See Fed. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Day to address discovery issues. uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. . Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against 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. 2010). Eligible consumers will be contacted by Nationstar or the settlement administrator about refunds under the settlement. The distinction is crucial. 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. Cal. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 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. 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. 2010). 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. 12 C.F.R. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. 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. A $3.8 million settlement has been reached in a Nationstar convenience fee class action lawsuit, which claimed that the mortgage lender wrongfully charged convenience fees to their consumers when making payments on past due accounts. 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. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 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. Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. 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. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 2013)). Id. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). Id. 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. Code Ann., Com. A separate Order shall issue. If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. 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. 143. 2010). 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. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. See Stillmock, 385 F. App'x at 274 ("[T]here is no reasoned basis to conclude that the fact that an individual plaintiff can recover attorney's fees in addition to statutory damages of up to $1,000 will result in enforcement of [the Fair Credit Reporting Act] by individual actions of a scale comparable to the potential enforcement by way of class action."). The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. Sep. 9, 2019). Law 13-316(c). The "Maryland Subclass" consists of "[a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. Nationstar Mortgage Robocall Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed Id. 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." Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. 2605(f). Nationstar Mortgage TCPA Class Action Settlement 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. 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. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. 12 U.S.C. Finally, Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the RESPA claims because the Robinsons cannot establish that they have suffered actual damages as a result of Nationstar's violations of Regulation X. Your Email Please enter your email. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. 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. Moreover, because borrowers often submit multiple loan modification applications, and because Nationstar's data is stored at the loan level, not at the application level, Nationstar claims that it is not possible to tell from the data alone, without reviewing the files, whether a status or code change is in response to a specific loan modification application. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Id. . 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. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. See id. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. He asserts that damages to borrowers can be calculated based on entries in LSAMS and other data showing that fees were assessed, and that it would be possible to identify which fees would not have been assessed but for a RESPA violation. at 248-49. 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. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. MSJ JR 0284. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. 1976). Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC - law360.com 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." 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. Code Ann., Com. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Nationstar Mortgage Convenience Fee Class Action Settlement Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . 2010). 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. If the application is complete "more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale," the servicer may not move for a foreclosure judgment or conduct a foreclosure sale, but instead must first "[e]valuate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," send to the borrower "a notice in writing stating the servicer's determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer," and include a statement of applicable appeal rights. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Local R. 105.6. JA 130. 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. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 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. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. When those scripts did not produce data that allowed the Robinsons to conduct the sampling, the Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar on April 3, 2018 to run certain "structural scripts" on two of its four databases. At different stages in the processing of a loan modification application, Nationstar employees enter certain codes into certain databases, and certain information can be stored and accessed through those applications. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. Distribution of funds to Class Members, however, could not occur because a member of the Class filed an objection to the Settlement and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." 3d at 1014. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. 877-683-9363. 28, 2017). Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. 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. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. 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. An "unfair or deceptive" trade practice includes a "false . is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). Fed. Code Ann., Com. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. MCC JR 318, 530-531. 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." 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. 2004). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) ("[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." at 983. 1972). The Complaint asserts two claims. Robinson v Nationstar - Home The data derived from scripts written by another expert, Abraham J. Wyner, without the benefit of seeing the databases, a process necessitated by Nationstar's unwillingness or inability to produce the relevant data. 19-303.4 cmt.3. See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. Claim Your Cash Every Week! Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. Others, however, have concluded that "all expenses, costs, fees, and injuries fairly attributable to" a servicer's RESPA violation are damages, "even if incurred before the" violation, because the "wrongful act . In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. . 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. Fed. 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Id. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). 1024.41(h)(1). 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." Mot. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. The commonality requirement is also met. 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B) and Md. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). See Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 374 F. App'x 868, 873 (11th Cir. 2605(f)(1). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (8:14-cv-03667) Code Ann., Com. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cf. To calculate damages, Oliver stated that he would look to data from the LSAMS application, including data tables that contain fee information, to identify fees that would not have been charged but for Nationstar's various RESPA violations, but that he was not able to evaluate this data in his report because it had not been provided to him. 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. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 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. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . 2003). Thus, based on his report and experience, Oliver concludes that Nationstar "failed to comply" with Regulation X and that it is possible to "identify violations" of Regulation X "using the methodologies" he described, without the necessity of a file-by-file review. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. 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. The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. If the initial application is not complete, a different Remedy Star substatus notation and LSAMS code are entered, and a letter is created and sent to the borrower asking for the required documents. 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. 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. Summ. 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. A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. 2605(f)(1)(A)). Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. Home [robinsonsettlement.com] Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 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. Nationstar Mortgage Agrees to $91M Settlement with the CFPB