Nationstar's claim that the above-described coding is not dispositive, because an underwriter could subsequently determine that more information was needed after all, is not persuasive. P. 23(b)(3). Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. LLC, No. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Nationstar Mortgage TCPA Class Action Settlement at *5. 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. . 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. 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." As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. Furthermore, determining whether statutory damages are available will require no individualized consideration, because the pattern-or-practice claim "would be based solely on" Nationstar's conduct and can be established through sampling. Id. All Rights Reserved. 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. 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. 2006). On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." "Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. 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. A Division of NBC Universal. The "Nationwide Class" is composed of "[a]ll persons in the United States that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." 164. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. P. 23(a)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). See id. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial. P. 23(b)(3). 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. 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. AG Shapiro Secures $2.75 Million for Pennsylvania Mortgage Loan 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. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. at 358. Code Ann., Com. 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." While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. The Court agrees that costs, including administrative costs, "incurred whether or not the servicer complied with its obligations" are not actual damages "caused by, or 'a result of,'" the RESPA violation, whether or not they occurred before or after the violation. Thus, the Court concludes that common computerized analysis can largely answer the question of whether Nationstar violated these RESPA provisions with respect to individual borrowers. 2605(f)(2). R. Civ. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Similarly, though the precise nature of the fees imposed was not specified, it is reasonable to infer that some were attributable to delays linked to RESPA violations. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. 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." 2014). The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. 28, 2017). Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. 2006). Individual damages would be below the cost of litigation even if each class member could establish that Nationstar's conduct consisted of a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, because the statute limits such damages to $2,000 per borrower. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 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. 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. 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. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. 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)(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. 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). A separate Order shall issue. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. Id. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. 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. 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. 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. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. Since it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met and Mr. Robinson has failed to do so, the Motion for Class Certification will be denied as to any claims that Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." While Demetrius Robinson did appeal Nationstar's March 15, 2014 offer of an in-house modification, the requirements of subsection (h) were not triggered because the offer was not a denial of a loan modification application. Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. 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. The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. 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." Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. Home Loans, No. See, e.g., Ward v. Dixie Nat. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." Where the results of such an analysis would apply to any individual claim, it would be highly inefficient and wasteful to require duplicative analysis in each such case. Messner v. Northshore Univ. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. Cf. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). The Motion will be otherwise denied. 12 C.F.R. Code Ann., Com. News Ask a Lawyer The Court will address the varying claims in turn. Compl. 1024.41(i). 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. EQT Prod. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Id. 702. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. 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. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC - law360.com Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." 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. The Complaint asserts two claims. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. See Md. The court, however, did not explain how in the absence of any obligation to pay back to the Note, the plaintiff qualified as a "borrower" under the RESPA statute. The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. Id. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. 12 C.F.R. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. 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. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. 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. 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. An expert's testimony is "critical" where it is "important to an issue decisive for the motion for class certification." Throughout discovery, Nationstar repeatedly stated that it could not produce the data on loss mitigation or loan modification applications from its databases in the form requested by the Robinsons. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! 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. 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.