This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. Finally, where Nationstar has offered no specific argument in its brief, beyond those addressed above, to refute Oliver's proffered analysis for identifying RESPA violations arising from the failure to notify borrowers of their appeal rights or the failure to exercise diligence in requesting documents based on repeated requests for the same documents, 12 C.F.R. even after that settlement was reached. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. Fed. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. 12 U.S.C. A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. Through both a declaration by a Nationstar Vice President of Default Servicing, Brandon Anderson, and an expert report by Stuart D. Gurrea, Nationstar contests Oliver's analysis and endeavors to establish that the only way to identify RESPA violations using Nationstar's data is through a file-by-file review. This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. 218. They have claimed $141,000 in interest; $6,147.12 in fees assessed by Nationstar; $2,275 in consulting fees; $50.58 in administrative costs; and lost time and labor of approximately 120 hours; as well as punitive and statutory damages. 1967). 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. . 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. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. 1024.41(a). 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. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. 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. 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. 1024.41(h)(1). Wesleyan Coll. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. 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." Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand . 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Multiple States Enter into If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. AG Shapiro Secures $2.75 Million for Pennsylvania Mortgage Loan MCC JR 530. Id. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. Code Ann., Com. Sept. 2, 2015). 12 C.F.R. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Filing 18 Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. 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. 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. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). 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. Furthermore, the Robinsons have made a sufficient showing that a central computerized analysis of Nationstar data would substantially, if not completely, resolve questions of whether RESPA violations occurred. 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. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. et al - pacermonitor.com 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. Previous. 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 . Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (8:14-cv-03667) Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (4th Cir. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 2006). Thus, based on his report and experience, Oliver concludes that Nationstar "failed to comply" with Regulation X and that it is possible to "identify violations" of Regulation X "using the methodologies" he described, without the necessity of a file-by-file review. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Compl. 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." 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. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 8:2014cv03667 - Justia Law 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 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. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced Monday, that his office obtained an $86.3 million settlement from Nationstar Mortgage, the country's fourth-largest mortgage . 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. Current Outline Item. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. 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 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." And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. 8:14-CV-03667-TJS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR . Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 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. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. 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. The Motion will be granted as to all of Tamara Robinson's claims and as to Demetrius Robinson's claims under 12 C.F.R. Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Based on the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion to dismiss (doc. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. 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. Factors "pertinent" to the predominance and superiority requirements include the "class members' interests in individually controlling" the litigation, whether litigation on the matter has already been begun by other class members, whether concentrating the litigation in one forum is desirable or undesirable, and the potential difficulties managing the class action presents. 1024.41(i). 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. 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. In Pennsylvania, the settlement affected 2,234 loans for a total of $2.75 million in restitution for these borrowers. Fed. . Aug. 19, 2015). Finally, the Court notes that a decision to certify a class is based on whether or not a putative class satisfies the Rule 23 factors, not on a preliminary assessment of the underlying merits of the claim. 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. R. Civ. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. Bouchat v. Balt. 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. Joint Record ("MSJ JR") 0102. If the settlements are approved by the D.C. district court, Nationstar will be required to immediately set aside about $15.6 million to pay borrowers it has not yet remediated. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 2d at 1366. Code Ann., Com. Local R. 105.6. 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. 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. 2014). 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). From this methodology, Oliver concluded that Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of their appeal rights in 39 percent of the sampled loans and failed to exercise reasonable diligence by improperly requested the same documentation already provided in 18 percent of the loans. As to the third denial on November 7, 2013, Nationstar informed the Robinsons that the loan modification application was denied because the mortgage loan was not in default. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. 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. See id. Updates will also be available at the toll-free number: 1-866-404-0137. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. Courts have held that a person who did not sign the promissory note is not a "borrower" for the purposes of RESPA because that individual has not "assumed the loan." Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. 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 Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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. at 300. See Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) ("When 'one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defense peculiar to some individual class members.'" . Md. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Pia McAdams, a class member, objected to the settlement, arguing that the Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. 2. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. 125. 2002), is misplaced. Part 1024). At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. All Rights Reserved. Code Ann., Com. To calculate damages, Oliver stated that he would look to data from the LSAMS application, including data tables that contain fee information, to identify fees that would not have been charged but for Nationstar's various RESPA violations, but that he was not able to evaluate this data in his report because it had not been provided to him. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md.
1971 Mount Vernon Basketball Team,
Simply Gym Cancel Membership,
Willys Jeep Grill Identification,
Bob Rafsky Daughter,
How Is Grace's Father So Rich In The Undoing,
Articles R