robinson v nationstar settlement
Code Ann., Com. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, case number 8:14-cv-03667, from Maryland Court. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. 1024.41(d). On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. 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. . 2605(f). While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. R. Evid. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). Id. 2015). 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. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. Auto. Id. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. 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. 1024.41(f), (g). Law 13-301 and 303. R. Civ. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. JA 130. See 12 C.F.R. 120. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. 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. 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. 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. 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. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." 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. Local R. 105.6. Cal. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. 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." MCC JR 318, 530-531. The use of a class action is primarily justified on the grounds of efficiency, because it advances judicial economy to resolve common issues affecting all class members in a single action. In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." 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. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. 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). 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. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 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. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (4th Cir. 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. . For example, Nationstar's own internal procedures reveal that when a loss mitigation application is received, a processor reviews it to determine if all required information and documents have been received, and enters one code, specifically "code HMPC" in LSAMS signifying "Financial Application Complete," and a different code, specifically "code HMPA," signifying "Financial Application Incomplete." The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. 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. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. In Washington v. Am. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). Id. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. Id. R. Evid. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . All Rights Reserved. Id. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). 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. Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 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. Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. 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. The Complaint asserts two claims. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Although section 13-316 provides a remedy only for economic damages arising from a mortgage servicer's failure to respond to an inquiry, see Md. While every class member will have to establish damages, that calculation will not be "particularly complex," as it will require identifying administrative costs and fees that would not have occurred but for the RESPA violation. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. Compl. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. 2005))). Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. Fed. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. 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. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 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. Bouchat v. Balt. 2605(f). He is joined by 49 other Attorneys General, the District of Columbia, and other state and federal agencies. Code Ann., Com. 1 . 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. R. Civ. Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). 1024.41(i). Code Ann., Com. Accordingly, Nationstar did not send the Robinsons an acknowledgment letter within five days stating that it had received the application, as required by Regulation X. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loan modification application; or 12 C.F.R. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. While the date that Nationstar's systems came into compliance, is unknown, Nationstar's systematic noncompliance presents common questions of law and fact for all class members. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. In contrast, Nationstar maintains that there is no way to reliably identify when a loss mitigation application is submitted or complete using codes and status change entries in its existing software, and that the only way to make those determinations is through a file-by-file review. Code Ann., Com. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 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. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. First, as a threshold matter, the Court notes that in ruling on Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will grant judgment in favor of Nationstar as to Mrs. Robinson's claims, Mr. Robinson's RESPA claims under 12 C.F.R. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 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. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. 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. Fed. 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. A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar or Defendant) violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by failing to adhere to its requirements with respect to its customers loss mitigation applications and that Nationstar violated Maryland law by not timely responding to its customers mortgage servicing complaints. Here, even though the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 loss mitigation application was not the Robinsons' first such application, it was their first submitted after the effective date of Regulation X. 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." 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. 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." Summ. Law 13-301(1). If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. Code Ann., Com. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. FCRA). ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. . Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Code Ann., Com. Compl. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. 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. 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. 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. 2013)). Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. See Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 374 F. App'x 868, 873 (11th Cir. If the initial application is complete, the substatus in Remedy Star is changed to refer the application to an underwriter for review, and an additional code is added in LSAMS. Id. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. 2d at 1366. At this juncture, this allegation plausibly supports a finding of willful noncompliance. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." Portland, OR 97208-3560. . Id. Id. 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. 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. On June 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge bifurcated discovery to focus initially on the merits of the Robinsons' individual claim and the question of class certification, ordered Nationstar to disclose electronic records so that the Robinsons could sample Nationstar's data for purposes of a motion for class certification, and limited the discovery of such records to a sample of 400 loans from the period from January 10, 2014 to June 30, 2014 and "to areas which inform" the Court's decision on class certification, namely whether Nationstar was in compliance with Regulation X. Mot. Nationstar's claim that the above-described coding is not dispositive, because an underwriter could subsequently determine that more information was needed after all, is not persuasive. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 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. A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. This Court previously held that a loan modification application can be an inquiry under the MCPA that triggers a duty to respond, and that in the case of the Robinsons, the loan modification application that was "submitted at the request of Nationstar[] necessarily seeks a response." Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. 89, 90, ECF No. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . . The "Maryland Subclass" consists of "[a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order."
