28, 2017). 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. Code Ann., Com. 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. 19-303.4 cmt.3. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. Where the PaCE consulting fee was a one-time fee to advise the Robinsons in their interactions with Nationstar paid in August 2013, several months before they first submitted the March 2014 loan modification application, this cost was incurred "whether or not [Nationstar] complied with its obligations." 2006). Am. Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. In order of priority, the parties proposed that the $3,000,000 settlement fund pay for administrative expenses up to $300,000, attorneys' fees, a class representative award, and . 1967). R. Civ. 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 settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, resolves allegations that Nationstar, which does business as "Mr. Cooper," violated consumer protection laws. 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. Settlement Website www.AutomatedPhoneCallSettlement.com Claims Administrator Wright et al. See Md. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). For the requirements that hinge on the timing of a communication or response, Oliver's methodology consists of using Nationstar's data from the LSAMS and FileNet software applications relating to a sample of 400 loans to identify the dates when certain events occurredsuch as the filing of a loan modification application, when a loan modification application became complete, and the sending of an acknowledgment or decision letter to a borrowerand then counting the days between the dates to assess whether a RESPA timing requirement was satisfied. Id. 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. Am. 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.'" 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. Moreover, the possibility that some members of the class as defined by the Robinsons have not suffered any injury cognizable under RESPA or MCPA does not preclude certifying the class. 12 C.F.R. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan. Id. 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. 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." 10696, 10836. 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). MCC JR 318, 530-531. Id. (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"). the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." 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. 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. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. Nationstar argues that it should be granted summary judgment on all of the RESPA claims because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to a borrower's first loss mitigation application, and the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 application was not their first loan modification application. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. at 359-60. Code Ann., Com. While it is not necessary to identify every class member at the time of certification for a class to be "ascertainable," a class cannot be certified if its membership must be determined through "individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. Based on his experience and review of deposition transcripts of Nationstar employees, Oliver asserts that Nationstar has computerized data from which RESPA violations may be identified, not least because Nationstar must be able to demonstrate its compliance with RESPA to regulators. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. 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. 0 Contact Fraudfighters.net Current Class Settlements Search Our Successes Practice Areas Class Actions Financial Services & Economic Justice Md. But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. Code Ann., Com. 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. R. Civ. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. A magistrate granted preliminary approval. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 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. 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. P. 23(a)(1). 1024.41(c)(1)(i). application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Customers may call with questions about the settlement or the remediation checks at 1-855-914-4649 Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. except holidays. See 12 C.F.R. 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. First, to the extent that there was a period of time during which Nationstar failed to implement procedures to comply with RESPA, the facts establishing such a gap would be highly relevant to a pattern or practice determination and would be common in every case. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. at *5. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. 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"). Class Members included all U.S. consumers who received a robocall on their cell phone from Nationstar between October 2015 and March 2016. 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. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. . On August 26, 2014, Nationstar mailed another letter acknowledging The Robinsons' expert had written the scripts using data dictionaries and without accessing the databases. 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. Fed. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. Amchem Prods. In the samples . Joint Record ("MSJ JR") 0102. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. 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." 1024.41(b)(2)(B). The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. According to Nationstar's Underwriting Workflow Procedures, which sets forth the steps followed to review loans for modifications, when a borrower submits a loan modification application, a code is entered into LSAMS and updates the loan's substatus in Remedy Star. Fed. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. at 152. If you want a reissue with no changes to the check, simply email, phone, or write us at: : info@NationstarConsentOrder.com. 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. 2014))). Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. 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. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 125. 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. Part 1024). Id. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." "If a borrower's complete loss mitigation application is denied for any trial or permanent loan modification option available to the borrower," the servicer must state in the required notice to the borrower "the specific reason or reasons for the servicer's determination for each such trial or permanent loan modification and, if applicable, that the borrower was not evaluated on other criteria." 1024.41(d). 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 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. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. Claimants will receive their payments via check. See 12 C.F.R. Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered Nationstar Mortgage LLC to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for violating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 through 2014. . R. Civ. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. In assessing the Motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with all justifiable inferences drawn in its favor. Id. Here's what we know so far, What the end of the Covid national emergency means for student loan relief, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. 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.

Stainless Steel Blast Cabinet, Fulbourn Hospital Wards, Perelman Undergraduate Research, Arowana Size Chart, Articles R