Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. For the Regulation X provisions that require the servicer to communicate specific information to a borrower, Oliver's methodology involves reviewing a sample of loan files and identifying a specific communication to a borrower based on the file name. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. 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. Fed. Fed. It will be otherwise denied. 13-316(e)(1). 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. According to Nationstar's Underwriting Workflow Procedures, which sets forth the steps followed to review loans for modifications, when a borrower submits a loan modification application, a code is entered into LSAMS and updates the loan's substatus in Remedy Star. ; 78 Fed. Part 1024). Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. 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. McAdams v. Nationstar Mortg. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. 1024.41(d). 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. The Court will not revisit this determination. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . 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. "); cf. Actual damages may include late fees; denial of credit or access to the full amount of a credit line; out-of-pocket expenses incurred in dealing with a RESPA violation, such as expenses for preparing and copying correspondence; and lost time and inconvenience, including time spent away from employment while preparing correspondence "to the extent it resulted in actual pecuniary loss." 2018). 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. Mot. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. . 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. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." at 983. 2605(f)(1). Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against Nationstar Mortgage - Tycko & Zavareei LLP Contact Us We look forward to hearing from you. P. 23(a)(1). Id. For example, in EQT, the court concluded that a proposed class of all individuals who owned an interest in a gas estate was not ascertainable because the actual owners could be determined only through an individualized review of land records. Id 1024.41(c)(1). DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. While the date that Nationstar's systems came into compliance, is unknown, Nationstar's systematic noncompliance presents common questions of law and fact for all class members. Code Ann., Com. . 1024.41(i). 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). Day to address discovery issues. 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. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." . As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. . Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. Code Ann., Com.
Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand 2010). Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.4 cmt. 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. Moreover, although the court stated that an arrangement for providing expert testimony for a contingent fee would violate public policy, the court did not address the question of the admissibility of evidence at issue here. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." Section 13-316(c) governs "mortgage servicing" and, among other requirements, provides that a "servicer shall designate a contact to whom mortgagors may direct complaints and inquiries" and that the "contact shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested." The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. According to Oliver, to determine that certain disclosures or specific information were conveyed to borrowers, the "objectid" field used in FileNet can be used to identify the type of letter sent. 1024.41(a). 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. 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. 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. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. 2013). However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. 2. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. 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. 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. 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. 1972). Id. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. Although section 13-316 provides a remedy only for economic damages arising from a mortgage servicer's failure to respond to an inquiry, see Md. Because of the manner in which class discovery was conducted, see supra part II.A, Oliver did not have access to all of Nationstar's data fields for the representative sample of loans. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. Furthermore, to the extent that the Robinsons' claim is that Nationstar falsely stated that it would evaluate the Robinsons for all available loss mitigation plans, the Robinsons point only to statements in letters that the Robinsons "may" be eligible for certain non-HAMP loan modification programs. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. 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. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. Id. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. Id. Id. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. R. Civ. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. Although this data was not provided to Oliver, there is no reason it could not be produced and used to make determinations on the timeliness of decisions on loss mitigation applications. Class Cert. The Robinsons' designated expert, Geoffrey Oliver, has offered a methodology for identifying class members and when their rights under RESPA and the MCPA have been violated. Id. Id. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. 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. Indeed, since previous versions of the Maryland rule expressly stated that contingency fee arrangements for experts were forbidden, but that explicit language was removed, it is reasonable to conclude that the amendment changed the rule in Maryland to no longer bar contingency fee arrangements. 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. 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. 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. 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 relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. Messner v. Northshore Univ. 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.
Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC - law360.com AG Shapiro Secures $2.75 Million for Pennsylvania Mortgage Loan Fed. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . Amchem Prods. But where the broad methodology is sound, the lack of consideration of unproduced data cannot provide a basis to strike the expert witness's testimony. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. 2003). Since the parties do not argue that the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass differ for the purposes of the class certification analysis, the Court will analyze them together. 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. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 12 C.F.R. R. Civ. 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.