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." Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . LLC, No. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (4th Cir. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. See 12 C.F.R. 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. 1024.41(c) and (d) impose obligations on a loan servicer once it receives a "complete loss mitigation application" and once the completed application is denied. Nationstar to Pay $110 Million to Settle Borrower Claims Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. 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. See 12 C.F.R. He asserts that damages to borrowers can be calculated based on entries in LSAMS and other data showing that fees were assessed, and that it would be possible to identify which fees would not have been assessed but for a RESPA violation. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. 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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. 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. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. The Court will not revisit this determination. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that postage costs incurred by the plaintiff to send the "initial request for information is not a cost to the borrower 'as a result of the failure' to comply with a RESPA obligation," because a violation has not occurred and will not "necessarily occur" at the time the plaintiff paid the postage. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. 1024.41(i). The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. 12 U.S.C. 2002), is misplaced. 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. (quoting East Tex. TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. . 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. A letter noting receipt of the application is automatically generated and sent to the borrower, and a Nationstar employee checks the application's documentation to determine if it is complete based on a checklist. 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. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. In the case of Tony Robinson and Debra Robinson vs Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the appeals court ruled that the lender did not actually have the right to foreclose on the property. Law 13-301 and 13-303, and that Mr. Robinson therefore may not assert such claims on behalf of the class, Mr. Robinson's remaining claims and defenses are typical of the class members. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. While Mr. Robinson sought to reduce his monthly mortgage payment in applying for a loan modification, his deposition testimony reflects that he understands that the present lawsuit contends that Nationstar did not process the Robinsons' loan modification application correctly. In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar argues that Oliver's methodology has not been peer reviewed, has a high error rate because he used the wrong data fields to identify the dates of events, failed to consider the timing of foreclosure sales relative to the dates of the submission of loan modification applications, and did not propose a specific methodology for calculating damages. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Md. R. Civ. 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. If the named plaintiff satisfies each of these requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court must still find that the proposed class action fits into one of the categories of class action under Rule 23(b) in order to certify the class. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. 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. 2010). R. Civ. News Ask a Lawyer Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Moreover, although the court stated that an arrangement for providing expert testimony for a contingent fee would violate public policy, the court did not address the question of the admissibility of evidence at issue here. 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. Id. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. Code Ann., Com. An 85-year Harvard study found the No. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC | 2015 WL 4994491 | D. Md. | Judgment 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. See id. Since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nationstar violated subsection (h), summary judgment will be entered for Nationstar on that claim. But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. While several district courts have concluded that loss mitigation applications submitted before Regulation X's effective date do not count as the single application for which a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X, see, e.g., Farber v. Brock & Scott, LLC, No. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Code Ann., Com. MCC JR 530. 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). Fed. 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. 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"). 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. 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." 12 C.F.R. 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. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. 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. 12 C.F.R. 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. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. "[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.'" Local R. 105.6. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). 2605(f)(1). See id. Nationstar's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 877-683-9363. Finally, where Nationstar has offered no specific argument in its brief, beyond those addressed above, to refute Oliver's proffered analysis for identifying RESPA violations arising from the failure to notify borrowers of their appeal rights or the failure to exercise diligence in requesting documents based on repeated requests for the same documents, 12 C.F.R. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." 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. 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. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." . While the Nationstar employee who conducts the initial processing of an application may refer it to an underwriter based on its facial completeness, the underwriter makes the final determination of whether the application is complete and is responsible for obtaining any additional required documentation. The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. If the settlements are approved by the D.C. district court, Nationstar will be required to immediately set aside about $15.6 million to pay borrowers it has not yet remediated. In addition to the fee paid to PaCE, the Robinsons also assert as damages $50.58 in administrative costs, specifically postage fees for sending information relating to their loan modification application to Nationstar, and 120 hours of time expended on the loan modification process. R. Civ. During this period, in August 2013, the Robinsons retained a forensic loan auditor, Professional Compliance Examiners ("PaCE"), and paid it $2,275 to help them communicate with Nationstar. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. Based on his experience and review of deposition transcripts of Nationstar employees, Oliver asserts that Nationstar has computerized data from which RESPA violations may be identified, not least because Nationstar must be able to demonstrate its compliance with RESPA to regulators. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. 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. 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. Plaintiff and Class Representative Demetrius Robinson, along with Class Counsel Tycko & Zavareei LLP and The Bestor Law Firm, respectfully move this Court for an award of $1,300,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as a $5,000 service award for Mr. Robinson. If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. When those scripts did not produce data that allowed the Robinsons to conduct the sampling, the Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar on April 3, 2018 to run certain "structural scripts" on two of its four databases. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. 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. Nationstar Mortgage Convenience Fee Class Action Settlement A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 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. Cent. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. P. 23(a)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Id. R. Civ. Like the class members, to prove his case, Mr. Robinson will have to show that Nationstar failed to timely and appropriately respond to his loan modification applications by pointing to the dates of his submissions and the dates and contents of Nationstar's responses. This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. Summ. Because such a common question would have to be resolved in many if not all individual cases, it advances, rather than undermines, the argument in favor of predominance. 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. CFPB Takes Action Against Nationstar Mortgage for Flawed Mortgage Loan Md. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). 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. Class Action Claims Nationstar Mortgage Unlawfully Failed to Pay 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. See Md. 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. See Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 702. at 359-60. See, e.g., Ward v. Dixie Nat. J. Class Cert. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. . Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. at 152. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive a payment. Although Nationstar argues that Mr. Robinson has a conflict of interest because he wishes to avoid foreclosure and to delay payments on his mortgage, the record does not reflect that proposition. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. 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. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. EQT Prod. 2d at 1366. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. P. 23(b)(3). Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 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.