robinson v nationstar settlement

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. Id. 10696, 10708, provides that "[a] servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." Code Ann., Com. 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. at 983. 143. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. Code Ann., Com. Under subsection (h), if a loan servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale but then denies the application, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it. 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. Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. 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." In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. 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. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. Check out:Covid-19 pandemic is the first time 40% of Americans have experienced food insecurity, Don't miss:Amex Blue Cash Preferred is offering an elevated welcome bonus for a limited time, Get Make It newsletters delivered to your inbox, Learn more about the world of CNBC Make It, 2023 CNBC LLC. 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. ; 78 Fed. Id. . Md. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. See 12 C.F.R. Specifically, if a loss mitigation application is received "45 days or more before a foreclosure sale," the loan servicer must provide a notice to the borrower "in writing within 5 days" of receiving it in which the servicer acknowledges receipt of the application and states whether the "application is either complete or incomplete." Questions? Because of the need to protect the rights of absent plaintiffs to assert different claims and of defendants to assert facts and defenses specific to individual class members, courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" of whether a proposed class action meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 before certifying a class. 2605(f)(2). 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. Mot. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. 2605(f)(1). Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. A Scheduling Order was first entered on November 24, 2015, and the period for discovery was extended four times between November 2015 and January 2017. 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. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. J. 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. 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. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. 12 C.F.R. 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). More Information Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. 2d at 1366. 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. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2605(f). Moreover, the possibility that some members of the class as defined by the Robinsons have not suffered any injury cognizable under RESPA or MCPA does not preclude certifying the class. 2013). The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Cent. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). at *5. 2016) ("[F]ortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition. Id. Auto. at 300. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. LLCNo. Id. The economic challenges and burdens that homeowners currently face are similar to the ones experienced following the Great Recession. 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. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. Code Ann., Com. The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a loan modification application within 30 days of receipt of a complete loss mitigation application and provide notice of appeal rights; 12 C.F.R. Id. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. Your Email Please enter your email. Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. Order at 2, ECF No. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. 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. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. McAdams v. Nationstar Mortg. or misleading oral or written statement . The Complaint asserts two claims. Md. From this methodology, Oliver concluded that Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of their appeal rights in 39 percent of the sampled loans and failed to exercise reasonable diligence by improperly requested the same documentation already provided in 18 percent of the loans. LLC, No. Mot. 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. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 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. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. 1967). Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. Where such statements in no way promise approval, the Robinsons appear to claim that such statements are false or misleading because Nationstar never intended to, and did not, evaluate the Robinsons for the various loss mitigation options. 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. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. 1024.41. 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. Since Regulation X explicitly does not require a loan servicer to provide a loan modification, the Robinsons' claim that they suffered damages because they did not receive a loan modification is not cognizable under the statute. Where the deed of trust explicitly states that Mrs. Robinson is not obligated on the loan, the Court finds that she is not a borrower under RESPA and cannot bring the claim against Nationstar under Regulation X. 2605(f). Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. . Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan. 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. Id. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. Wesleyan Coll. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. As a result, the Robinsons' claim that Nationstar violated certain Regulation X procedures with respect to their loan modification application and those of the class members. Nationstar argues that it should be granted summary judgment on all of the RESPA claims because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to a borrower's first loss mitigation application, and the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 application was not their first loan modification application. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. More importantly, while a determination of an individual violation would not require extensive analysis, specific proof of a pattern or practice of RESPA violations in any individual case would be a substantial undertaking, likely requiring the same type of complex analysis proposed here: a sampling of Nationstar files, compilation of all relevant data for such files, expert analysis to identify violations, and an assessment whether the identified violations are sufficient to establish a pattern or practice of violations. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. 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. Portland, OR 97208-3560. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In support of these claims, Mr. Robinson testified in his deposition that the $141,000 in interest represents the amount that the Robinsons have been overcharged over the life of the loan. Id. After attempts to modify their 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. Am. at *2. 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. On June 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge bifurcated discovery to focus initially on the merits of the Robinsons' individual claim and the question of class certification, ordered Nationstar to disclose electronic records so that the Robinsons could sample Nationstar's data for purposes of a motion for class certification, and limited the discovery of such records to a sample of 400 loans from the period from January 10, 2014 to June 30, 2014 and "to areas which inform" the Court's decision on class certification, namely whether Nationstar was in compliance with Regulation X. Mot. 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. Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. First, as a threshold matter, the Court notes that in ruling on Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will grant judgment in favor of Nationstar as to Mrs. Robinson's claims, Mr. Robinson's RESPA claims under 12 C.F.R. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Id. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. 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. Md. See, e.g. 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. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 222. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 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. 2605(f)(1). Id 1024.41(c)(1). Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). If the application is complete "more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale," the servicer may not move for a foreclosure judgment or conduct a foreclosure sale, but instead must first "[e]valuate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," send to the borrower "a notice in writing stating the servicer's determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer," and include a statement of applicable appeal rights. 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. 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. At a minimum, the question of when a loss mitigation application is "complete" under RESPA within the workflow of Nationstarwhether at the time of the processor's designation of the file as complete or at a later stageis a significant unresolved question of law and fact that would be common to all RESPA claims against Nationstar. 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. Because of the manner in which class discovery was conducted, see supra part II.A, Oliver did not have access to all of Nationstar's data fields for the representative sample of loans. 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. at 358. . P. 23(a)(1). Because Oliver analyzed proprietary databases and data specifically disclosed for this litigation pursuant to a protective order, such that Oliver's peers lack access to the same information, Oliver's expert testimony is not of the type that ordinarily would be subject to peer review, and it would be unfair to require "general acceptance within a relevant scientific community." Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. On July 17, 2014, Nationstar informed Mr. Robinson by letter that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. 1 . Where the cost of litigation as compared to the potential recovery gives class members little incentive to bring suit, and there is little reason to individually control the litigation, a class action is a superior method to vindicate the rights of class members. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Nationstar employees use four software applications and databases to store and track electronic information relating to loans: (1) Loan Services and Accounting Management System ("LSAMS"), Nationstar's primary loan servicing software, which contains data for loans, including the permanent records of the accounting history, communication logs, and letters documented with codes that were sent to the borrower; (2) Remedy Star, Nationstar's proprietary loss mitigation and loan modification management system, which, among other tasks, tracks the status and timeline of a loan modification and links to documents stored in FileNet; (3) LPS Desktop ("LPS"), an application which Nationstar uses to track and manage foreclosure processes and communicate with outside attorneys; and (4) FileNet, a platform that houses PDF images of documents, including letters sent to borrowers by Nationstar. R. Civ. Class Cert. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. Factors "pertinent" to the predominance and superiority requirements include the "class members' interests in individually controlling" the litigation, whether litigation on the matter has already been begun by other class members, whether concentrating the litigation in one forum is desirable or undesirable, and the potential difficulties managing the class action presents. Id. Law 13-316(c). 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. 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 . 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. 1024.41(d). at 359-60. As for the claims of errors in Oliver's analysis, although this criticism is couched as his "misunderstanding the nature of Nationstar's various databases," Nationstar largely challenges Oliver's failure to use particular data fields, some which were never made available to him. Home Loans, No. 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). McLean v. GMAC Mortg. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 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. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general.

Retired Football Players Doing Commercials, Sangria With Sprite And Orange Juice, Coin Made From Atocha Silver, Articles R