robinson v nationstar settlement
"Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." While Mr. Robinson signed the promissory note ("the Note"), the deed of trust ("the Deed"), and the balloon payment rider for the 2007 loan, Tamara Robinson ("Mrs. Robinson") signed only the Deed and balloon payment rider and did not sign the Note. 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. 2605(f)(1). The first of these prerequisites is that the class must exist and be "readily identifiable" or "ascertainable" by the court through "objective criteria." Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. See id. 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. Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.4 cmt. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - Justia Dockets & Filings See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 12 U.S.C. 2605(f). P. 23(b)(3). 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. . This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . 1024.41. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). at 983. Opp'n Mot. 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." 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. A separate Order shall issue. 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. Id. . Id. 1024.41(i). 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. Oliver's expert report focuses on the use of Nationstar's internal databases to determine whether Nationstar has systematically failed to comply with various requirements of Regulation X. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 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." See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. A Scheduling Order was first entered on November 24, 2015, and the period for discovery was extended four times between November 2015 and January 2017. Code Ann., Com. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. 2605(f)(2). See 12 C.F.R. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 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. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. 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. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division 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. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. 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. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. 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. Id. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a mortgage servicing complaint or inquiry within 15 days. 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. 2013)). 2012). While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 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. The one-time consulting fee was paid in August 2013 to PaCE, a forensic loan auditor, to advise the Robinsons on how to communicate with Nationstar and to handle their loan. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. 10696, 10836. 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. Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. 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 November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. 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. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. . Potentially eligible class members for all of these provisions can be identified through the LSAMS and Remedy data that marks that an application was received, identified as complete, and denied. Code Ann., Com. Joint Record ("MSJ JR") 0102. 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. 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. Cal. At a minimum, the question of when a loss mitigation application is "complete" under RESPA within the workflow of Nationstarwhether at the time of the processor's designation of the file as complete or at a later stageis a significant unresolved question of law and fact that would be common to all RESPA claims against Nationstar. She alleges Nationstar was sent multiple disputes by both Experian and Equifax with documentation showing the debt was forgiven, yet Nationstar persisted in reporting the debt as valid. Eligible consumers will be contacted by Nationstar or the settlement administrator about refunds under the settlement. Law 13-301(1). (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! at 300. 2010). The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . Id. 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. 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. 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. 28, 2017). Cent. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). 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. 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. 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. After this missed payment, Nationstar assessed a late fee. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 12 U.S.C. 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. Code Ann., Com. Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. Id. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. 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. Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. 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. 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."). 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. 2018). In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. 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. Fed. . These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent. 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. Code Ann., Com. Cf. 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. The predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) are designed to ensure that the class action "achieve[s] economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote[s] . HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 2010). Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. at *2. Finally, a loan servicer "is only required to comply with the requirements" of section 1024.41 "for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." Class Cert. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." 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. Since Regulation X explicitly does not require a loan servicer to provide a loan modification, the Robinsons' claim that they suffered damages because they did not receive a loan modification is not cognizable under the statute. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Fed. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. In the Amended Complaint, the Robinsons claim that Nationstar's representations that it offered many loss mitigation plans and "would evaluate" borrowers "for eligibility for all these loss mitigation plans" were false. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. However, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that other class members exist and that their joinder is impracticable; a court may not rely on mere speculation that numerosity has been satisfied. Summ. 14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.. Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. Likewise, although Mrs. Robinson expended time corresponding with Nationstar, she was not working for pay at the same time, and the Robinsons have not provided evidence to quantify the loss to Mr. Robinson, the only viable plaintiff here. cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages.
