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. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. 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 . Id. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. Aug. 19, 2015). . 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. See id. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. at 248-49. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. 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. 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. 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. P. 23(b)(3). 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). Code Ann., Com. Because of the manner in which class discovery was conducted, see supra part II.A, Oliver did not have access to all of Nationstar's data fields for the representative sample of loans. Although similar to Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, the test for predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is "far more demanding" and "tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. 1024.41(d). Code Ann., Com. Fed. Where the cost of litigation as compared to the potential recovery gives class members little incentive to bring suit, and there is little reason to individually control the litigation, a class action is a superior method to vindicate the rights of class members. R. Evid. Home Loans, No. 1024.41(a). 10696, 10708, provides that "[a] servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." 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. Moreover, because borrowers often submit multiple loan modification applications, and because Nationstar's data is stored at the loan level, not at the application level, Nationstar claims that it is not possible to tell from the data alone, without reviewing the files, whether a status or code change is in response to a specific loan modification application. 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. In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. In focusing on whether RESPA violations can be established through computerized analysis rather than individual file review, the parties lose track of the fact that because statutory damages are predicated on a finding that there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations, that issue common to almost any individual claim plays an outsized role in the predominance analysis. Part 1024). Reg. Cal. Sep. 9, 2019). DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. Pia McAdams, a class member, objected to the settlement, arguing that the While the Nationstar employee who conducts the initial processing of an application may refer it to an underwriter based on its facial completeness, the underwriter makes the final determination of whether the application is complete and is responsible for obtaining any additional required documentation. 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. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. Id. 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. Law 13-301(1). 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. Here, even though the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 loss mitigation application was not the Robinsons' first such application, it was their first submitted after the effective date of Regulation X. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. 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. Id. Code Ann., Com. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 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." Fed. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. : 1-855-914-4649 (Toll-Free) / 1-855-535-1813 (TTY) Nationstar, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Consent Order. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. hb```f&A G PX@$]55:q3bbf00dYaiDuVLt3C5X;:48:@A (400 @ H*brIe I1@ ]" $30yy"MXg3?Yar=`fB@EH32 R~ }9 Rather than striking the testimony, the Court may need to consider permitting supplemental discovery to correct for the lack of relevant data not previously made available to Oliver. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. 2605(f)(1)(A)). 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. Order, ECF No. 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 also does not argue that the class is not numerous, as there approximately 33,855 members who submitted loss mitigation applications from January 10, 2014 to March 30, 2014. All Rights Reserved. 1976). Signed by Judge James L Graham on 11/15/12. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). The fact that each borrower must individually show damages under 12 U.S.C. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. MCC JR 318, 530-531. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. 2016) (dicta). See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 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. TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. 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. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. 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." 89, 90, ECF No. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. . 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." Auto. 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." 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. 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. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. 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. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. 218. 2014). Compl. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. In the samples . Id. Where Accrued Financial addresses a different scenario with a different remedy, the Court does not find that it requires that the testimony of an expert witness paid on contingency fee basis must be excluded. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). 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.'" See id. Eligible claimants will receive either $5 for a qualifying 600- watt model, $7 for a qualifying 900- watt model, or a $10 or $15 discount code for a new 600-watt or 900-watt blender, respectively. Although the Robinsons contend that they would have pursued other loss mitigation options in the absence of the RESPA violations, they have not identified any such options in a way that would permit a calculation of damages associated with any lost opportunity. Settlement. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that postage costs incurred by the plaintiff to send the "initial request for information is not a cost to the borrower 'as a result of the failure' to comply with a RESPA obligation," because a violation has not occurred and will not "necessarily occur" at the time the plaintiff paid the postage. Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.4 cmt. These claims do not have to be factually or legally identical, but the class claims should be fairly encompassed by those of the named plaintiffs. 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. 1024.41(i). Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. Md. StubHub, Apple, other class action settlement checks in the mail Old Navy, Nissan, Equifax, other class action settlement payments in the mail Postmates, 1-800 Contacts, other settlement checks on the way 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. As a result, the Robinsons' claim that Nationstar violated certain Regulation X procedures with respect to their loan modification application and those of the class members. Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. 12) is GRANTED with respect to Count V and Count III against Nationstar; it is DENIED with respect to Counts I, II, and VI, and Count III against NSM. 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. Oliver is the Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Advisors LLC, a financial services consulting, compliance audit, and accounting advisory firm, and has extensive experience conducting compliance reviews for mortgage servicers, including for compliance with loss mitigation procedures. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. 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. 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." A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." . Code Ann., Com. See Md. hbbd```b``63@$urD29 NIL5 "#>9$ 0 3 This website provides information about a joint state attorney general and state mortgage regulator settlement with Nationstar, which does business publicly as Mr. Cooper. %%EOF P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. at 300. 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). 13-316(e)(1). The distinction is crucial. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. 1024.41(i). 12 U.S.C. Code Ann., Com. 2003). cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. 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."). When those scripts did not produce data that allowed the Robinsons to conduct the sampling, the Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar on April 3, 2018 to run certain "structural scripts" on two of its four databases. . 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. Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. . 28, 2017). Thus, the Court concludes that, while Nationstar may have defenses as to some borrowers, the common proof that establishes the asserted violations, as well as the common question of whether the Robinsons can prove a pattern-or-practice violation by Nationstar, will predominate over the individual issues as to these claims. even after that settlement was reached. Law 13-301 and 303. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). 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." Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. For example, since default fees are often paid by sources other than the borrower, such as in a short sale or refinancing, Nationstar challenges Oliver's assessment that fees identified through LSAMS can be deemed to constitute damages from RESPA violations, because the software does not reflect who paid the fee. 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." P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "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. 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). 1024.41(b)(1). For example, in EQT, the court concluded that a proposed class of all individuals who owned an interest in a gas estate was not ascertainable because the actual owners could be determined only through an individualized review of land records. Prior to distributing Settlement Shares, the Settlement Administrator will attempt to update . 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. Code Ann., Com. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Id. "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. (quoting 7AA Charles Allan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (3d ed. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. 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. Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. 2013)). Cf. at *2. 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. 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. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. 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." 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. Back To Top. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. Id. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 1024.41. 27. judge. 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. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. 164. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. Contact Fraudfighters.net Current Class Settlements Search Our Successes Practice Areas Class Actions Financial Services & Economic Justice Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. 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. JA 130. These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent. Class Members included all U.S. consumers who received a robocall on their cell phone from Nationstar between October 2015 and March 2016. 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

Roseau High School Hockey Coach, Venetian Macau 4d Live Draw, Trine University Adjunct Pay, Marcus Brown Funeral Home Anderson South Carolina Obituaries, Emerge Transportation Carrier Setup, Articles R