robinson v nationstar settlement

1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a loan modification application within 30 days of receipt of a complete loss mitigation application and provide notice of appeal rights; 12 C.F.R. An "unfair or deceptive" trade practice includes a "false . 2605(f)(1). Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. Id. . See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 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. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. Sept. 2, 2015). Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. Bouchat v. Balt. PDF Motion for Fees - Robinson v Nationstar - Home See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. R. Civ. 2016) (dicta). 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. 1024.41(d). v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. Id. Subsequent to the Court's approval, one of the objectors to the settlement filed an appeal. For a class action brought for violations of Regulation X, a servicer is liable for "actual damages to each of the borrowers in the class" and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of noncompliance, statutory damages amounting to a maximum of $2,000 per class member up to a total of the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the servicer's net worth. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. MCC JR 318, 530-531. 1024.41(c) and (d) impose obligations on a loan servicer once it receives a "complete loss mitigation application" and once the completed application is denied. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. "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." Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. 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. Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. 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. 1024.41(a). Id. Summ. 1024.41(a). Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 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. Id. 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. 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. 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. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . See, e.g. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. Since the Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied, the Court will now consider whether the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority considerations are met. Nationstar also allegedly foreclosed on borrowers with pending forbearance applications after promising not to do so and failed to properly handle escrow payments and accounting for homeowners who were in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. Code Ann., Com. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). 12 U.S.C. Although Monday's case specifically addresses Nationstar's actions following the Great Recession, the outcome can affect today's homeowners, says Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois. 1024.41(i). 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. 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. LLCNo. 218. Likewise, the articulated concern that Nationstar would not be required to respond to loss mitigation applications filed within a certain number of days of a foreclosure sale, can be addressed through the provision of data relating to the dates of scheduled foreclosure sales. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 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. 1024.41(a). Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. See id. 2. Law 13-316(c). 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. As to the third denial on November 7, 2013, Nationstar informed the Robinsons that the loan modification application was denied because the mortgage loan was not in default. 120. 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. 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. 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. at 300. 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. Claim Your Cash Every Week! 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. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. See D. Md. "When these issues were identified several years ago, we immediately made restitution to our impacted customers and invested in process improvements to prevent reoccurrence," Jay Bray, CEO and chairman of Mr. Cooper said in a statement Monday. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. 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. v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . 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. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. EQT Prod. See, e.g., Ward v. Dixie Nat. The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). 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. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. 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. Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. 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. 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. 1024.41(d). The Court will not revisit this determination. Fed. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. Through both a declaration by a Nationstar Vice President of Default Servicing, Brandon Anderson, and an expert report by Stuart D. Gurrea, Nationstar contests Oliver's analysis and endeavors to establish that the only way to identify RESPA violations using Nationstar's data is through a file-by-file review. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. 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. Am. "[N]amed class representatives [must] demonstrate standing through a 'requisite case or controversy between themselves personally and defendants,' not merely allege that 'injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. 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. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. 1024.41(h)(1). Day to address discovery issues. As the Supreme Court noted in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), Daubert "made clear that its list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive," and it is not always the case that an expert witness's claim will have been subjected to peer review. 2006). Code Ann., Com. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." 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. 2004). Nationstar Mortgage Convenience Fee Class Action Settlement 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. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. 12 U.S.C. Mich. 2016), at least one district court has held that loan servicers need not comply with Regulation X if the borrower had previously submitted a loss mitigation application before the January 10, 2014 effective date, see Trionfo v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2012). 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. 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. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). According to Nationstar's Underwriting Workflow Procedures, which sets forth the steps followed to review loans for modifications, when a borrower submits a loan modification application, a code is entered into LSAMS and updates the loan's substatus in Remedy Star. Furthermore, Oliver states that since Nationstar employees used templates to communicate with borrowers, he could determine whether there were violations of certain RESPA provisions based on entries showing that Nationstar employees used templates that did not comply with RESPA. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. R. Civ. Finally, a loan servicer "is only required to comply with the requirements" of section 1024.41 "for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." Since the parties do not argue that the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass differ for the purposes of the class certification analysis, the Court will analyze them together. 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.'" Code Ann., Com. 2605(f), is common question of law and fact that Mr. Robinson and the class members would all be required prove in their individual cases in order to qualify for statutory damages. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (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." The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . at *5. News Ask a Lawyer It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. Particularly where a class may be certified even if individualized damages calculations would be necessary, the incomplete nature of the damages analysis does not provide a basis for striking Oliver's expert testimony. 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. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For example, since default fees are often paid by sources other than the borrower, such as in a short sale or refinancing, Nationstar challenges Oliver's assessment that fees identified through LSAMS can be deemed to constitute damages from RESPA violations, because the software does not reflect who paid the fee. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. Summ. 2014))). 1024.41(i). 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. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. (2012), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. . 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. Florida Appeals Court Reverses Mortgage Foreclosure - Pike & Lustig, LLP The one-time consulting fee was paid in August 2013 to PaCE, a forensic loan auditor, to advise the Robinsons on how to communicate with Nationstar and to handle their loan. 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." After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. 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. 19-303.4 cmt.3. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. 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. 12 C.F.R. 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. A complete loss mitigation application is "an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower." Id. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. or other representation . Mar. LLC, No. Nationstar Mortgage Agrees to $91M Settlement with the CFPB 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. The record is undisputed that as of September 25, 2017, Nationstar had neither started foreclosure proceedings nor moved for foreclosure judgment on the Robinsons' home. 12 C.F.R. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate.