2605(f)(1). The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." Id. Fed. The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. 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. Congress enacted RESPA to protect consumers from "unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices" in the real estate mortgage industry, and to ensure "that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process." 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 1024.41(b)(2)(B). Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." 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. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . Class Cert. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Civil Action No. TDC-14-3667 Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. Law 13 . 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. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 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). McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. On September 9, 2014, Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson a letter denying the loan modification application and stating that it could not offer him any modification because his income was not high enough to cover the mortgage payments under any modification option. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. More Information Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." 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. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. 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. 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 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. 1967). . Code Ann., Com. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. From January 2012 to December 2016, the CFPB and 50 state attorneys general claim Nationstar, which is now doing business asMr. Cooper, engaged in a number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. 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. Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. . Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 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. 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. MCC JR 0003. 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. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. Law 13-301 and 13-303, and that Mr. Robinson therefore may not assert such claims on behalf of the class, Mr. Robinson's remaining claims and defenses are typical of the class members. MCC JR 530. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. Reg. 2014))). A complete loss mitigation application is "an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower." Id. 1024.41(a). (2000) (reflecting that the prior version of the rules of professional conduct prohibited an attorney from "acquiesc[ing] in the payment of compensation to a witness contingent on the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case"). P. 23(b)(3). Id. 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." R. Civ. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. Subsequent to the Court's approval, one of the objectors to the settlement filed an appeal. The "Nationwide Class" is composed of "[a]ll persons in the United States that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." 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). Life Ins. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. 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. 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. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Amchem Prods. 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." As to the third denial on November 7, 2013, Nationstar informed the Robinsons that the loan modification application was denied because the mortgage loan was not in default. . Nationstar's criticism that Oliver failed to use the correct data field to identify the date when a loss mitigation application was complete, and failed to consider the timing of application relative to the date of scheduled foreclosure sale, ring hollow because Nationstar provided to Oliver only limited data fields, which did not contain clear field names or definitions. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Auto. Law 13-301(1). 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. . 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. 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. JA 130. 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. . or misleading oral or written statement . 877-683-9363. 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. On March 8, 2014, Nationstar sent to Mr. Robinson a letter stating that he was ineligible for a HAMP modification, but on March 15, 2014, it sent a different letter offering a loan modification under which Mr. Robinson would receive a reduced interest rate for two years. 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. 702. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 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. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. 1976) (holding that while it may be unethical for a lawyer to testify on behalf of a client as an expert, "it does not necessarily follow that any alleged professional misconduct" would require exclusion of the testimony because the rules of professional conduct do "not delineate rules of evidence"); United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 26 (4th Cir. "There are going to be a lot of homeowners who need a home loan modification or other assistance," Raoul says. Nationstar Mortgage agreed to settle an action commenced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for $91 million to resolve allegations surrounding mortgage servicing misconduct and deceptive practices that resulted in financial harm to borrowers. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," 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. 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. 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. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. 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. 2. 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. In their memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition"), the Robinsons admit that they "do not have evidence that Nationstar dual tracked them" or began foreclosure proceedings while a loan modification application was pending. WASHINGTON, D.C. 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. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Mar. Id. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. at 358. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 8:2014cv03667 - Justia Law 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. 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. Nationstar to pay $91 million to settle claims of it harmed - CNBC Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 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." 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. The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. "); cf. If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. 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. Md. Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. The trial court granted the motion over the Robinsons' objection, noting in its order that Nationstar had now waived its claim for attorney feesthe claim that had been the sole impediment to a final judgment being entered after the trial court granted Nationstar's request to reopen the evidence after entry of the initial final judgment. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Id. Opp'n Mot. The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. They do not seek damages in the Amended Complaint for emotional distress or include such a claim in their itemized list of damages submitted in discovery. Eligible consumers will be contacted by Nationstar or the settlement administrator about refunds under the settlement. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar moves to strike the report of the Robinsons' expert witness, Geoffrey Oliver, on the grounds that (1) Oliver was hired pursuant to an ethically improper contingency fee agreement; and (2) his testimony does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Cal. Maryland's Commissioner of Financial Regulation Announces Settlement 702, 703. 1024.41(f), (g). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. 1024.41(b)(1). Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a loan modification application within 30 days of receipt of a complete loss mitigation application and provide notice of appeal rights; 12 C.F.R. For the claims that rely on the timing of a response, Oliver and the Robinsons propose using changes in the Remedy Star substatus or LSAMS codes and documents stored in FileNet to identify the date a loan modification application was received or marked as complete, to identify the date a response was sent, and to count the number of days between events. To the extent that, as Nationstar claims, such a determination could not be fully accomplished through computerized analysis alone, the resources needed to resolve this question would be even greater, such that the importance of having it resolved in a common fashion for all claims would be heightened. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No.