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. Fed. Cal. 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. 3d at 1014. 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. "[A] trial court should consider the specific factors identified in Daubert where they are reasonable measures of the reliability of expert testimony." 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. 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. Id. These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. 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. Section 13-316(c) governs "mortgage servicing" and, among other requirements, provides that a "servicer shall designate a contact to whom mortgagors may direct complaints and inquiries" and that the "contact shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested." Reg. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." See Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Because Nationstar employees used standard templates to communicate with borrowers, Oliver concluded that Regulation X violations can be identified through the existence of noncompliant templates and the dates that those templates were in use. As a result, the Robinsons' claim that Nationstar violated certain Regulation X procedures with respect to their loan modification application and those of the class members. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(i). is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). 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. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. 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. That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." 222. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. 2601(a). In Washington v. Am. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. Feb. 14, 2017) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded damages under the MCPA where she alleged that the defendant's failures to respond "resulted in the continual assessment of accruing interest, fees and costs on the mortgage account," as well as "stress, physical sickness, headaches, sleep deprivation, worry, and pecuniary expenses"). The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. 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. In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." Fed. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. 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. 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. v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . Since it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met and Mr. Robinson has failed to do so, the Motion for Class Certification will be denied as to any claims that Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan. While the particulars of Mr. Robinson's application process will not necessarily prove that Nationstar mishandled the applications of other individual class members, these facts fairly encompass the types of claims that would be brought by the members of the class. Id. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. Nationstar argues that it should be granted summary judgment on all of the RESPA claims because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to a borrower's first loss mitigation application, and the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 application was not their first loan modification application. 1024.41(a). at 300. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. 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 that the company failed to honor mortgage forbearance agreements and unfairly foreclosed on homeowners. They do not seek damages in the Amended Complaint for emotional distress or include such a claim in their itemized list of damages submitted in discovery. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). 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. 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. 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. As for typicality, the named plaintiff must be "typical" of the class, such that that the class representative's claim and defenses are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class" in that prosecution of the claim will "simultaneously tend to advance the interests of the absent class members." The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. R. Civ. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. 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. To the extent that, as Nationstar claims, such a determination could not be fully accomplished through computerized analysis alone, the resources needed to resolve this question would be even greater, such that the importance of having it resolved in a common fashion for all claims would be heightened. See 12 C.F.R. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. It will be otherwise denied. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. 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. 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. . 1024.41(a). The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. 1976). Code Ann., Com. 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. 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. "We want to hear from you," Raoul says. 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. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. 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. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. Fed. 1024.41(i). 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. 12 C.F.R. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. . 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 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"). In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. 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. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. 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. 1967). 89, 90, ECF No. ; 78 Fed. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th 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. 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." Oliver's expert report focuses on the use of Nationstar's internal databases to determine whether Nationstar has systematically failed to comply with various requirements of Regulation X. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. 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. 2013). 120. 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. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." 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. LLC, No. Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. An "unfair or deceptive" trade practice includes a "false . Because Oliver analyzed proprietary databases and data specifically disclosed for this litigation pursuant to a protective order, such that Oliver's peers lack access to the same information, Oliver's expert testimony is not of the type that ordinarily would be subject to peer review, and it would be unfair to require "general acceptance within a relevant scientific community." . 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. Part 1024). 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. 2605(f). 1024.41(h)(1), (4). 1024.41(i). 1024.41. Id. Under the terms of the Settlement, if nothing else occurs in the litigation, then the Settlement will become effective 95 days from the date of that decision by the Court of Appeals. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). 2605(f)(1). They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). Id. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. "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." 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. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. 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. Id. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. Id. Where the Robinsons may be able to show that they have suffered actual damages, their claim for statutory damages, upon a showing that Nationstar has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, remains viable. 2605(f). These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. The "Nationwide Class" is composed of "[a]ll persons in the United States that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." 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. 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. Fed. Sept. 29, 2021). 1024.41(c)(1)(i). at 983. 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. (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"). Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. 2010). 10696, 10836. . For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. 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." As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. To prepare his expert report, Oliver reviewed a randomly selected sample of 400 loans serviced by Nationstar in which a loan modification application was submitted. After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. Jennings' office said that these new standards are more robust than existing law and will be in place for three years starting in January 2021. The Complaint asserts two claims. Thus, the Court concludes that common computerized analysis can largely answer the question of whether Nationstar violated these RESPA provisions with respect to individual borrowers. Life Ins. 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. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. Nationstar's criticism that Oliver failed to use the correct data field to identify the date when a loss mitigation application was complete, and failed to consider the timing of application relative to the date of scheduled foreclosure sale, ring hollow because Nationstar provided to Oliver only limited data fields, which did not contain clear field names or definitions. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. Discovery Order, ECF No. 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. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). McLean I, 595 F. Supp. 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." MSJ JR 0284. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . 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. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 1024.41(a). If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 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. Aug. 19, 2015). Joint Record ("MSJ JR") 0102. 1024.41(f), (g). Code Ann., Com. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. 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.
Second Chance Apartments In Kennesaw, Ga,
Articles R