robinson v nationstar settlement
Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. Wright et al. 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. Code Ann., Com. The servicer "is liable for any economic damages caused by the violation." A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for "any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure" to comply. Id. 2d at 1366. 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. But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. Where the deed of trust explicitly states that Mrs. Robinson is not obligated on the loan, the Court finds that she is not a borrower under RESPA and cannot bring the claim against Nationstar under Regulation X. Id. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." 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. 143. 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. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a mortgage servicing complaint or inquiry within 15 days. 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. An "unfair or deceptive" trade practice includes a "false . 2006). Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. Id. Life Ins. 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. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. Where the Robinsons, after discovery, cannot point to evidence that Nationstar did not even consider or evaluate the Robinsons for loss mitigation options, they have not established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of false or misleading statements. 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. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. Code Ann., Com. . Id. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. Id. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. 1024.41(i). Discovery Order, ECF No. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. 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. 1 . See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. 2601(a). Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. . 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. . If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against Nationstar Mortgage - Tycko & Zavareei LLP Contact Us We look forward to hearing from you. If the application is complete "more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale," the servicer may not move for a foreclosure judgment or conduct a foreclosure sale, but instead must first "[e]valuate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," send to the borrower "a notice in writing stating the servicer's determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer," and include a statement of applicable appeal rights. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. See Md. In contrast, Nationstar maintains that there is no way to reliably identify when a loss mitigation application is submitted or complete using codes and status change entries in its existing software, and that the only way to make those determinations is through a file-by-file review. See 12 C.F.R. Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. Summ. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. However, if the costs are shown to have been incurred in response to the RESPA violation, the Court finds that they would be actual damages within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. See, e.g., Ward v. Dixie Nat. Day to address discovery issues. ; 78 Fed. 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. 2005))). Am. 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. 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. 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. 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. R. Civ. 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 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. Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.4 cmt. During this period, in August 2013, the Robinsons retained a forensic loan auditor, Professional Compliance Examiners ("PaCE"), and paid it $2,275 to help them communicate with Nationstar. Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 1024.41(i). McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. . . Cal. 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 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. The distinction is crucial. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. . FCRA). 2605(f). cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. 1024.41(i). Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. 2605(f), caused by the violation, which likely consist of administrative fees and costs, the individual recovery available for each class member would likely be low, far below the cost of litigating the claims themselves. In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. 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. Because such a common question would have to be resolved in many if not all individual cases, it advances, rather than undermines, the argument in favor of predominance. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). 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. 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. 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. Class Cert. 1024.41(h)(1). Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. 2605(f)(1). Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. 2018). First, Nationstar correctly notes that Mr. Robinson, in his Motion, and Oliver, in his expert report, do not put forward any evidence establishing that the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met with respect to the claim that Nationstar did not evaluate borrowers "for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," in violation of 12 C.F.R. Sept. 29, 2021). See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. Id. 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. Id. 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. Thus, a loan servicer could not have complied with Regulation X for a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 because there was no regulation in effect with which to comply. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. That is not so here. "We want to hear from you," Raoul says. MCC JR 530. All Rights Reserved. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. 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). See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . Although Monday's case specifically addresses Nationstar's actions following the Great Recession, the outcome can affect today's homeowners, says Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois. See Fed. Opp'n Mot. 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.'"
