robinson v nationstar settlement robinson v nationstar settlement

1024.41(c)(1)(i). 2605(f), caused by the violation, which likely consist of administrative fees and costs, the individual recovery available for each class member would likely be low, far below the cost of litigating the claims themselves. at 152. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. Courts have held that a person who did not sign the promissory note is not a "borrower" for the purposes of RESPA because that individual has not "assumed the loan." Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 1024.41(i). 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. Mar. See D. Md. See Md. Ass'n, No. 2605(f). At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. . 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. 1024.41(a). Throughout discovery, Nationstar repeatedly stated that it could not produce the data on loss mitigation or loan modification applications from its databases in the form requested by the Robinsons. 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. Accordingly, Nationstar did not send the Robinsons an acknowledgment letter within five days stating that it had received the application, as required by Regulation X. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. Where the PaCE consulting fee was a one-time fee to advise the Robinsons in their interactions with Nationstar paid in August 2013, several months before they first submitted the March 2014 loan modification application, this cost was incurred "whether or not [Nationstar] complied with its obligations." 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. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. For example, it was undisputed that on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson, in response to Nationstar's requests for additional information, resubmitted the same information sent with his March 2014 loan modification application. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Similarly, though the precise nature of the fees imposed was not specified, it is reasonable to infer that some were attributable to delays linked to RESPA violations. 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." USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 . 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. 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. Law 13 . Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. 2006). A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar" or "Defendant") violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by failing to adhere to its requirements with respect to its customers' loss mitigation applications and that Nationstar violated Maryland law by not timely responding 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. Id. Under the terms of the Settlement, if nothing else occurs in the litigation, then the Settlement will become effective 95 days from the date of that decision by the Court of Appeals. Factors "pertinent" to the predominance and superiority requirements include the "class members' interests in individually controlling" the litigation, whether litigation on the matter has already been begun by other class members, whether concentrating the litigation in one forum is desirable or undesirable, and the potential difficulties managing the class action presents. 2003). 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. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. Based on the language of Regulation X, the Court finds that a loss mitigation application submitted before the effective date does not count as the single application subject to the regulation. A Division of NBC Universal. at 300. The Motion will be otherwise denied. or misleading oral or written statement . 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). 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. Questions? In analyzing this question, a court compares the class representative's claims and defenses to those of the absent class members, considers the facts needed to prove the class representative's claims, and assesses the extent to which those facts would also prove the claims of the absent class members. Your Email Please enter your email. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. 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. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). All but $28.6 million of its. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. 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. 1976). R. Civ. 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. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. Summ. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". 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. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. Id. 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B) and Md. 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. 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. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. 12 U.S.C. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 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. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. Specifically, if a loss mitigation application is received "45 days or more before a foreclosure sale," the loan servicer must provide a notice to the borrower "in writing within 5 days" of receiving it in which the servicer acknowledges receipt of the application and states whether the "application is either complete or incomplete." Compl. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. Order at 2, ECF No. Reg. 2002), is misplaced. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 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. 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. Where the deed of trust explicitly states that Mrs. Robinson is not obligated on the loan, the Court finds that she is not a borrower under RESPA and cannot bring the claim against Nationstar under Regulation X. Code Ann., Com. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . Wright et al. 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." Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. . 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." 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. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. 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). 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. 1024.41 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. Thus, the nature of the proof of whether there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations provides substantial support for a finding of predominance.