Aatur Harshad Mehta Net Worth 2021, Lil Jojo Funeral, Motorcycle Accident Sutton Ma 2021, Hangout Music Festival Lineup, Articles R

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. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . Id. He was retained by the Robinsons under an arrangement through which he is to be paid a flat fee of $125,000: $62,500 up front, with an additional $62,500 to be paid if a class is certified in this case. Since Regulation X explicitly does not require a loan servicer to provide a loan modification, the Robinsons' claim that they suffered damages because they did not receive a loan modification is not cognizable under the statute. 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. You will receive no benefits from the Settlement, but will retain any rights you currently have to sue Nationstar about the same claims in this case. 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. 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. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. 1990) (citing Universal Athletic favorably for this proposition). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - Justia Dockets & Filings Those claims arose from Nationstar's alleged Nationstar also allegedly foreclosed on borrowers with pending forbearance applications after promising not to do so and failed to properly handle escrow payments and accounting for homeowners who were in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 2016) (dicta). PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division 2003). See D. Md. Id. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. PDF PUBLISHED - United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 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. While she is trained as a bookkeeper, at the time of the Robinsons' 2014 application for a loan modification and in the subsequent months, Mrs. Robinson was not employed in any capacity. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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. 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." 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. In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar moves to strike the report of the Robinsons' expert witness, Geoffrey Oliver, on the grounds that (1) Oliver was hired pursuant to an ethically improper contingency fee agreement; and (2) his testimony does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). R. Civ. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. Ins. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 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). 1024.41(i). 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. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). or misleading oral or written statement . Id. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. (quoting East Tex. 2006). Law 13-316(c). 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. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. Class Cert. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) ("In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met."). 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. Thus, the nature of the proof of whether there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations provides substantial support for a finding of predominance. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. 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. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. See Md. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. 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. Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." 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"). "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". . At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. 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." Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Civil Action No. TDC-14-3667 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." A Division of NBC Universal. 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. For example, Nationstar's own internal procedures reveal that when a loss mitigation application is received, a processor reviews it to determine if all required information and documents have been received, and enters one code, specifically "code HMPC" in LSAMS signifying "Financial Application Complete," and a different code, specifically "code HMPA," signifying "Financial Application Incomplete." cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Demetrius Robinson 12 U.S.C. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." Id. 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." A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. 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. 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. All but $28.6 million of its. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. 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. Id. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. 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. 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. Aug. 19, 2015). 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." Home [robinsonsettlement.com] See Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267, 275 (4th Cir. 12 U.S.C. 164. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. 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. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. Code Ann., Com. Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. 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." 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. Home Loans, No. 1024.41 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. Fed. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. Id. The Class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC. 12 C.F.R. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 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. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC - law360.com . 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. 1024.41(a). The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. Plaintiff and Class Representative Demetrius Robinson, along with Class Counsel Tycko & Zavareei LLP and The Bestor Law Firm, respectfully move this Court for an award of $1,300,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as a $5,000 service award for Mr. Robinson. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Class Certification. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. 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. 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. 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. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 2010). v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. The commonality requirement is also met. 2605(f)(1). Fed. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (4th Cir. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. See id. Id. 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. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. MCC JR 0003. Eligible consumers will be contacted by Nationstar or the settlement administrator about refunds under the settlement. Id. 1024.41(b)(2)(B). LLC, No. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). EQT Prod. Fed. Mot. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. Any additional updates will be posted here. Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. Portland, OR 97208-3560. 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.