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. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 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. See 12 C.F.R. Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged 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." ("MCC") 2, ECF No. Id. 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. 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. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. These claims do not have to be factually or legally identical, but the class claims should be fairly encompassed by those of the named plaintiffs. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. 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." James Robinson v. National Student Clearinghouse Toggle navigation Home Commonly Asked Questions Documents The Court approved the settlement at the July 7, 2020 Fairness Hearing. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. EQT Prod. 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. 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. Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 2006). 1024.41. According to Oliver, to determine that certain disclosures or specific information were conveyed to borrowers, the "objectid" field used in FileNet can be used to identify the type of letter sent. 1 . 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. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 222. Life Ins. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. While Mrs. Robinson stated that she was conducting bookkeeping for Green Earth Services during the relevant time frame, she testified that her work was less than six hours per week, and the Robinsons have not shown that her time spent communicating with Nationstar "resulted in actual pecuniary loss" to Mr. Robinson or the business. More importantly, while a determination of an individual violation would not require extensive analysis, specific proof of a pattern or practice of RESPA violations in any individual case would be a substantial undertaking, likely requiring the same type of complex analysis proposed here: a sampling of Nationstar files, compilation of all relevant data for such files, expert analysis to identify violations, and an assessment whether the identified violations are sufficient to establish a pattern or practice of violations. Cal. . The Class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC. 1024.41(a). or other representation . After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. Although similar to Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, the test for predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is "far more demanding" and "tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." 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." Furthermore, to the extent that the Robinsons' claim is that Nationstar falsely stated that it would evaluate the Robinsons for all available loss mitigation plans, the Robinsons point only to statements in letters that the Robinsons "may" be eligible for certain non-HAMP loan modification programs. The distinction is crucial. Id. Code Ann., Com. 2004). 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. Fed. Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). 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. See 12 C.F.R. Reg. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 164. 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. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. Presently pending is Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, Nationstar's Motion to Strike, and the Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification. 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. 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. v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. MSJ JR 0284. These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. 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. 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. 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. 2605(f). 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. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. Id. Code Ann., Com. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. On July 17, 2014, Nationstar informed Mr. Robinson by letter that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For the claims that rely on the timing of a response, Oliver and the Robinsons propose using changes in the Remedy Star substatus or LSAMS codes and documents stored in FileNet to identify the date a loan modification application was received or marked as complete, to identify the date a response was sent, and to count the number of days between events. Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. That is not so here. 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. After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. 2018). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 1:2021cv00452 | US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | Justia Log In Sign Up Find a Lawyer Ask a Lawyer Research the Law Law Schools Laws & Regs Newsletters Marketing Solutions Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Robinson v. The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. Class certification will be granted, with Demetrius Robinson as the named plaintiff, as to both the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Class for the claims under 12 C.F.R. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. In Washington v. Am. Id. Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). PO Box 3560. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Although Nationstar argues that Mr. Robinson has a conflict of interest because he wishes to avoid foreclosure and to delay payments on his mortgage, the record does not reflect that proposition. Id 1024.41(c)(1). The Complaint asserts two claims. 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." The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." 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. 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. 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. Thus, a loan servicer could not have complied with Regulation X for a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 because there was no regulation in effect with which to comply. 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. 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"). Fed. Claim Your Cash Every Week! 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). 2605(f). 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. 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. at 358. Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. Md. FCRA). 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. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Code Ann., Com. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. Id. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. at 359-60. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. Fed. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. MCC JR 318, 530-531. 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." 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. For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. MCC JR 0003. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. 1024.41(d). is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). When considering whether expert testimony is reliable or should be excluded, the court considers the following factors: "When an expert's report or testimony is 'critical to class certification,'" the district court "must make a conclusive ruling on any challenge to that expert's qualifications or submissions before it may rule on a motion for class certification." 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. 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. Code Ann., Com. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. 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. 2605(f)(2). "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. Portland, OR 97208-3560. 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. 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. . Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. It will be otherwise denied. "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. Md. 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. 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. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. LLCNo. 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. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. See MCC JR0529-31. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. LLC, No. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. 12 U.S.C. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. Commonality requires that a class have "questions of law or fact common to the class" which are capable of classwide resolution, such that the determination of the truth or falsity of the common issue "will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." Finally, while Nationstar presented arguments for why the Robinsons have not shown damages as to most of the asserted categories, it did not advance any argument for why the interest damages claimed by the Robinsons were not attributable to Nationstar's Regulation X violations and thus is not entitled to summary judgment on that issue. 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. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 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. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. 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. Cal. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. All but $28.6 million of its. 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. 19-303.4 cmt.3. J. at 152. LLC, No. Code Ann., Com. Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made.
Realtors Must Discover And Disclose, Articles R