In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. "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. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. MCC JR 318, 530-531. Am. 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."). 12 U.S.C. 2019) (noting that the purpose of certifying a class "is not to identify every class member at the time of certification, but to define a class in such a way as to ensure that there will be some administratively feasible [way] for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member at some point" (internal citation omitted) (quoting EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2010). Fed. Id. 2605(f). . 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. See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046-47 (holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act). Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. "We want to hear from you," Raoul says. Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. 2605(f). . Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC | 2015 WL 4994491 | D. Md. | Judgment 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. 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. 2013)). 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." Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. 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. "[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.'" Nationstar to pay $91 million to settle claims of it harmed - CNBC The Robinsons assert that they have suffered damages in the lost opportunity to have their mortgage loan modified and to pursue other loss mitigation options; in the fees, late fees, and interest that Nationstar has assessed since they became delinquent on their loan; in the lost "time and effort" which they expended in "pursuing the loss mitigation process with Nationstar" rather than trying to improve their business; and in administrative costs, including "postage, travel expenses, photocopying, scanning, and facsimile expenses." See 12 C.F.R. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. 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. Id. 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. 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. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). 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. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. 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. "There are going to be a lot of homeowners who need a home loan modification or other assistance," Raoul says. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. To establish an MCPA violation under this provision, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation; (2) the plaintiff relied upon the representation; and (3) doing so caused the plaintiff actual injury. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. 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 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. 1024.41(c) and (d) impose obligations on a loan servicer once it receives a "complete loss mitigation application" and once the completed application is denied. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. Sept. 29, 2021). The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. 12 U.S.C. Nationstar's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. 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. The MCPA prohibits the use of an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" in the "[t]he extension of consumer credit" or "[t]he collection of consumer debts" and provides for a private right of action. 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. 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. 1024.41(i). 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. 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. Code Ann., Com. 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." See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. 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). Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. 1024.41(a). Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. Where a contingency fee arrangement for expert witnesses is not expressly prohibited by the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court declines to find that the fee arrangement here constituted an ethical violation. 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. Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. See id. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. See Fed. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . A complete loss mitigation application is "an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower." 2003). Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Am. Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar" or "Defendant") violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by failing to adhere to its requirements with respect to its customers' loss mitigation applications and that Nationstar violated Maryland law by not timely responding Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. R. Civ. "); cf. Summ. Home Loans, No. 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. Class Certif. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." 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. This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Robinson v Nationstar - Home 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). 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. To view the settlement agreement and consent order, please visit the CSBS's website. The Court will not revisit this determination. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." 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. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. 26-1. 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. All Rights Reserved. See Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 374 F. App'x 868, 873 (11th Cir. Order, ECF No. 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. 12 C.F.R. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Because of the need to protect the rights of absent plaintiffs to assert different claims and of defendants to assert facts and defenses specific to individual class members, courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" of whether a proposed class action meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 before certifying a class. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Id. Like the class members, to prove his case, Mr. Robinson will have to show that Nationstar failed to timely and appropriately respond to his loan modification applications by pointing to the dates of his submissions and the dates and contents of Nationstar's responses. 1024.41(b)(1). The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 2605(f). Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. Law 13-301 and 303. 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. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . The first of these prerequisites is that the class must exist and be "readily identifiable" or "ascertainable" by the court through "objective criteria." Id. The data derived from scripts written by another expert, Abraham J. Wyner, without the benefit of seeing the databases, a process necessitated by Nationstar's unwillingness or inability to produce the relevant data.