Id. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. Code Ann., Com. In focusing on whether RESPA violations can be established through computerized analysis rather than individual file review, the parties lose track of the fact that because statutory damages are predicated on a finding that there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations, that issue common to almost any individual claim plays an outsized role in the predominance analysis. Bouchat v. Balt. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. The distinction is crucial. at *2. 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. MSJ JR 0284. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." Likewise, although Mrs. Robinson expended time corresponding with Nationstar, she was not working for pay at the same time, and the Robinsons have not provided evidence to quantify the loss to Mr. Robinson, the only viable plaintiff here. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). 2605(f)(2). 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. 1024.41. Since neither party contends that Oliver's testimony and report are not "critical," the Court must address the Daubert challenge before reaching the question of class certification. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. Id. 1024.41(i). Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. When combined with the state settlements, Nationstar is on the hook to pay a total of $91 million overall: $85 million to harmed consumers and $6 million in civil penalties. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. J. 1024.41(i). at 248-49. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Wright et al. For example, Nationstar's own internal procedures reveal that when a loss mitigation application is received, a processor reviews it to determine if all required information and documents have been received, and enters one code, specifically "code HMPC" in LSAMS signifying "Financial Application Complete," and a different code, specifically "code HMPA," signifying "Financial Application Incomplete." In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. 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. Code Ann., Com. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). 1024.41 See, e.g. Reg. Id. 2605(f)(1). Id. Local R. 105.6. P. 23(a)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). To establish an MCPA violation under this provision, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation; (2) the plaintiff relied upon the representation; and (3) doing so caused the plaintiff actual injury. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. Your Email Please enter your email. LLC, No. In the Amended Complaint, the Robinsons claim that Nationstar's representations that it offered many loss mitigation plans and "would evaluate" borrowers "for eligibility for all these loss mitigation plans" were false. Opp'n Mot. Furthermore, to the extent that the Robinsons' claim is that Nationstar falsely stated that it would evaluate the Robinsons for all available loss mitigation plans, the Robinsons point only to statements in letters that the Robinsons "may" be eligible for certain non-HAMP loan modification programs. Proof of these claims requires a showing of the dates that an application was received, an acknowledgment letter was sent, an application became complete, Nationstar sent a decision letter to the borrower, and a foreclosure sale is scheduled. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. 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. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2021). 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." After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. 2018). 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. In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. Code Ann., Com. Md. After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. However, if the costs are shown to have been incurred in response to the RESPA violation, the Court finds that they would be actual damages within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. He is joined by 49 other Attorneys General, the District of Columbia, and other state and federal agencies. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. Cf. In their memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition"), the Robinsons admit that they "do not have evidence that Nationstar dual tracked them" or began foreclosure proceedings while a loan modification application was pending. Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. 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 that the company failed to honor mortgage forbearance agreements and unfairly foreclosed on homeowners. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. In its complaint, filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia, the Bureau alleges that Nationstar engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and violated the Homeowner's Protection Act of 1998 (HPA). Day to address discovery issues. 19-303.4 cmt.3. An 85-year Harvard study found the No. 1024.41(a). The Robinsons assert that they have suffered damages in the lost opportunity to have their mortgage loan modified and to pursue other loss mitigation options; in the fees, late fees, and interest that Nationstar has assessed since they became delinquent on their loan; in the lost "time and effort" which they expended in "pursuing the loss mitigation process with Nationstar" rather than trying to improve their business; and in administrative costs, including "postage, travel expenses, photocopying, scanning, and facsimile expenses." Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. While Mr. Robinson signed the promissory note ("the Note"), the deed of trust ("the Deed"), and the balloon payment rider for the 2007 loan, Tamara Robinson ("Mrs. Robinson") signed only the Deed and balloon payment rider and did not sign the Note. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). at 300. 2015). See 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(d). A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for "any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure" to comply. 1972). Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. James Robinson v. National Student Clearinghouse Toggle navigation Home Commonly Asked Questions Documents The Court approved the settlement at the July 7, 2020 Fairness Hearing. 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. 20-cv, -2202, 2021 WL 4462909, at *1 (S.D. See D. Md. Any additional updates will be posted here. 1024.41(i). 218. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. Code Ann., Com. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. . Id. 1 . 12 C.F.R. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. 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 to its customers mortgage servicing complaints. Subsequent to the Court's approval, one of the objectors to the settlement filed an appeal. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. Mar. These claims do not have to be factually or legally identical, but the class claims should be fairly encompassed by those of the named plaintiffs. 2605(f). HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Mrs. Robinson was the primary point of contact for the Robinsons in interacting with Nationstar. 702. LLCNo. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. In contrast, Nationstar maintains that there is no way to reliably identify when a loss mitigation application is submitted or complete using codes and status change entries in its existing software, and that the only way to make those determinations is through a file-by-file review. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. 1024.41(f), (g). J. Code Ann., Com. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. Discovery Order, ECF No. Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. . (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. Ins. 2003) ("[I]f Lierboe has no stacking claim, she cannot represent others who may have such a claim, and her bid to serve as a class representative must fail. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Id. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. . 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. Ohio 2014). 12 U.S.C. 702, 703. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. The "Maryland Subclass" consists of "[a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. 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. . See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. Thus, the Court concludes that, while Nationstar may have defenses as to some borrowers, the common proof that establishes the asserted violations, as well as the common question of whether the Robinsons can prove a pattern-or-practice violation by Nationstar, will predominate over the individual issues as to these claims. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. The Borrower Payment Amount shall be used: (1) for payments to borrowers who submit claims and are in either or both of the Service Transfer and Property Preservation Populations set forth below; and (2) for reasonable costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, including taxes and fees for tax counsel. All Rights Reserved. The public policy interest at issue was one against "stirring up litigation or promoting litigating for the benefit of the promoter rather than for the benefit of the litigant or the public," an interest not implicated in the same manner by the fee arrangement with the particular expert witness in this case.