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. 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. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 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. 12 C.F.R. Nationstar said in a statement that its settlements were based on "loan-servicing practices" that the company used between 2010 and 2015 and has since discontinued. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. 1024.41(i). . Nationstar also allegedly foreclosed on borrowers with pending forbearance applications after promising not to do so and failed to properly handle escrow payments and accounting for homeowners who were in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. 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. 1976). Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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. 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. All but $28.6 million of its. 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. 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 initial application is not complete, a different Remedy Star substatus notation and LSAMS code are entered, and a letter is created and sent to the borrower asking for the required documents. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. 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. Fed. 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. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). In Washington v. Am. 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." 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. 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. Mot. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Fed. Id. 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. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. She alleges Nationstar was sent multiple disputes by both Experian and Equifax with documentation showing the debt was forgiven, yet Nationstar persisted in reporting the debt as valid. It does not mount any persuasive attack on Oliver's "principles and methodology," Westberry, 178 F.3d at 261, which largely consisted of counting the number of days between events and reviewing files for a particular loan to determine whether they contained certain standard content. or misleading oral or written statement . 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. R. Civ. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. 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. . 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. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. The commonality requirement is also met. 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. (quoting East Tex. 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." 125. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. Id. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. Discovery Order, ECF No. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. 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. 1024.41. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! 222. at 300. He was retained by the Robinsons under an arrangement through which he is to be paid a flat fee of $125,000: $62,500 up front, with an additional $62,500 to be paid if a class is certified in this case. In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. Am. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. Ins. Although Monday's case specifically addresses Nationstar's actions following the Great Recession, the outcome can affect today's homeowners, says Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois. 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. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson two letters denying his loan modification application on July 17, 2014 and September 9, 2014, but there is no evidence in the record that the Robinsons submitted an appeal to either of those letters. 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 February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. An "unfair or deceptive" trade practice includes a "false . 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. 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. 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. 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. Fed. 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. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. Reg. 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. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. 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. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. Code Ann., Com. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). 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." See D. Md. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. Here, the Robinsons have not put forward any evidence that Mrs. Robinson has an ownership interest in the home that would specifically obligate her to make payments on the loan. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. A class action is a superior means for "fairly and efficiently adjudicating" whether Nationstar has violated Regulation X and section 3-316(c) of the MCPA. R. Evid. 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. 1998). A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for actual damages and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of non-compliance by the servicer, up to $2,000 in statutory damages. At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. Id. Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). 1024.41(f), (g). 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. 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. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. 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. 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. Cent. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. 2003). It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 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 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. 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. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. LLCNo. 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. PO Box 3560. Law 13-301 and 303. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. 2006). 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. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 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. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. Individual damages would be below the cost of litigation even if each class member could establish that Nationstar's conduct consisted of a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, because the statute limits such damages to $2,000 per borrower. Sep. 9, 2019). . Reg. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. He is joined by 49 other Attorneys General, the District of Columbia, and other state and federal agencies. At different stages in the processing of a loan modification application, Nationstar employees enter certain codes into certain databases, and certain information can be stored and accessed through those applications. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. 2016) (dicta). Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged 1990) (citing Universal Athletic favorably for this proposition). Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. Code Ann., Com. 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 first of these prerequisites is that the class must exist and be "readily identifiable" or "ascertainable" by the court through "objective criteria." at 358. 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."). 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 2605(f)(1). That is not so here. 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. 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. Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). 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. Sept. 29, 2021). Law 13-316(c). 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. 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. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. Claim Your Cash Every Week! He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. Any additional updates will be posted here. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. "We want to hear from you," Raoul says. J. See id. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . See Fed. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. 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. at 248-49. Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. See Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267, 275 (4th Cir. 2605(f)(2); Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20, that the individualized damages inquiry would need to precede the award of statutory damages based on a finding of a pattern-or-practice of RESPA violations is a distinction without a difference: whether individual damages are shown before or after the pattern-or-practice liability, the common issues of liability predominate over the individualized questions of damages. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. 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. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. Nationstar to Pay $110 Million to Settle Borrower Claims 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. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. "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." 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. 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(i). 10696, 10836. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. 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." 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." 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. Id. Amchem Prods. Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 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. 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. See Stillmock, 385 F. App'x at 274 ("[T]here is no reasoned basis to conclude that the fact that an individual plaintiff can recover attorney's fees in addition to statutory damages of up to $1,000 will result in enforcement of [the Fair Credit Reporting Act] by individual actions of a scale comparable to the potential enforcement by way of class action."). 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. Id. See id. 12 U.S.C. 1024.41(d). Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. 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. 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. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. See 12 C.F.R. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. Your Email Please enter your email. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). "[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.'" To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. 2605(f), caused by the violation, which likely consist of administrative fees and costs, the individual recovery available for each class member would likely be low, far below the cost of litigating the claims themselves. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Id. (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").