Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 3d at 1014. 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. Class Certif. 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. Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. Code Ann., Com. R. Civ. Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). 1024.41(b)(2)(B). . See Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267, 275 (4th Cir. Since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nationstar violated subsection (h), summary judgment will be entered for Nationstar on that claim. Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. 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. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). Fed. 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. See Stillmock, 385 F. App'x at 274 ("[T]here is no reasoned basis to conclude that the fact that an individual plaintiff can recover attorney's fees in addition to statutory damages of up to $1,000 will result in enforcement of [the Fair Credit Reporting Act] by individual actions of a scale comparable to the potential enforcement by way of class action."). 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. 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. 2016) (dicta). At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). 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 to its customers mortgage servicing complaints. 1024.41(a). . The Class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC. 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. It does not mount any persuasive attack on Oliver's "principles and methodology," Westberry, 178 F.3d at 261, which largely consisted of counting the number of days between events and reviewing files for a particular loan to determine whether they contained certain standard content. 2605(f)(1). If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive a payment. From this approach, Oliver concluded that for approximately 60 percent of the sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement that it inform the borrower of loss mitigation application determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. 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. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. 1024.41(d). See 12 C.F.R. See Fed. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. Summ. James Robinson v. National Student Clearinghouse Toggle navigation Home Commonly Asked Questions Documents The Court approved the settlement at the July 7, 2020 Fairness Hearing. Any additional updates will be posted here. Id. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). The servicer "is liable for any economic damages caused by the violation." When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. 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. 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. Compl. Law 13-301 and 303. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. The Complaint asserts two claims. . The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, case number 8:14-cv-03667, from Maryland Court. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. 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. "Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. 2003). See 12 C.F.R. In Accrued Financial, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that where commercial real estate tenants assigned their potential claims against their landlords to a commercial real estate auditor under an arrangement through which the auditor would receive a percentage of any recovery in litigation, the assignments violated public policy because where the auditor's employees could testify in such litigation, the assignments "provide for supplying expert testimony for a contingent fee." Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. 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. There is no reason to conclude that individual class members have any particular interest in individually controlling the litigation through separate actions, or that this Court is an undesirable forum to host this litigation, since Nationstar services loans in this district, is subject to jurisdiction here, and has presented no argument that Maryland is an inconvenient forum. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. Home Loans, No. Likewise, Oliver's expert report provides no analysis on how Nationstar's databases allow for a systematic determination whether Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of the specific reasons for the servicer's decision to deny each loan modification option, in violation of 12 C.F.R. R. Civ. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. 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." 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. 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. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. 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. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. The Borrower Payment Amount shall be used: (1) for payments to borrowers who submit claims and are in either or both of the Service Transfer and Property Preservation Populations set forth below; and (2) for reasonable costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, including taxes and fees for tax counsel. A $3.8 million settlement has been reached in a Nationstar convenience fee class action lawsuit, which claimed that the mortgage lender wrongfully charged convenience fees to their consumers when making payments on past due accounts. Mar. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. 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. All but $28.6 million of its. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . Fed. 13-316(e)(1). Life Ins. Certification will also be denied as to the claim under 12 C.F.R. While every class member will have to establish damages, that calculation will not be "particularly complex," as it will require identifying administrative costs and fees that would not have occurred but for the RESPA violation. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a mortgage servicing complaint or inquiry within 15 days. 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 Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. Id. 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.'" 2003). Part 1024). 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. Because Nationstar employees used standard templates to communicate with borrowers, Oliver concluded that Regulation X violations can be identified through the existence of noncompliant templates and the dates that those templates were in use. See 12 C.F.R. Feb. 14, 2017) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded damages under the MCPA where she alleged that the defendant's failures to respond "resulted in the continual assessment of accruing interest, fees and costs on the mortgage account," as well as "stress, physical sickness, headaches, sleep deprivation, worry, and pecuniary expenses"). Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. Based on the language of Regulation X, the Court finds that a loss mitigation application submitted before the effective date does not count as the single application subject to the regulation. 1024.41(a). Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. . Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. 2601 et seq. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. The one-time consulting fee was paid in August 2013 to PaCE, a forensic loan auditor, to advise the Robinsons on how to communicate with Nationstar and to handle their loan. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. 2013)). Id. EQT Prod. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Id. 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. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. Id 1024.41(c)(1). Md. 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. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. See id. 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. Fed. Id. Nationstar admits that in March 2014, two months after the implementation date of Regulation X, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with the regulation. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. 1024.41 The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). 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. The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. While Mr. Robinson signed the promissory note ("the Note"), the deed of trust ("the Deed"), and the balloon payment rider for the 2007 loan, Tamara Robinson ("Mrs. Robinson") signed only the Deed and balloon payment rider and did not sign the Note. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. . 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. Likewise, the articulated concern that Nationstar would not be required to respond to loss mitigation applications filed within a certain number of days of a foreclosure sale, can be addressed through the provision of data relating to the dates of scheduled foreclosure sales. 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). 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. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. 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. R. Civ. 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. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. Code Ann., Com. 1990) (citing Universal Athletic favorably for this proposition). 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 120. Check out:Covid-19 pandemic is the first time 40% of Americans have experienced food insecurity, Don't miss:Amex Blue Cash Preferred is offering an elevated welcome bonus for a limited time, Get Make It newsletters delivered to your inbox, Learn more about the world of CNBC Make It, 2023 CNBC LLC. Because there are, at a minimum, disputed issues of fact as to what fees, administrative costs, and interest constitute damages, the Court will deny the motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual damages. 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. 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. 2605(f)(2); Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20, that the individualized damages inquiry would need to precede the award of statutory damages based on a finding of a pattern-or-practice of RESPA violations is a distinction without a difference: whether individual damages are shown before or after the pattern-or-practice liability, the common issues of liability predominate over the individualized questions of damages. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 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." 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. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. In Robinson v., Under the RESPA, civil liability is limited to "borrowers": "[w]hoever fails to comply with any provision of, Full title:DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. 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." Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. at 983. 2. 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). 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). 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. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Fed. Rule 702 permits an expert to testify if the testimony "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," "is based on sufficient facts or data," and "is the product of reliable principles and methods," and if the expert has "reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. A class action is a superior means for "fairly and efficiently adjudicating" whether Nationstar has violated Regulation X and section 3-316(c) of the MCPA. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. . That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." 2605(f)(2). 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. Although the parties have not offered specific details on the nature and timing of those costs and fees, it is reasonable to infer that at least some portion of them were incurred after they submitted their March 7, 2014 loan modification application and after Nationstar had violated Regulation X. Reg. 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.