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.
PDF PUBLISHED - United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. Id. But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. Mot. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. 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. Sept. 29, 2021). 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. During this period, in August 2013, the Robinsons retained a forensic loan auditor, Professional Compliance Examiners ("PaCE"), and paid it $2,275 to help them communicate with Nationstar. An 85-year Harvard study found the No. Where Accrued Financial addresses a different scenario with a different remedy, the Court does not find that it requires that the testimony of an expert witness paid on contingency fee basis must be excluded. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Class Certif. Where the PaCE consulting fee was a one-time fee to advise the Robinsons in their interactions with Nationstar paid in August 2013, several months before they first submitted the March 2014 loan modification application, this cost was incurred "whether or not [Nationstar] complied with its obligations." Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. at 300. Code Ann., Com. Fed. 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. J. 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.
Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months.
Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." If the named plaintiff satisfies each of these requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court must still find that the proposed class action fits into one of the categories of class action under Rule 23(b) in order to certify the class. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. . 2605(f)(1)(A)). at 248-49. 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. 1998). See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6.
PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). 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. "); cf. (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"). 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. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . 222. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. 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. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." If the settlements are approved by the D.C. district court, Nationstar will be required to immediately set aside about $15.6 million to pay borrowers it has not yet remediated. Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. A separate Order shall issue. Id. Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. 1967). Id. Reg. Nov. 12, 2011), the court held that a plaintiff who signed a deed of trust on a property and was a joint tenant with her son, but did not sign the promissory note, had constitutional standing to bring a RESPA claim because she stood to be injured if a default on her son's loan led to the loss of her equitable interest in the property. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. at 152. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Any additional updates will be posted here. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. 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. PO Box 3560. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. Law 13-301 and 303. See Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. 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. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. 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. R. Civ. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. 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. P. 23(b)(3). 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. 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.
Nationstar to pay $91 million to settle claims of it harmed - CNBC at *5. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. Subsequent to the Court's approval, one of the objectors to the settlement filed an appeal. According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Am. Md. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." 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. 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. Questions? Id. May 31, 2016), the plaintiff had signed the deed of trust but not the promissory note but was nevertheless deemed to have standing because she had owned the home with a right of survivorship with her deceased husband, who had signed the note. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. 20-cv, -2202, 2021 WL 4462909, at *1 (S.D. Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. 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). 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B) and Md. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. 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. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. 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.
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. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. 2012). Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C.
Nationstar Mortgage Agrees to $91M Settlement with the CFPB 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). On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." Summ.
Class Action Claims Nationstar Mortgage Unlawfully Failed to Pay McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 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. 89, 90, ECF No. Summ. This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. Cal. You will not receive a payment if you fail to timely submit a completed Claim Form, and you will give up your right to bring your own lawsuit against the Defendant about the claims in this case. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for actual damages and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of non-compliance by the servicer, up to $2,000 in statutory damages. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). Proof of these claims requires a showing of the dates that an application was received, an acknowledgment letter was sent, an application became complete, Nationstar sent a decision letter to the borrower, and a foreclosure sale is scheduled. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 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. 2016) ("[F]ortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. Code Ann., Com. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. Id. 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. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. At this juncture, this allegation plausibly supports a finding of willful noncompliance. Id. 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. 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. 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. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 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. 19-303.4 cmt.3. Auto. 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. 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. Opp'n Mot. 13-316(e)(1). Compl. . That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. . Id. 1024.41(i). 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. Nationstar seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' RESPA claims on the grounds that (1) Mrs. Robinson is not a proper plaintiff because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA; (2) RESPA is inapplicable because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to the Robinsons' first loss mitigation application; (3) there is no evidence to support a violation of 12 C.F.R. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. See Fed. As for the claims of errors in Oliver's analysis, although this criticism is couched as his "misunderstanding the nature of Nationstar's various databases," Nationstar largely challenges Oliver's failure to use particular data fields, some which were never made available to him. Finally, to the extent that Oliver did not execute his stated methodology for identifying damages, that limitation is again based in part on Nationstar's failure to make relevant data available to him. The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. All but $28.6 million of its. Furthermore, determining whether statutory damages are available will require no individualized consideration, because the pattern-or-practice claim "would be based solely on" Nationstar's conduct and can be established through sampling. See Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) ("When 'one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defense peculiar to some individual class members.'" All Rights Reserved. Code Ann., Com. . Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 1024.41(a). 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. Id. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." 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. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. 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. For example, in EQT, the court concluded that a proposed class of all individuals who owned an interest in a gas estate was not ascertainable because the actual owners could be determined only through an individualized review of land records. 2018). 3d 249, 266 (D. 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. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). 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. 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. 702. 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. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . Similarly, though the precise nature of the fees imposed was not specified, it is reasonable to infer that some were attributable to delays linked to RESPA violations. Relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Nationstar's partial Motion to Dismiss. Nationstar Mortgage agreed to settle an action commenced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for $91 million to resolve allegations surrounding mortgage servicing misconduct and deceptive practices that resulted in financial harm to borrowers. Id. Amchem Prods. 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. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. See Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042. Like the class members, to prove his case, Mr. Robinson will have to show that Nationstar failed to timely and appropriately respond to his loan modification applications by pointing to the dates of his submissions and the dates and contents of Nationstar's responses. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." 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. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. J. See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046-47 (holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act).
Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. Based on the language of Regulation X, the Court finds that a loss mitigation application submitted before the effective date does not count as the single application subject to the regulation. MSJ JR 0284. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. See 12 C.F.R. Likewise, he concluded that for approximately 53 percent of sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement of acknowledging receipt of the application within five days. Since Regulation X explicitly does not require a loan servicer to provide a loan modification, the Robinsons' claim that they suffered damages because they did not receive a loan modification is not cognizable under the statute. . 1024.41(d). Where it is now apparent, in hindsight, that Nationstar was permitted to withhold relevant and necessary data in the discovery process, it is unsurprising that Nationstar employees would then review loan files, with their complete data, and identify problems. 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. Id. 2601 et seq. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. The servicer "is liable for any economic damages caused by the violation."