Code Ann., Com. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. 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." Id. 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." If the initial application is complete, the substatus in Remedy Star is changed to refer the application to an underwriter for review, and an additional code is added in LSAMS. 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. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). MCC JR 318, 530-531. The data derived from scripts written by another expert, Abraham J. Wyner, without the benefit of seeing the databases, a process necessitated by Nationstar's unwillingness or inability to produce the relevant data. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. Finally, the Court notes that a decision to certify a class is based on whether or not a putative class satisfies the Rule 23 factors, not on a preliminary assessment of the underlying merits of the claim. AG Shapiro Secures $2.75 Million for Pennsylvania Mortgage Loan 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. 164. 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. Day to address discovery issues. All but $28.6 million of its. Reg. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. See id. v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." Summ. 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loss mitigation application; 12 C.F.R. 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. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC | 2015 WL 4994491 | D. Md. | Judgment Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. 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. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. Id. Order, ECF No. 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. Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. 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. The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). Nationstar to pay $91 million to settle claims of it harmed - CNBC The distinction is crucial. . Code Ann., Com. To calculate damages, Oliver stated that he would look to data from the LSAMS application, including data tables that contain fee information, to identify fees that would not have been charged but for Nationstar's various RESPA violations, but that he was not able to evaluate this data in his report because it had not been provided to him. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. Tenn. Aug. 28, 2018) (holding that a spouse who signed a deed of trust stating that a person who did not sign the promissory note was not obligated on the security instrument, but did not sign the promissory note, was not a borrower under RESPA). "If a borrower's complete loss mitigation application is denied for any trial or permanent loan modification option available to the borrower," the servicer must state in the required notice to the borrower "the specific reason or reasons for the servicer's determination for each such trial or permanent loan modification and, if applicable, that the borrower was not evaluated on other criteria." Any additional updates will be posted here. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) ("In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met."). Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. 2016) (dicta). 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). R. Civ. 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 Motion will be granted as to all of Tamara Robinson's claims and as to Demetrius Robinson's claims under 12 C.F.R. 12 U.S.C. 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. At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. Through both a declaration by a Nationstar Vice President of Default Servicing, Brandon Anderson, and an expert report by Stuart D. Gurrea, Nationstar contests Oliver's analysis and endeavors to establish that the only way to identify RESPA violations using Nationstar's data is through a file-by-file review. Id. at 248-49. R. Evid. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. More Information Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 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. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. Id. Code Ann., Com. Nationstar admits that in March 2014, two months after the implementation date of Regulation X, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with the regulation. These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. 1024.41 Since the parties do not argue that the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass differ for the purposes of the class certification analysis, the Court will analyze them together. 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. 143. 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. See id. Nationstar Mortgage Robocall Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. . From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. Nationstar's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. LLCNo. Code Ann., Com. 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. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." (2012), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." 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. 2010). Am. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. See 12 C.F.R. or misleading oral or written statement . PDF Motion for Fees - Robinson v Nationstar - Home Mich. 2016), at least one district court has held that loan servicers need not comply with Regulation X if the borrower had previously submitted a loss mitigation application before the January 10, 2014 effective date, see Trionfo v. Bank of America, N.A., No. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 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. Finally, to the extent that Oliver did not execute his stated methodology for identifying damages, that limitation is again based in part on Nationstar's failure to make relevant data available to him. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. In Robinson v., Under the RESPA, civil liability is limited to "borrowers": "[w]hoever fails to comply with any provision of, Full title:DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 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. . The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, case number 8:14-cv-03667, from Maryland Court. Ass'n, No. Md. See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046-47 (holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act). R. Civ. 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). Id. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 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. . 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. 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. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." 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. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. Nationstar Mortgage Agrees to $91M Settlement with the CFPB 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). 26-1. Cal. Sept. 29, 2021). The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . 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." Fed. Likewise, the articulated concern that Nationstar would not be required to respond to loss mitigation applications filed within a certain number of days of a foreclosure sale, can be addressed through the provision of data relating to the dates of scheduled foreclosure sales. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2605(f), is common question of law and fact that Mr. Robinson and the class members would all be required prove in their individual cases in order to qualify for statutory damages. 1024.41(d). 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. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. Id. The Court will not revisit this determination. Id. 12 C.F.R. Under subsections (f) and (g), a loan servicer is not permitted to begin foreclosure proceedings or move for foreclosure judgment if "a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application" except in certain circumstances. 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." DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. CFPB Takes Action Against Nationstar Mortgage for Flawed Mortgage Loan 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. LLC, No. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. 2. See id. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. 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 . J. . that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. 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] . That notice must be provided within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application. In assessing the Motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with all justifiable inferences drawn in its favor. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). First, Nationstar correctly notes that Mr. Robinson, in his Motion, and Oliver, in his expert report, do not put forward any evidence establishing that the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met with respect to the claim that Nationstar did not evaluate borrowers "for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," in violation of 12 C.F.R. 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. Filed by Janie Robinson. 1024.41(d). ; 78 Fed. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. Ins. . According to Nationstar's Underwriting Workflow Procedures, which sets forth the steps followed to review loans for modifications, when a borrower submits a loan modification application, a code is entered into LSAMS and updates the loan's substatus in Remedy Star. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. Id. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. "Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. 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. "); cf. Law 13-316(c). 1024.41(i). 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. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive a payment. Finally, Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the RESPA claims because the Robinsons cannot establish that they have suffered actual damages as a result of Nationstar's violations of Regulation X. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. Wesleyan Coll. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent.
