robinson v nationstar settlement

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. Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged 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. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. PDF NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, D/B/A MR. COOPER, Defendant. 12 U.S.C. Id. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . 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). Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. Code Ann., Com. 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. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. 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. It will be otherwise denied. 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. 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. 10696, 10708, provides that "[a] servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." 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. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. Fed. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. Mrs. Robinson was the primary point of contact for the Robinsons in interacting with Nationstar. Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. The Deed specifies that a person who signs it but "does not execute the note" is a co-signer of the Deed in order to mortgage and convey that person's interest in the Property under the terms of the Deed, but "is not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument," and her consent is not required to alter the terms of the Deed or the Note. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 8:2014cv03667 - Justia Law The lawsuit alleges, however, that Nationstar has not made interest payments to the plaintiffs, nor provided any record that interest was accruing and due to the homeowners, at any time during or after December 1, 2018 to March 22, 2019 or May 1, 2020 through the present. PO Box 3560. Messner v. Northshore Univ. Nationstar to Pay $110 Million to Settle Borrower Claims 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. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. 2d at 1366. 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). Order at 2, ECF No. The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. Id. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, case number 8:14-cv-03667, from Maryland Court. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. 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. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." Id. R. Civ. Id. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. "Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. or other representation . Day to address discovery issues. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. See 12 C.F.R. 2605(f). To satisfy the numerosity requirement, the proposed class must be so numerous that "joinder of all members is impracticable." 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. 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. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. Code Ann., Com. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. While she is trained as a bookkeeper, at the time of the Robinsons' 2014 application for a loan modification and in the subsequent months, Mrs. Robinson was not employed in any capacity. Id. Nov. 12, 2011), the court held that a plaintiff who signed a deed of trust on a property and was a joint tenant with her son, but did not sign the promissory note, had constitutional standing to bring a RESPA claim because she stood to be injured if a default on her son's loan led to the loss of her equitable interest in the property. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. 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. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. 2018). 2010). Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. R. Evid. 2003). 2006). The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Id. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. 12 U.S.C. Code Ann., Com. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand Id. To prepare his expert report, Oliver reviewed a randomly selected sample of 400 loans serviced by Nationstar in which a loan modification application was submitted. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. Petitioner: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC: Respondent: TAMARA ROBINSON and DEMETRIUS ROBINSON: Case Number: 19-379: Filed: September 24, 2019: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals . 28, 2017). 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. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. Md. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. 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. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. 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. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). 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. is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 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. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 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. Local R. 105.6. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. 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. . See id. 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. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. 1024.41(b)(2)(B). Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. 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." 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. 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. After two more extensions were granted, based on a finding by the Magistrate Judge that "Defendant has failed to comply" with its discovery obligations and delayed the process, discovery closed on March 22, 2018. 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] . Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. 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. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. . Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B) and Md. 2014))). Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. 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. It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Here, the Robinsons have not put forward any evidence that Mrs. Robinson has an ownership interest in the home that would specifically obligate her to make payments on the loan. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) ("[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. 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. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. Under subsections (f) and (g), a loan servicer is not permitted to begin foreclosure proceedings or move for foreclosure judgment if "a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application" except in certain circumstances. 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. "[N]amed class representatives [must] demonstrate standing through a 'requisite case or controversy between themselves personally and defendants,' not merely allege that 'injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" J. 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. 2601 et seq. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, a loan servicer could not have complied with Regulation X for a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 because there was no regulation in effect with which to comply. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." 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. Id. Since neither party contends that Oliver's testimony and report are not "critical," the Court must address the Daubert challenge before reaching the question of class certification. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. 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. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. 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. Under subsection (h), if a loan servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale but then denies the application, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it. When combined with the state settlements, Nationstar is on the hook to pay a total of $91 million overall: $85 million to harmed consumers and $6 million in civil penalties. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. Class certification will be granted, with Demetrius Robinson as the named plaintiff, as to both the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Class for the claims under 12 C.F.R. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. 2605(f)(1). ; 78 Fed. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. . Jennings' office said that these new standards are more robust than existing law and will be in place for three years starting in January 2021. 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."). The Borrower Payment Amount shall be used: (1) for payments to borrowers who submit claims and are in either or both of the Service Transfer and Property Preservation Populations set forth below; and (2) for reasonable costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, including taxes and fees for tax counsel. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. 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. Likewise, the articulated concern that Nationstar would not be required to respond to loss mitigation applications filed within a certain number of days of a foreclosure sale, can be addressed through the provision of data relating to the dates of scheduled foreclosure sales. Bouchat v. Balt. Auto. R. Evid. 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. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. 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. Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements, Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018, Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois, latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. 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. Code Ann., Com. Md. 13-316(e)(1). 2016) (dicta). Am. Cf. The language of the regulation states not that a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X's requirements only for a borrower's first loss mitigation application, but that a loan servicer must "comply with the requirements" only "for a single complete loss mitigation application." 2605(f)(2). In contrast, Nationstar maintains that there is no way to reliably identify when a loss mitigation application is submitted or complete using codes and status change entries in its existing software, and that the only way to make those determinations is through a file-by-file review. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . 2005))). Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). 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.