robinson v nationstar settlement check

Aug. 19, 2015). 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. Like the class members, to prove his case, Mr. Robinson will have to show that Nationstar failed to timely and appropriately respond to his loan modification applications by pointing to the dates of his submissions and the dates and contents of Nationstar's responses. 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." White setting Settlement Conference for 10/3/2023 at 9:00 AM in Chambers, Room 327, US Courthouse, . . P. 23(a)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). 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. 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"). 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. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. Settlement Pool $12,100,000 Settlement Website Nationstar Class Action Settlement Deadline 04/11/2016 Contact Wright et al. 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 company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. 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. 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. Finally, the Court notes that a decision to certify a class is based on whether or not a putative class satisfies the Rule 23 factors, not on a preliminary assessment of the underlying merits of the claim. The trial court granted the motion over the Robinsons' objection, noting in its order that Nationstar had now waived its claim for attorney feesthe claim that had been the sole impediment to a final judgment being entered after the trial court granted Nationstar's request to reopen the evidence after entry of the initial final judgment. Code Ann., Com. In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." . MSJ JR 0284. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. See 12 C.F.R. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). 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. 1024.41(i). 120. Code Ann., Com. 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. 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."). The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. 1998). Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. 1967). The plaintiff's claim "cannot be so different from the claims of absent class members that their claims will not be advanced by" proof of the plaintiff's own individual claim. 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. On August 26, 2014, Nationstar mailed another letter acknowledging R. Evid. Summ. After attempts to modify the loan failed, the Robinsons filed a class action Complaint against Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar") for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al, No. 2:2012cv00718 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. 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. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. See Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for actual damages and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of non-compliance by the servicer, up to $2,000 in statutory damages. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - Justia Dockets & Filings Opp'n Mot. . In support of these claims, Mr. Robinson testified in his deposition that the $141,000 in interest represents the amount that the Robinsons have been overcharged over the life of the loan. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the Robinsons' MCPA claim under section 13-316 because the Robinsons have not shown that they submitted a complaint or inquiry that triggers a duty to respond. Code Ann., Com. Filed by Janie Robinson. RECITALS Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. 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. Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Based on the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion to dismiss (doc. In a victory for borrowers, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion on Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, affirming approval of the settlement. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar argues that Oliver's methodology has not been peer reviewed, has a high error rate because he used the wrong data fields to identify the dates of events, failed to consider the timing of foreclosure sales relative to the dates of the submission of loan modification applications, and did not propose a specific methodology for calculating damages. LLC, No. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. As for typicality, the named plaintiff must be "typical" of the class, such that that the class representative's claim and defenses are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class" in that prosecution of the claim will "simultaneously tend to advance the interests of the absent class members." J. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. 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. 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. Id. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." Id. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant. . The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. 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. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . 2007)), aff'd sub nom. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. Code Ann., Com. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). CFPB V. Nationstar - Frequently Asked Questions 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. 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. Case No. Rather than rendering the testimony inadmissible, the fee arrangement is relevant to the expert's credibility. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. 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. 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. 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. Fed. On August 20, 2014, when Mrs. Robinson called to check on the status of the application, a Nationstar representative told her that the paperwork had gone to the wrong loss mitigation division and that the Robinsons needed to submit their application again. On June 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge bifurcated discovery to focus initially on the merits of the Robinsons' individual claim and the question of class certification, ordered Nationstar to disclose electronic records so that the Robinsons could sample Nationstar's data for purposes of a motion for class certification, and limited the discovery of such records to a sample of 400 loans from the period from January 10, 2014 to June 30, 2014 and "to areas which inform" the Court's decision on class certification, namely whether Nationstar was in compliance with Regulation X. Mot. . For the Regulation X provisions that require the servicer to communicate specific information to a borrower, Oliver's methodology involves reviewing a sample of loan files and identifying a specific communication to a borrower based on the file name. MCC JR 530. 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. Summ. (2000) (reflecting that the prior version of the rules of professional conduct prohibited an attorney from "acquiesc[ing] in the payment of compensation to a witness contingent on the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case"). The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. Based on his experience and review of deposition transcripts of Nationstar employees, Oliver asserts that Nationstar has computerized data from which RESPA violations may be identified, not least because Nationstar must be able to demonstrate its compliance with RESPA to regulators. Fed. Auto. United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. 2605(f)(1)(A)). . 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). Am. The predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) are designed to ensure that the class action "achieve[s] economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote[s] . et al (6:21-cv-00380), Oklahoma Eastern District Court, Filed: 12/23/2021 - PacerMonitor Mobile Federal and Bankruptcy Court PACER Dockets . Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator PO Box 3560 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. Class certification will be granted, with Demetrius Robinson as the named plaintiff, as to both the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Class for the claims under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(b)(2)(B). 1972). 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. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 702. Similarly, though the precise nature of the fees imposed was not specified, it is reasonable to infer that some were attributable to delays linked to RESPA violations. Because all of the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements are met as to a class asserting violations of 12 C.F.R. . Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. 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. AG Shapiro Secures $2.75 Million for Pennsylvania Mortgage Loan While Mr. Robinson sought to reduce his monthly mortgage payment in applying for a loan modification, his deposition testimony reflects that he understands that the present lawsuit contends that Nationstar did not process the Robinsons' loan modification application correctly. (ds) Download PDF Search this Case See Md. . 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 164. 2601(a). 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. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. All Rights Reserved. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Nationstar admits that in March 2014, two months after the implementation date of Regulation X, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with the regulation. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. 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. In Washington v. Am. The distinction is crucial. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. R. Civ. 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." 2605(f). 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loss mitigation application; 12 C.F.R. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. On July 17, 2014, Nationstar informed Mr. Robinson by letter that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. 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. 3d 249, 266 (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. Back To Top. . 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Rule 702 permits an expert to testify if the testimony "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," "is based on sufficient facts or data," and "is the product of reliable principles and methods," and if the expert has "reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. Reg. Because there are, at a minimum, disputed issues of fact as to what fees, administrative costs, and interest constitute damages, the Court will deny the motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual damages.

Nfl Offensive Line Rankings 2022, Articles R