robinson v nationstar settlement check

robinson v nationstar settlement check

Section 13-316(c) governs "mortgage servicing" and, among other requirements, provides that a "servicer shall designate a contact to whom mortgagors may direct complaints and inquiries" and that the "contact shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested." 2010). Ohio 2014). 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. . 2002), is misplaced. For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Strike will be DENIED; and the Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. See Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. If the loan servicer denies a loan modification application where the complete application was received more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it by stating in writing whether the appeal was granted and a loan modification will be offered. : 1-855-914-4649 (Toll-Free) / 1-855-535-1813 (TTY) Nationstar, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Consent Order. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. . "[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.'" See, e.g. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. . 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. 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. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. See id. 1976). 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. 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. 2. 12 U.S.C. . Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Code Ann., Com. Md. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452. Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. 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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Id. 2005))). . Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 2014). Id. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. Id. . 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. LLC, No. 1967). 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. 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. Feb. 14, 2017) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded damages under the MCPA where she alleged that the defendant's failures to respond "resulted in the continual assessment of accruing interest, fees and costs on the mortgage account," as well as "stress, physical sickness, headaches, sleep deprivation, worry, and pecuniary expenses"). v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator PO Box 3560 Portland, OR 97208-3560 877-683-9363 Class Counsel Rafey S. Balabanian EDELSON PC Defense Counsel Abraham J. Colman Raymond Y. Kim REED SMITH LLP Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. R. Civ. 1024.41(d). That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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. White setting Settlement Conference for 10/3/2023 at 9:00 AM in Chambers, Room 327, US Courthouse, . Likewise, Oliver's expert report provides no analysis on how Nationstar's databases allow for a systematic determination whether Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of the specific reasons for the servicer's decision to deny each loan modification option, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1998). 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. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator PO Box 3560 Years later, the parties filed a notice of settlement. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 12 C.F.R. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. Nationstar said in a statement that its settlements were based on "loan-servicing practices" that the company used between 2010 and 2015 and has since discontinued. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. 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. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. Class Members included all U.S. consumers who received a robocall on their cell phone from Nationstar between October 2015 and March 2016. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. . See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Based on the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion to dismiss (doc. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. 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. 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loss mitigation application; 12 C.F.R. 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. The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." 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. 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. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar argues that Oliver's methodology has not been peer reviewed, has a high error rate because he used the wrong data fields to identify the dates of events, failed to consider the timing of foreclosure sales relative to the dates of the submission of loan modification applications, and did not propose a specific methodology for calculating damages. Although the Robinsons contend that they would have pursued other loss mitigation options in the absence of the RESPA violations, they have not identified any such options in a way that would permit a calculation of damages associated with any lost opportunity. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. 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. at *5. Because Oliver analyzed proprietary databases and data specifically disclosed for this litigation pursuant to a protective order, such that Oliver's peers lack access to the same information, Oliver's expert testimony is not of the type that ordinarily would be subject to peer review, and it would be unfair to require "general acceptance within a relevant scientific community." There is no reason to conclude that individual class members have any particular interest in individually controlling the litigation through separate actions, or that this Court is an undesirable forum to host this litigation, since Nationstar services loans in this district, is subject to jurisdiction here, and has presented no argument that Maryland is an inconvenient forum. 2006). 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. Code Ann., Com. Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. Claimants will receive their payments via check. 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." 222. 1024.41(a). 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"). MCC JR 530. As a result, on January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted the Robinsons' Motion to Compel in which the Robinsons had sought to have the Court order Nationstar to accept and run scripts created by the Robinsons' expert to extract the relevant data from Nationstar's databases on the sample of loans from which they could test their methodology for identifying members of the proposed classes. 125. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into between plaintiff Demetrius Robinson ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class Members (as defined below), and defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar"). In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan. 1990) (citing Universal Athletic favorably for this proposition). The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. . 12 C.F.R. 143. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. 218. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. 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 an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. 3d at 1014. Id. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. Moreover, although the court stated that an arrangement for providing expert testimony for a contingent fee would violate public policy, the court did not address the question of the admissibility of evidence at issue here. LLC, No. 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. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. 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. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent. 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. 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. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. R. Civ. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. 303 0 obj <> endobj 19-303.4 cmt.3. During discovery, Oliver revealed that his fee arrangement with the Robinsons includes a flat fee for his expert services, but that a portion of the fee is contingent on the certification of a class in this case. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. 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. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. 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. 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. Code Ann., Com. 26-1. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. Based on his experience and review of deposition transcripts of Nationstar employees, Oliver asserts that Nationstar has computerized data from which RESPA violations may be identified, not least because Nationstar must be able to demonstrate its compliance with RESPA to regulators. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. 1024.41(a). Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging. Nationstar's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. The language of the regulation states not that a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X's requirements only for a borrower's first loss mitigation application, but that a loan servicer must "comply with the requirements" only "for a single complete loss mitigation application." Law 13-301(1). A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. 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 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. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." Id. 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. 1024.41(b)(1). Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). 2003). P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. 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. . When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. See MCC JR0529-31. The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. MSJ JR 0284. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. Md. According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. 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. 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. Fed. at 300. 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. Id. Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging that the company failed to honor mortgage forbearance agreements and unfairly foreclosed on homeowners. Mrs. Robinson was the primary point of contact for the Robinsons in interacting with Nationstar. 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.

Riding Dirt Bikes On Private Property, Mk Citizen Obituaries, Hadineeon Electric Kettle User Manual, Articles R