Messner v. Northshore Univ. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 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. Id. 1976) (holding that while it may be unethical for a lawyer to testify on behalf of a client as an expert, "it does not necessarily follow that any alleged professional misconduct" would require exclusion of the testimony because the rules of professional conduct do "not delineate rules of evidence"); United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 26 (4th Cir. A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Class Cert. 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). 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. Finally, while Nationstar presented arguments for why the Robinsons have not shown damages as to most of the asserted categories, it did not advance any argument for why the interest damages claimed by the Robinsons were not attributable to Nationstar's Regulation X violations and thus is not entitled to summary judgment on that issue. 2002) (affirming without addressing the propriety of the striking of the expert testimony). Check out:Covid-19 pandemic is the first time 40% of Americans have experienced food insecurity, Don't miss:Amex Blue Cash Preferred is offering an elevated welcome bonus for a limited time, Get Make It newsletters delivered to your inbox, Learn more about the world of CNBC Make It, 2023 CNBC LLC. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. 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. On August 26, 2014, Nationstar mailed another letter acknowledging He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. Id. Fed. The CFPB estimates about 40,000 borrowers were harmed by Nationstar's allegedly unfair and deceptive practices, according to a statement released Monday. Although this data was not provided to Oliver, there is no reason it could not be produced and used to make determinations on the timeliness of decisions on loss mitigation applications. 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. 2003). 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. QSF Settlement Administrator. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. Am. As a result, on January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted the Robinsons' Motion to Compel in which the Robinsons had sought to have the Court order Nationstar to accept and run scripts created by the Robinsons' expert to extract the relevant data from Nationstar's databases on the sample of loans from which they could test their methodology for identifying members of the proposed classes. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. 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." Updates will also be available at the toll-free number: 1-866-404-0137. Summ. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. 12 C.F.R. The Robinsons own a business called Green Earth Services, which provides waste and recycling services to clients. 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. Where it is now apparent, in hindsight, that Nationstar was permitted to withhold relevant and necessary data in the discovery process, it is unsurprising that Nationstar employees would then review loan files, with their complete data, and identify problems. 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. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). Compl. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. Nationstar. If the settlements are approved by the D.C. district court, Nationstar will be required to immediately set aside about $15.6 million to pay borrowers it has not yet remediated. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. 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. The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. RECITALS Code Ann., Com. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 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. A Division of NBC Universal. 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. . THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. Opp'n Mot. Auto. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. In a victory for borrowers, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion on Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, affirming approval of the settlement. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. . HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced Monday, that his office obtained an $86.3 million settlement from Nationstar Mortgage, the country's fourth-largest mortgage . 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). In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. Sep. 9, 2019). 2605(f)(1). The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. at 152. 2003). Some courts have held that administrative costs that predate the alleged RESPA violation cannot constitute "actual damages." Part 1024). Particularly where a class may be certified even if individualized damages calculations would be necessary, the incomplete nature of the damages analysis does not provide a basis for striking Oliver's expert testimony. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. 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." 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." 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." Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. Md. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 See 12 C.F.R. 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. R. Evid. . 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. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." 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. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. 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. 2d at 1366. at 359-60. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into between plaintiff Demetrius Robinson ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class Members (as defined below), and defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar"). Reg. 2605(f). Code Ann., Com. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. 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. 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. 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. . 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. 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. 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. 325 0 obj <>stream Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 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. Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. See 12 C.F.R. 2018). The Robinsons complied. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. 89, 90, ECF No. 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. Cent. 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." Fed. Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements, Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018, Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois, latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. 2003) ("[I]f Lierboe has no stacking claim, she cannot represent others who may have such a claim, and her bid to serve as a class representative must fail. Law 13-301 and 13-303, and that Mr. Robinson therefore may not assert such claims on behalf of the class, Mr. Robinson's remaining claims and defenses are typical of the class members. Since Mr. Robinson has the same goal as the other class members of establishing that Nationstar violated Regulation X with respect to his loan, he will adequately protect their interests. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment.