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. 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. 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not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). Cent. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. Mr. Cooper Withdraws Mortgage Payments Without - Class Action May 31, 2016), the plaintiff had signed the deed of trust but not the promissory note but was nevertheless deemed to have standing because she had owned the home with a right of survivorship with her deceased husband, who had signed the note. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . In Pennsylvania, the settlement affected 2,234 loans for a total of $2.75 million in restitution for these borrowers. Under a provision of Regulation X entitled "Loss mitigation procedures," mortgage servicers must take certain steps when a borrower applies for loss mitigation measures, such as the loan modifications sought in this case. Id. MSJ JR 0284. A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. 12 C.F.R. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th 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. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. 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. Md. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. 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. Nationstar Mortgage Robocall Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed : 1-855-914-4649 (Toll-Free) / 1-855-535-1813 (TTY) Nationstar, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Consent Order. Id. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. %PDF-1.6 % 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. 2605(f). 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. In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. 1967). Code Ann., Com. Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. . 1998). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. EQT Prod. 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. 2003) ("[I]f Lierboe has no stacking claim, she cannot represent others who may have such a claim, and her bid to serve as a class representative must fail. 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. The public policy interest at issue was one against "stirring up litigation or promoting litigating for the benefit of the promoter rather than for the benefit of the litigant or the public," an interest not implicated in the same manner by the fee arrangement with the particular expert witness in this case. A class action may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) if common questions of law or fact "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" and a "class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Nationstar's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Although this data was not provided to Oliver, there is no reason it could not be produced and used to make determinations on the timeliness of decisions on loss mitigation applications. 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. Law 13-316(c). 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"). The Court agrees that costs, including administrative costs, "incurred whether or not the servicer complied with its obligations" are not actual damages "caused by, or 'a result of,'" the RESPA violation, whether or not they occurred before or after the violation. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the Robinsons' MCPA claim under section 13-316 because the Robinsons have not shown that they submitted a complaint or inquiry that triggers a duty to respond. CFPB Takes Action Against Nationstar Mortgage for Flawed Mortgage Loan Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. Code Ann., Com. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. Settlement Pool $12,100,000 Settlement Website Nationstar Class Action Settlement Deadline 04/11/2016 Contact Wright et al. Id. Joint Record ("MSJ JR") 0102. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, 6 signs you have too much debtand how to pay it off, These states have the highest minimum wage in 2023, Taylor Swift avoided an FTX lawsuit by asking a simple question, Will student loan forgiveness pass the Supreme Court? 1024.41(d). After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. 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. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. The Robinsons allege that Nationstar has assessed $256 per month in late fees, interest, and other fees due to the delinquency, and that they have spent considerable time and effort pursuing the loss mitigation process, time which they otherwise would have devoted to their struggling small business. 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." Class Members included all U.S. consumers who received a robocall on their cell phone from Nationstar between October 2015 and March 2016. 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. In December 2020, Nationstar (d/b/a Mr. Cooper) reached a settlement with the CFPB, the State Attorneys General, and certain state mortgage regulators to resolve old regulatory matters. 2605(f). In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. 12 C.F.R. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. While the Nationstar employee who conducts the initial processing of an application may refer it to an underwriter based on its facial completeness, the underwriter makes the final determination of whether the application is complete and is responsible for obtaining any additional required documentation. 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. Settlement Website www.AutomatedPhoneCallSettlement.com Claims Administrator Wright et al. 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. P. 23(b)(3). 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. 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. Fed. In Accrued Financial, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that where commercial real estate tenants assigned their potential claims against their landlords to a commercial real estate auditor under an arrangement through which the auditor would receive a percentage of any recovery in litigation, the assignments violated public policy because where the auditor's employees could testify in such litigation, the assignments "provide for supplying expert testimony for a contingent fee." If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. Nationstar Mortgage TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement 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. 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. Id. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Mot. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. 27. judge. 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. Opp'n Mot. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered Nationstar Mortgage LLC to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for violating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 through 2014. . On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. 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. 325 0 obj <>stream Id. 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). Discovery Order, ECF No. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 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). . Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext Thus, the Court concludes that, while Nationstar may have defenses as to some borrowers, the common proof that establishes the asserted violations, as well as the common question of whether the Robinsons can prove a pattern-or-practice violation by Nationstar, will predominate over the individual issues as to these claims. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. 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. 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. See Md. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. Code Ann., Com. Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. 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. Moreover, Nationstar cites no authority for the proposition that a loss mitigation application would not be deemed "complete" for purposes of RESPA upon such a formal designation, and any rule that would deem such an application incomplete in the event that an underwriter subsequently decided to ask for additional material would be entirely unworkable. Sept. 2, 2015). See 12 C.F.R. 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. . 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. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. For the requirements that hinge on the timing of a communication or response, Oliver's methodology consists of using Nationstar's data from the LSAMS and FileNet software applications relating to a sample of 400 loans to identify the dates when certain events occurredsuch as the filing of a loan modification application, when a loan modification application became complete, and the sending of an acknowledgment or decision letter to a borrowerand then counting the days between the dates to assess whether a RESPA timing requirement was satisfied. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. Mot. The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. It will be otherwise denied. 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"). Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. Nationstar to pay $91 million to settle claims of it harmed - CNBC Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." Nationstar employees use four software applications and databases to store and track electronic information relating to loans: (1) Loan Services and Accounting Management System ("LSAMS"), Nationstar's primary loan servicing software, which contains data for loans, including the permanent records of the accounting history, communication logs, and letters documented with codes that were sent to the borrower; (2) Remedy Star, Nationstar's proprietary loss mitigation and loan modification management system, which, among other tasks, tracks the status and timeline of a loan modification and links to documents stored in FileNet; (3) LPS Desktop ("LPS"), an application which Nationstar uses to track and manage foreclosure processes and communicate with outside attorneys; and (4) FileNet, a platform that houses PDF images of documents, including letters sent to borrowers by Nationstar. 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. MCC JR 0003. RECITALS (quoting East Tex. 1024.41(i). Code Ann., Com. 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. 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. The entry under "objected" acts as a unique identifier for an electronic file, but it does not contain information about the file's substance and could in fact contain multiple submissions or documents relating to one borrower. 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. Since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nationstar violated subsection (h), summary judgment will be entered for Nationstar on that claim. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator PO Box 3560 Law 13-301 and 303. 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. 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. Nationstar also does not argue that the class is not numerous, as there approximately 33,855 members who submitted loss mitigation applications from January 10, 2014 to March 30, 2014. Please check back in late January for updates. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) ("In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met."). That is not so here. even after that settlement was reached. Likewise, he concluded that for approximately 53 percent of sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement of acknowledging receipt of the application within five days. 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. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . Nationstar 2013). The defendant is accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by robocalling consumers regarding a home loan. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. 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 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. Where such statements in no way promise approval, the Robinsons appear to claim that such statements are false or misleading because Nationstar never intended to, and did not, evaluate the Robinsons for the various loss mitigation options.