robinson v nationstar settlement robinson v nationstar settlement

2004). Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. P. 23(a)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Id 1024.41(c)(1). Local R. 105.6. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. Moreover, even if the fee arrangement violated the ethical rules for attorneys, "it does not follow that evidence obtained in violation of the rule is inadmissible." A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . 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. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. 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. 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." PO Box 3560. 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. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. 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. Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. 702. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. More Information 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. 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. 2605(f)(1). 19-303.4 cmt.3. According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. 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." Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. 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. Md. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. 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. The commonality requirement is also met. Auto. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. 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. 13-316(e)(1). TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. 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. 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. Opp'n Mot. Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. at 358. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for "any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure" to comply. 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. The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. . "We want to hear from you," Raoul says. "There are going to be a lot of homeowners who need a home loan modification or other assistance," Raoul says. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. Where the results of such an analysis would apply to any individual claim, it would be highly inefficient and wasteful to require duplicative analysis in each such case. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. Fed. At this juncture, this allegation plausibly supports a finding of willful noncompliance. . 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." Id. Actual damages may include late fees; denial of credit or access to the full amount of a credit line; out-of-pocket expenses incurred in dealing with a RESPA violation, such as expenses for preparing and copying correspondence; and lost time and inconvenience, including time spent away from employment while preparing correspondence "to the extent it resulted in actual pecuniary loss." Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. 1967). The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Potentially eligible class members for all of these provisions can be identified through the LSAMS and Remedy data that marks that an application was received, identified as complete, and denied. 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. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. 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. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. Indeed, since previous versions of the Maryland rule expressly stated that contingency fee arrangements for experts were forbidden, but that explicit language was removed, it is reasonable to conclude that the amendment changed the rule in Maryland to no longer bar contingency fee arrangements. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. 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. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. Class Cert. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. Because of the manner in which class discovery was conducted, see supra part II.A, Oliver did not have access to all of Nationstar's data fields for the representative sample of loans. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 Amchem Prods. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . 1998). From this approach, Oliver concluded that for approximately 60 percent of the sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement that it inform the borrower of loss mitigation application determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. 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. is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). "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." Congress enacted RESPA to protect consumers from "unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices" in the real estate mortgage industry, and to ensure "that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process." LLCNo. Compl. Nationstar also seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under the MCPA, which include claims of misleading statements in connection with the collection of consumer debts, in violation of section 13-301(1), (3) and section 13-303(4)-(5) of the MCPA, and claims that Nationstar did not respond to consumer inquiries within 15 days, in violation of section 13-316(c) of the MCPA. or misleading oral or written statement . If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . Id. See id. 2014). News Ask a Lawyer 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). Fed. 2003). 218. 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. 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. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. See id. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . The court, however, did not explain how in the absence of any obligation to pay back to the Note, the plaintiff qualified as a "borrower" under the RESPA statute. 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. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. 2012). Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Before relating the facts relevant to the Motion for Class Certification, the Court will highlight the relevant procedural history affecting the record before the Court. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. 1972). v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). Id. The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. 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. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 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. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. . Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. 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. 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. While Mr. Robinson signed the promissory note ("the Note"), the deed of trust ("the Deed"), and the balloon payment rider for the 2007 loan, Tamara Robinson ("Mrs. Robinson") signed only the Deed and balloon payment rider and did not sign the Note. Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged 12 U.S.C. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may 222. Id. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. 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. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. Rather, the Court finds, based on the reasoning of Tagatz and Universal Athletic Sales, that the potential violation of an ethical rule does not itself make Oliver's testimony inadmissible. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." Bouchat v. Balt. MSJ JR 0284. Fed. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. Id. Id. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. A Scheduling Order was first entered on November 24, 2015, and the period for discovery was extended four times between November 2015 and January 2017. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. LLC, No. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. P. 23(b)(3). 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. Petitioner: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC: Respondent: TAMARA ROBINSON and DEMETRIUS ROBINSON: Case Number: 19-379: Filed: September 24, 2019: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals . Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. 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. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. Tenn. Aug. 28, 2018) (holding that a spouse who signed a deed of trust stating that a person who did not sign the promissory note was not obligated on the security instrument, but did not sign the promissory note, was not a borrower under RESPA). 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. Id. 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. 702, 703. 2003). See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Ins. 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. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 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. 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. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. See, e.g., Ward v. Dixie Nat. To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. 28, 2017). Id. Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 2605(f)(2); Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20, that the individualized damages inquiry would need to precede the award of statutory damages based on a finding of a pattern-or-practice of RESPA violations is a distinction without a difference: whether individual damages are shown before or after the pattern-or-practice liability, the common issues of liability predominate over the individualized questions of damages. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Class Certif. at 359-60. Life Ins. 1024.41(a). 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. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews.