robinson v nationstar settlement

Id. Likewise, Oliver's expert report provides no analysis on how Nationstar's databases allow for a systematic determination whether Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of the specific reasons for the servicer's decision to deny each loan modification option, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. These claims do not have to be factually or legally identical, but the class claims should be fairly encompassed by those of the named plaintiffs. 702, 703. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Ass'n, No. Id. 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. From January 2012 to December 2016, the CFPB and 50 state attorneys general claim Nationstar, which is now doing business asMr. Cooper, engaged in a number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. LLC, No. Oliver is the Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Advisors LLC, a financial services consulting, compliance audit, and accounting advisory firm, and has extensive experience conducting compliance reviews for mortgage servicers, including for compliance with loss mitigation procedures. 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. Id. The Court will not revisit this determination. 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."). . Id. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. 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." Md. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. 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. R. Civ. 2012). 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. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. . Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. 1024.41. 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. The entry under "objected" acts as a unique identifier for an electronic file, but it does not contain information about the file's substance and could in fact contain multiple submissions or documents relating to one borrower. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.4 cmt. Wright et al. That is not so here. The Class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. R. Civ. 2003). at 358. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. 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. Fed. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. But where the broad methodology is sound, the lack of consideration of unproduced data cannot provide a basis to strike the expert witness's testimony. 125. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. 702. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). When considering whether expert testimony is reliable or should be excluded, the court considers the following factors: "When an expert's report or testimony is 'critical to class certification,'" the district court "must make a conclusive ruling on any challenge to that expert's qualifications or submissions before it may rule on a motion for class certification." P. 23(b)(3). 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. Rather than striking the testimony, the Court may need to consider permitting supplemental discovery to correct for the lack of relevant data not previously made available to Oliver. Your Email Please enter your email. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. The fact that Oliver's methodology has not been subjected to peer review and that he has not published any articles about it does not invalidate it. Id. 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. Am. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. Class Certif. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. 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. (quoting East Tex. 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. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. A Division of NBC Universal. . In Washington v. Am. 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. 1 . 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. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. R. Evid. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." 12 C.F.R. 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. R. Civ. 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. Cent. 2605(f). Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. Local R. 105.6. The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. 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. Thus, based on his report and experience, Oliver concludes that Nationstar "failed to comply" with Regulation X and that it is possible to "identify violations" of Regulation X "using the methodologies" he described, without the necessity of a file-by-file review. 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. 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. To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." Before relating the facts relevant to the Motion for Class Certification, the Court will highlight the relevant procedural history affecting the record before the Court. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. 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. 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. See Fed. 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. 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 . R. Civ. Where such statements in no way promise approval, the Robinsons appear to claim that such statements are false or misleading because Nationstar never intended to, and did not, evaluate the Robinsons for the various loss mitigation options. 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. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2003). 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. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . Id. . 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. 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. ; 78 Fed. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. However, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that other class members exist and that their joinder is impracticable; a court may not rely on mere speculation that numerosity has been satisfied. 2605(f). Reg. 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. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. 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. Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. 1998). 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. 2004). Code Ann., Com. The Court agrees that costs, including administrative costs, "incurred whether or not the servicer complied with its obligations" are not actual damages "caused by, or 'a result of,'" the RESPA violation, whether or not they occurred before or after the violation. 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. A class action may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) if common questions of law or fact "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" and a "class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Although the Robinsons contend that they would have pursued other loss mitigation options in the absence of the RESPA violations, they have not identified any such options in a way that would permit a calculation of damages associated with any lost opportunity. at 248-49. This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." at 300. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. Since Mr. Robinson has the same goal as the other class members of establishing that Nationstar violated Regulation X with respect to his loan, he will adequately protect their interests. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. 1024.41(b)(1). 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. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. On July 17, 2014, Nationstar informed Mr. Robinson by letter that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. They have claimed $141,000 in interest; $6,147.12 in fees assessed by Nationstar; $2,275 in consulting fees; $50.58 in administrative costs; and lost time and labor of approximately 120 hours; as well as punitive and statutory damages. Fed. 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. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. 2605(f)(1). You will receive no benefits from the Settlement, but will retain any rights you currently have to sue Nationstar about the same claims in this case. For the claims that rely on the timing of a response, Oliver and the Robinsons propose using changes in the Remedy Star substatus or LSAMS codes and documents stored in FileNet to identify the date a loan modification application was received or marked as complete, to identify the date a response was sent, and to count the number of days between events. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging. Opp'n Mot. 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). Code Ann., Com. See 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(f), (g). When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. . The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. . Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. 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. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. 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. 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. J. 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. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. 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. Compl. Sept. 2, 2015). Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a mortgage servicing complaint or inquiry within 15 days. 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. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. 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. See Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042. Actual damages may include late fees; denial of credit or access to the full amount of a credit line; out-of-pocket expenses incurred in dealing with a RESPA violation, such as expenses for preparing and copying correspondence; and lost time and inconvenience, including time spent away from employment while preparing correspondence "to the extent it resulted in actual pecuniary loss." Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. WASHINGTON, D.C. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered Nationstar Mortgage LLC to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for violating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 through 2014. For the Regulation X provisions that require the servicer to communicate specific information to a borrower, Oliver's methodology involves reviewing a sample of loan files and identifying a specific communication to a borrower based on the file name. 1024.41(i). Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 2017) (holding that "incidental costs related to the sending of correspondence" to the servicer, including "postage and travel," are not actual damages under RESPA because such a rule "would transform virtually all unsatisfactory borrower inquiries into RESPA lawsuits"). 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."). The distinction is crucial. 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. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. 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. Part 1024). 164. From this approach, Oliver concluded that for approximately 60 percent of the sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement that it inform the borrower of loss mitigation application determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. Order, ECF No. Where the Robinsons, after discovery, cannot point to evidence that Nationstar did not even consider or evaluate the Robinsons for loss mitigation options, they have not established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of false or misleading statements.

Selecthealth Value Network, Orange Lake Resort Timeshare Maintenance Fees, Https Accounts Nintendo Com Login Device, Sample Motion To Sever Immigration Court, Articles R