robinson v nationstar settlement robinson v nationstar settlement

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 to its customers mortgage servicing complaints. 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. Because such a common question would have to be resolved in many if not all individual cases, it advances, rather than undermines, the argument in favor of predominance. He was retained by the Robinsons under an arrangement through which he is to be paid a flat fee of $125,000: $62,500 up front, with an additional $62,500 to be paid if a class is certified in this case. He is joined by 49 other Attorneys General, the District of Columbia, and other state and federal agencies. Joint Record ("MSJ JR") 0102. In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (4th Cir. 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. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. Cent. While Mr. Robinson sought to reduce his monthly mortgage payment in applying for a loan modification, his deposition testimony reflects that he understands that the present lawsuit contends that Nationstar did not process the Robinsons' loan modification application correctly. Fed. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. 12 C.F.R. 2601 et seq. . 12 U.S.C. 2605(f)(2), "Rule 23 contains no suggestion that the necessity for individual damage determinations destroys commonality, typicality, or predominance, or otherwise forecloses class certification." Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. Where the Robinsons may be able to show that they have suffered actual damages, their claim for statutory damages, upon a showing that Nationstar has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, remains viable. 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. 2010). The economic challenges and burdens that homeowners currently face are similar to the ones experienced following the Great Recession. Presently pending is Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, Nationstar's Motion to Strike, and the Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. 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. 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. 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. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. Where the cost of litigation as compared to the potential recovery gives class members little incentive to bring suit, and there is little reason to individually control the litigation, a class action is a superior method to vindicate the rights of class members. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). Portland, OR 97208-3560. LLC, No. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division 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. See 12 C.F.R. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 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. A dispute of material fact is only "genuine" if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists for the trier of fact to return a verdict for that party. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. Because there are, at a minimum, disputed issues of fact as to what fees, administrative costs, and interest constitute damages, the Court will deny the motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual damages. Life Ins. "There are going to be a lot of homeowners who need a home loan modification or other assistance," Raoul says. Mich. 2016), at least one district court has held that loan servicers need not comply with Regulation X if the borrower had previously submitted a loss mitigation application before the January 10, 2014 effective date, see Trionfo v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3d 254, 274-75 (S.D.N.Y. 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. 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."). A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. . 12 U.S.C. Id. 2006). Cal. 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. 2010). Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Multiple States Enter into 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. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). 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. Id. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Am. 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." 2013)). R. Evid. cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. . Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. Mot. 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. 125. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. 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. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. 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. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for actual damages and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of non-compliance by the servicer, up to $2,000 in statutory damages. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." 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." 1024.41(h)(1), (4). At this juncture, this allegation plausibly supports a finding of willful noncompliance. 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." 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. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." Mar. 26-1. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 "We want to hear from you," Raoul says. at 151. 1 . If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. 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."). Id. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. 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." Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. 1024.41(i). Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. Sept. 29, 2021). ; 78 Fed. Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. 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. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. 2003). 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. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 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. See D. Md. EQT Prod. Code Ann., Com. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. . The commonality requirement is also met. That is not so here. Nationstar's claim that the above-described coding is not dispositive, because an underwriter could subsequently determine that more information was needed after all, is not persuasive. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. The distinction is crucial. All but $28.6 million of its. 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. Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. Fed. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. Plaintiff and Class Representative Demetrius Robinson, along with Class Counsel Tycko & Zavareei LLP and The Bestor Law Firm, respectfully move this Court for an award of $1,300,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as a $5,000 service award for Mr. Robinson. 12 C.F.R. Id. Id. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. 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." Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Id. Code Ann., Com. Claim Your Cash Every Week! The Court will address the varying claims in turn. In its complaint, filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia, the Bureau alleges that Nationstar engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and violated the Homeowner's Protection Act of 1998 (HPA). 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). 3d at 1014. 2605(f). If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. Sept. 2, 2015). Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. McAdams v. Nationstar Mortg. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 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. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loan modification application; or 12 C.F.R. To establish an MCPA violation under this provision, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation; (2) the plaintiff relied upon the representation; and (3) doing so caused the plaintiff actual injury. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. Code Ann., Com. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 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. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . An 85-year Harvard study found the No. See Md. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. 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. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. Code Ann., Com. 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. 2d at 1366. Ohio 2014). Id. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. 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. 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. 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). The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. 2605(f)(1)(A)). Id. More Information PDF In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit See 12 C.F.R. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Florida Appeals Court Reverses Mortgage Foreclosure - Pike & Lustig, LLP The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. JA 130. Nationstar admits that in March 2014, two months after the implementation date of Regulation X, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with the regulation. 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC | 2015 WL 4994491 | D. Md. | Judgment To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." Because Oliver's methodology is reliable within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and Daubert, Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be denied. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D.