customer Service, Famous Missionaries Of The 21st Century, Articles R