Any additional updates will be posted here. Plaintiff and Class Representative Demetrius Robinson, along with Class Counsel Tycko & Zavareei LLP and The Bestor Law Firm, respectfully move this Court for an award of $1,300,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as a $5,000 service award for Mr. Robinson. 12 U.S.C. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Law 13-301 and 13-303, because the Robinsons do not have standing to bring those claims. or other representation . Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. While the particulars of Mr. Robinson's application process will not necessarily prove that Nationstar mishandled the applications of other individual class members, these facts fairly encompass the types of claims that would be brought by the members of the class. 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. AG Shapiro Secures $2.75 Million for Pennsylvania Mortgage Loan . 2605(f)(2). 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Others, however, have concluded that "all expenses, costs, fees, and injuries fairly attributable to" a servicer's RESPA violation are damages, "even if incurred before the" violation, because the "wrongful act . This Court previously held that a loan modification application can be an inquiry under the MCPA that triggers a duty to respond, and that in the case of the Robinsons, the loan modification application that was "submitted at the request of Nationstar[] necessarily seeks a response." 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. 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. Id. Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. Fed. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. PDF Motion for Fees - Robinson v Nationstar - Home P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Am. 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. Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. . Id. 2605(f)(1). Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. Wright et al. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. Moreover, even if the fee arrangement violated the ethical rules for attorneys, "it does not follow that evidence obtained in violation of the rule is inadmissible." See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. That notice must be provided within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application. Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. Nationstar to Pay $110 Million to Settle Borrower Claims 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. 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. . Fed. 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. 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. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). 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. If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Id. Md. . Reg. 2002), is misplaced. As for typicality, the named plaintiff must be "typical" of the class, such that that the class representative's claim and defenses are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class" in that prosecution of the claim will "simultaneously tend to advance the interests of the absent class members." 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. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. The servicer "is liable for any economic damages caused by the violation." cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. 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. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. Id. Summ. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. Mar. Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. 877-683-9363. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. If the named plaintiff satisfies each of these requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court must still find that the proposed class action fits into one of the categories of class action under Rule 23(b) in order to certify the class. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Id. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 McLean I, 595 F. Supp. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. See, e.g., Ward v. Dixie Nat. Md. In contrast, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the administrative costs and fees incurred by the Robinsons resulted from Nationstar's RESPA violations. While several district courts have concluded that loss mitigation applications submitted before Regulation X's effective date do not count as the single application for which a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X, see, e.g., Farber v. Brock & Scott, LLC, No. The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. Order, ECF No. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. 2003). As a result, on January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted the Robinsons' Motion to Compel in which the Robinsons had sought to have the Court order Nationstar to accept and run scripts created by the Robinsons' expert to extract the relevant data from Nationstar's databases on the sample of loans from which they could test their methodology for identifying members of the proposed classes. Your Email Please enter your email. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. 2605(f), is common question of law and fact that Mr. Robinson and the class members would all be required prove in their individual cases in order to qualify for statutory damages. 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. Id. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. 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. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. 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. 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. MCC JR 318, 530-531. Filed by Janie Robinson. The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged 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. See 12 C.F.R. Where the cost of litigation as compared to the potential recovery gives class members little incentive to bring suit, and there is little reason to individually control the litigation, a class action is a superior method to vindicate the rights of class members. . MCC JR 530. Code Ann., Com. 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. Mich. 2016), at least one district court has held that loan servicers need not comply with Regulation X if the borrower had previously submitted a loss mitigation application before the January 10, 2014 effective date, see Trionfo v. Bank of America, N.A., No. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. 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). If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. Portland, OR 97208-3560. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. J. 2010). 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Civil Action No. TDC-14-3667 See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. Nationstar seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' RESPA claims on the grounds that (1) Mrs. Robinson is not a proper plaintiff because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA; (2) RESPA is inapplicable because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to the Robinsons' first loss mitigation application; (3) there is no evidence to support a violation of 12 C.F.R. 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. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. R. Civ. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . Law 13-316(c). 2. 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. 2605(f)(1). Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. at 359-60. (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"). DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). 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. Id. See id. At this juncture, this allegation plausibly supports a finding of willful noncompliance. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. It will be otherwise denied. "[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.'" Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a mortgage servicing complaint or inquiry within 15 days. Id. Sept. 2, 2015). 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. . Nationstar employees use four software applications and databases to store and track electronic information relating to loans: (1) Loan Services and Accounting Management System ("LSAMS"), Nationstar's primary loan servicing software, which contains data for loans, including the permanent records of the accounting history, communication logs, and letters documented with codes that were sent to the borrower; (2) Remedy Star, Nationstar's proprietary loss mitigation and loan modification management system, which, among other tasks, tracks the status and timeline of a loan modification and links to documents stored in FileNet; (3) LPS Desktop ("LPS"), an application which Nationstar uses to track and manage foreclosure processes and communicate with outside attorneys; and (4) FileNet, a platform that houses PDF images of documents, including letters sent to borrowers by Nationstar. 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. 12 U.S.C. 2010). 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. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. 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. Am. 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." Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 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. Id. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. See Md. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 2016) ("[F]ortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition. Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. Fed. Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. Id. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. JA 130. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. News Ask a Lawyer 1024.41(h)(1), (4). 1024.41 Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. While Mr. Robinson sought to reduce his monthly mortgage payment in applying for a loan modification, his deposition testimony reflects that he understands that the present lawsuit contends that Nationstar did not process the Robinsons' loan modification application correctly. Fed. 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. 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. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. See id. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. at 358. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. R. Civ. "); cf. ; 78 Fed. 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. 19-303.4 cmt.3. PO Box 3560. 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." J. To view the settlement agreement and consent order, please visit the CSBS's website. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). 1967). Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. R. Civ. . 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). In Frank, due to the state's community property laws, the mortgage was "a community debt," and after her husband died, the plaintiff "was therefore obligated to make the loan payments" because of her interest in the home. 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. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. 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. 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. Home Loans, No. 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. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. Discovery Order, ECF No. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. 1024.41(i). 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. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. 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.
Custom P320 Grip Module, Articles R