robinson v nationstar settlement check

Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. On September 9, 2014, Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson a letter denying the loan modification application and stating that it could not offer him any modification because his income was not high enough to cover the mortgage payments under any modification option. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Am. The Complaint asserts two claims. Presently pending is Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, Nationstar's Motion to Strike, and the Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification. Id. 325 0 obj <>stream Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. See id. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. That is not so here. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Back To Top. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. In the samples . 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. Code Ann., Com. 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. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. Thumbnails Document Outline Attachments Layers. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Id. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. et al (6:21-cv-00380), Oklahoma Eastern District Court, Filed: 12/23/2021 - PacerMonitor Mobile Federal and Bankruptcy Court PACER Dockets . Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. Customers may call with questions about the settlement or the remediation checks at 1-855-914-4649 Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. except holidays. at 248-49. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator PO Box 3560 Local R. 105.6. 2003). Id. . R. Civ. 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). 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. 315 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<55C1F5748AC7BD4BA7D3FF89F6EDC6DB>]/Index[303 23]/Info 302 0 R/Length 79/Prev 236518/Root 304 0 R/Size 326/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Civil Action No. TDC-14-3667 2012). R. Civ. 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. Where a contingency fee arrangement for expert witnesses is not expressly prohibited by the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court declines to find that the fee arrangement here constituted an ethical violation. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. at 151. 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. 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. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. 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. Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. 2605(f). Claimants will receive their payments via check. See id. In Pennsylvania, the settlement affected 2,234 loans for a total of $2.75 million in restitution for these borrowers. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. . 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B) and Md. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the Robinsons' MCPA claim under section 13-316 because the Robinsons have not shown that they submitted a complaint or inquiry that triggers a duty to respond. This argument runs contrary to the plain language of Nationstar's own procedures, which describe the application as "complete" based on the processor's determination, leading to the referral of the complete package to an underwriter. 1976). . Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. R. Civ. 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. 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. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. "); cf. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Reg. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. 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. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. Fed. See 12 C.F.R. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. 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. 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. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that the purpose of certifying a class "is not to identify every class member at the time of certification, but to define a class in such a way as to ensure that there will be some administratively feasible [way] for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member at some point" (internal citation omitted) (quoting EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. Auto. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. 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. MCC JR 0003. 2013). 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. . As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. 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. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. Code Ann., Com. Day to address discovery issues. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Moreover, because borrowers often submit multiple loan modification applications, and because Nationstar's data is stored at the loan level, not at the application level, Nationstar claims that it is not possible to tell from the data alone, without reviewing the files, whether a status or code change is in response to a specific loan modification application. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. Ohio 2014). Because Oliver's methodology is reliable within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and Daubert, Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be denied. at 358. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. Settlement. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 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. The first of these prerequisites is that the class must exist and be "readily identifiable" or "ascertainable" by the court through "objective criteria." Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. Code Ann., Com. 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 McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. See id. Amchem Prods. . In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Sep. 9, 2019). 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. Am. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator PO Box 3560 Portland, OR 97208-3560 877-683-9363 Class Counsel Rafey S. Balabanian EDELSON PC Defense Counsel Abraham J. Colman Raymond Y. Kim REED SMITH LLP Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. While Demetrius Robinson did appeal Nationstar's March 15, 2014 offer of an in-house modification, the requirements of subsection (h) were not triggered because the offer was not a denial of a loan modification application. Thus, the nature of the proof of whether there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations provides substantial support for a finding of predominance. The MCPA prohibits the use of an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" in the "[t]he extension of consumer credit" or "[t]he collection of consumer debts" and provides for a private right of action. MCC JR 318, 530-531. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. 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. R. Civ. 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). 0 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. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. 1998). 1024.41. 2d at 1366. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. at *5. Id. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. QSF Settlement Administrator. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. 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. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. See 12 C.F.R. Id. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . Nationstar Id. Potentially eligible class members for all of these provisions can be identified through the LSAMS and Remedy data that marks that an application was received, identified as complete, and denied. 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. 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." 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. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. Id. 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. It will be otherwise denied. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. Wesleyan Coll. even after that settlement was reached. 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). Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. 2018). R. Evid. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. 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. Id. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." 19-303.4 cmt.3. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. See MCC JR0529-31. 164. Throughout discovery, Nationstar repeatedly stated that it could not produce the data on loss mitigation or loan modification applications from its databases in the form requested by the Robinsons. There is no reason to conclude that individual class members have any particular interest in individually controlling the litigation through separate actions, or that this Court is an undesirable forum to host this litigation, since Nationstar services loans in this district, is subject to jurisdiction here, and has presented no argument that Maryland is an inconvenient forum. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for "any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure" to comply. Fed. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. 12 U.S.C. 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. 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Ass'n, No. Prior to distributing Settlement Shares, the Settlement Administrator will attempt to update . 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. 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. CFPB V. Nationstar - Frequently Asked Questions Part 1024). 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. endstream endobj startxref 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. Courts have held that a person who did not sign the promissory note is not a "borrower" for the purposes of RESPA because that individual has not "assumed the loan." 1024.41(h)(1), (4). application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . 1024.41(d). at 300. 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. 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. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Opp'n Mot. 28, 2017). 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. Ins. 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. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. A Division of NBC Universal. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. . 2006). The record is undisputed that as of September 25, 2017, Nationstar had neither started foreclosure proceedings nor moved for foreclosure judgment on the Robinsons' home. Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. 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. The Deed specifies that a person who signs it but "does not execute the note" is a co-signer of the Deed in order to mortgage and convey that person's interest in the Property under the terms of the Deed, but "is not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument," and her consent is not required to alter the terms of the Deed or the Note.

Vanderbilt Indoor Track Meet 2022 Results, Why Did Charles Ingalls Move To The City, Shops In Thornton's Arcade Leeds, Herb Baumeister Grave, 2021 Tax Withholding Tables, Articles R