See id. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. 2. Where the Robinsons, after discovery, cannot point to evidence that Nationstar did not even consider or evaluate the Robinsons for loss mitigation options, they have not established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of false or misleading statements. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. Id. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). 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. Fed. at 151. 1024.41(b)(1). May 31, 2016), the plaintiff had signed the deed of trust but not the promissory note but was nevertheless deemed to have standing because she had owned the home with a right of survivorship with her deceased husband, who had signed the note. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. 702. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. Commonality requires that a class have "questions of law or fact common to the class" which are capable of classwide resolution, such that the determination of the truth or falsity of the common issue "will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." 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. Although Monday's case specifically addresses Nationstar's actions following the Great Recession, the outcome can affect today's homeowners, says Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). Finally, while Nationstar presented arguments for why the Robinsons have not shown damages as to most of the asserted categories, it did not advance any argument for why the interest damages claimed by the Robinsons were not attributable to Nationstar's Regulation X violations and thus is not entitled to summary judgment on that issue. 1024.41(i). McLean I, 595 F. Supp. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. "When these issues were identified several years ago, we immediately made restitution to our impacted customers and invested in process improvements to prevent reoccurrence," Jay Bray, CEO and chairman of Mr. Cooper said in a statement Monday. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." Code Ann., Com. . P. 23(b)(3). 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. Summ. While it is not necessary to identify every class member at the time of certification for a class to be "ascertainable," a class cannot be certified if its membership must be determined through "individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. 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. Sep. 9, 2019). Portland, OR 97208-3560. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. 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. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." First, as a threshold matter, the Court notes that in ruling on Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will grant judgment in favor of Nationstar as to Mrs. Robinson's claims, Mr. Robinson's RESPA claims under 12 C.F.R. All Rights Reserved. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. All but $28.6 million of its. Id. 2003). After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. Id. Id. For the requirements that hinge on the timing of a communication or response, Oliver's methodology consists of using Nationstar's data from the LSAMS and FileNet software applications relating to a sample of 400 loans to identify the dates when certain events occurredsuch as the filing of a loan modification application, when a loan modification application became complete, and the sending of an acknowledgment or decision letter to a borrowerand then counting the days between the dates to assess whether a RESPA timing requirement was satisfied. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. 2010). 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 allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. 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. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. 1024.41(i). at *5. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. Mot. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. Code Ann., Com. In focusing on whether RESPA violations can be established through computerized analysis rather than individual file review, the parties lose track of the fact that because statutory damages are predicated on a finding that there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations, that issue common to almost any individual claim plays an outsized role in the predominance analysis. 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. 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. 12 C.F.R. The court, however, did not explain how in the absence of any obligation to pay back to the Note, the plaintiff qualified as a "borrower" under the RESPA statute. R. Evid. Ohio 2014). This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. See 12 C.F.R. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. "[A] trial court should consider the specific factors identified in Daubert where they are reasonable measures of the reliability of expert testimony." 12 U.S.C. The Court will not revisit this determination. 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 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. Local R. 105.6. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. 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." 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. 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. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. 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. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 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." 12 C.F.R. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. at 248-49. See id. Code Ann., Com. See id. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. Id. Code Ann., Com. For a class action brought for violations of Regulation X, a servicer is liable for "actual damages to each of the borrowers in the class" and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of noncompliance, statutory damages amounting to a maximum of $2,000 per class member up to a total of the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the servicer's net worth. Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. 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. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. 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. R. Evid. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 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. Id 1024.41(c)(1). 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." Reg. . Relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Nationstar's partial Motion to Dismiss. 125. 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. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. The use of a class action is primarily justified on the grounds of efficiency, because it advances judicial economy to resolve common issues affecting all class members in a single action. 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." 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. 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. News Ask a Lawyer Part 1024). If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. 2013). 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)(A)). 222. In addition to the fee paid to PaCE, the Robinsons also assert as damages $50.58 in administrative costs, specifically postage fees for sending information relating to their loan modification application to Nationstar, and 120 hours of time expended on the loan modification process. Law 13-316(c). If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. See, e.g. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. Furthermore, determining whether statutory damages are available will require no individualized consideration, because the pattern-or-practice claim "would be based solely on" Nationstar's conduct and can be established through sampling. Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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). 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. Order at 2, ECF No. 2015). Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. LLC, No. As for the claims of errors in Oliver's analysis, although this criticism is couched as his "misunderstanding the nature of Nationstar's various databases," Nationstar largely challenges Oliver's failure to use particular data fields, some which were never made available to him. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. 12 C.F.R. After attempts to modify their 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. "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 1024.41(d). A separate Order shall issue. Code Ann., Com. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Life Ins. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." 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. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Id. Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. 2601(a). On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 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. HARRISBURG Attorney General Josh Shapiro, as part of a multistate effort, today announced that his office obtained an $86.3 million settlement from Nationstar Mortgage, the country's fourth-largest mortgage servicer. Questions? Code Ann., Com. Home Loans, No. MCC JR 0003. See 12 C.F.R. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. The plaintiff's claim "cannot be so different from the claims of absent class members that their claims will not be advanced by" proof of the plaintiff's own individual claim. 2017) (holding that "incidental costs related to the sending of correspondence" to the servicer, including "postage and travel," are not actual damages under RESPA because such a rule "would transform virtually all unsatisfactory borrower inquiries into RESPA lawsuits"). at *2. 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. 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." If the loan servicer denies a loan modification application where the complete application was received more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it by stating in writing whether the appeal was granted and a loan modification will be offered. The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. 2018). The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. First, to the extent that there was a period of time during which Nationstar failed to implement procedures to comply with RESPA, the facts establishing such a gap would be highly relevant to a pattern or practice determination and would be common in every case. Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. Am. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. 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. Order, ECF No. Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert.