robinson v nationstar settlement robinson v nationstar settlement

In the case of Tony Robinson and Debra Robinson vs Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the appeals court ruled that the lender did not actually have the right to foreclose on the property. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. 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. Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against R. Evid. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. On March 8, 2014, Nationstar sent to Mr. Robinson a letter stating that he was ineligible for a HAMP modification, but on March 15, 2014, it sent a different letter offering a loan modification under which Mr. Robinson would receive a reduced interest rate for two years. Furthermore, the Robinsons have made a sufficient showing that a central computerized analysis of Nationstar data would substantially, if not completely, resolve questions of whether RESPA violations occurred. Reg. . Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 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. 2601(a). The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). 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. 218. Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Am. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. WASHINGTON, D.C. 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. . 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. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. Furthermore, to the extent that the Robinsons' claim is that Nationstar falsely stated that it would evaluate the Robinsons for all available loss mitigation plans, the Robinsons point only to statements in letters that the Robinsons "may" be eligible for certain non-HAMP loan modification programs. 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. If the initial application is complete, the substatus in Remedy Star is changed to refer the application to an underwriter for review, and an additional code is added in LSAMS. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. In addition to the fee paid to PaCE, the Robinsons also assert as damages $50.58 in administrative costs, specifically postage fees for sending information relating to their loan modification application to Nationstar, and 120 hours of time expended on the loan modification process. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Md. PDF NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, D/B/A MR. COOPER, Defendant. 164. Wesleyan Coll. Florida Appeals Court Reverses Mortgage Foreclosure - Pike & Lustig, LLP 12 C.F.R. It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. A Scheduling Order was first entered on November 24, 2015, and the period for discovery was extended four times between November 2015 and January 2017. Id. Law 13-301 and 303. . Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. Portland, OR 97208-3560. The Robinsons' designated expert, Geoffrey Oliver, has offered a methodology for identifying class members and when their rights under RESPA and the MCPA have been violated. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. 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." See Fed. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). 120. 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. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Multiple States Enter into . Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext 2006). 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. The one-time consulting fee was paid in August 2013 to PaCE, a forensic loan auditor, to advise the Robinsons on how to communicate with Nationstar and to handle their loan. See id. All Rights Reserved. See Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. at 358. For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. Specifically, if a loss mitigation application is received "45 days or more before a foreclosure sale," the loan servicer must provide a notice to the borrower "in writing within 5 days" of receiving it in which the servicer acknowledges receipt of the application and states whether the "application is either complete or incomplete." In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC: Complaint with jury demand A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. See, e.g. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. Nationstar Mortgage TCPA Class Action Settlement Code Ann., Com. Compl. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." 2605(f), is common question of law and fact that Mr. Robinson and the class members would all be required prove in their individual cases in order to qualify for statutory damages. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). 3d 712, 728 (S.D. 2016) (dicta). . 2010). Code Ann., Com. If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. 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. 2605(f). 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. At a minimum, the question of when a loss mitigation application is "complete" under RESPA within the workflow of Nationstarwhether at the time of the processor's designation of the file as complete or at a later stageis a significant unresolved question of law and fact that would be common to all RESPA claims against Nationstar. 2006). Because of the need to protect the rights of absent plaintiffs to assert different claims and of defendants to assert facts and defenses specific to individual class members, courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" of whether a proposed class action meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 before certifying a class. 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." Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. 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." 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. In contrast, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the administrative costs and fees incurred by the Robinsons resulted from Nationstar's RESPA violations. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. 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. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. Mot. 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. Id. 1024.41(d). Ward, 595 F.3d at 180 (quoting Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 430). 2007)), aff'd sub nom. . Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. Petitioner: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC: Respondent: TAMARA ROBINSON and DEMETRIUS ROBINSON: Case Number: 19-379: Filed: September 24, 2019: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals . Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. Compl. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC | 2015 WL 4994491 | D. Md. | Judgment Code Ann., Com. The proposed settlement with the CFPB requires Nationstar to pay $73 million in restitution to affected borrowers, as well as a $1.5 million civil penalty to the agency. Mot. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). 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. 2605(f)(2), "Rule 23 contains no suggestion that the necessity for individual damage determinations destroys commonality, typicality, or predominance, or otherwise forecloses class certification." News Ask a Lawyer Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. at 300. 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. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. Bouchat v. Balt. Messner v. Northshore Univ. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. 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. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. 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." 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. The economic challenges and burdens that homeowners currently face are similar to the ones experienced following the Great Recession. 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. R. Civ. 2013) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded actual injury or loss under the MCPA where he alleged that he suffered "bogus late fees," damage to his credit, and attorney's fees); see also Cole v. Fed'l Nat'l Mortg. The Complaint asserts two claims. 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. 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." 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. . 222. Id. 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. 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 that the company failed to honor mortgage forbearance agreements and unfairly foreclosed on homeowners. 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. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - Justia Dockets & Filings at 983. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nationstar violated subsection (h), summary judgment will be entered for Nationstar on that claim. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. 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. Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 8:2014cv03667 - Justia Law Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. Fed. 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. 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. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . 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. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. MCC JR 318, 530-531. 1972). 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. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. The public policy interest at issue was one against "stirring up litigation or promoting litigating for the benefit of the promoter rather than for the benefit of the litigant or the public," an interest not implicated in the same manner by the fee arrangement with the particular expert witness in this case. James Robinson v. National Student Clearinghouse Toggle navigation Home Commonly Asked Questions Documents The Court approved the settlement at the July 7, 2020 Fairness Hearing. The commonality requirement is also met. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 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." When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. Nationstar also seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under the MCPA, which include claims of misleading statements in connection with the collection of consumer debts, in violation of section 13-301(1), (3) and section 13-303(4)-(5) of the MCPA, and claims that Nationstar did not respond to consumer inquiries within 15 days, in violation of section 13-316(c) of the MCPA. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." During discovery, Oliver revealed that his fee arrangement with the Robinsons includes a flat fee for his expert services, but that a portion of the fee is contingent on the certification of a class in this case. This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. Class litigation would also promote consistent results on the common question whether Nationstar engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X and would provide Nationstar with finality and closure on that issue.