A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". 1024.1, prescribe additional duties and responsibilities of mortgage servicers under RESPA. (2012), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." 2006). In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. 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. Fed. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . 2605(f). Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. The Motion will be granted as to all of Tamara Robinson's claims and as to Demetrius Robinson's claims under 12 C.F.R. While it is not necessary to identify every class member at the time of certification for a class to be "ascertainable," a class cannot be certified if its membership must be determined through "individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." 2017) (holding that "incidental costs related to the sending of correspondence" to the servicer, including "postage and travel," are not actual damages under RESPA because such a rule "would transform virtually all unsatisfactory borrower inquiries into RESPA lawsuits"). Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 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. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. 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. R. Civ. Id. While Mrs. Robinson stated that she was conducting bookkeeping for Green Earth Services during the relevant time frame, she testified that her work was less than six hours per week, and the Robinsons have not shown that her time spent communicating with Nationstar "resulted in actual pecuniary loss" to Mr. Robinson or the business. at 300. Thus, based on his report and experience, Oliver concludes that Nationstar "failed to comply" with Regulation X and that it is possible to "identify violations" of Regulation X "using the methodologies" he described, without the necessity of a file-by-file review. Finally, the Court finds that common issues of law and fact predominate. 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. Moreover, because borrowers often submit multiple loan modification applications, and because Nationstar's data is stored at the loan level, not at the application level, Nationstar claims that it is not possible to tell from the data alone, without reviewing the files, whether a status or code change is in response to a specific loan modification application. . 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. 1967). See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. Bouchat v. Balt. 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. See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. LLCNo. The commonality requirement is also met. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 1:2021cv00452 | US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | Justia Log In Sign Up Find a Lawyer Ask a Lawyer Research the Law Law Schools Laws & Regs Newsletters Marketing Solutions Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Robinson v. Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. Summ. To calculate damages, Oliver stated that he would look to data from the LSAMS application, including data tables that contain fee information, to identify fees that would not have been charged but for Nationstar's various RESPA violations, but that he was not able to evaluate this data in his report because it had not been provided to him. 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. Id. . Nationstar further argues that the Robinsons cannot show that they suffered economic damages as a result of the violation of section 13-316. Id. A separate Order shall issue. 2016) (dicta). 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. Since neither party contends that Oliver's testimony and report are not "critical," the Court must address the Daubert challenge before reaching the question of class certification. . Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. In analyzing this question, a court compares the class representative's claims and defenses to those of the absent class members, considers the facts needed to prove the class representative's claims, and assesses the extent to which those facts would also prove the claims of the absent class members. Cf. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, case number 8:14-cv-03667, from Maryland Court. 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. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . 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." Finally, where Nationstar has offered no specific argument in its brief, beyond those addressed above, to refute Oliver's proffered analysis for identifying RESPA violations arising from the failure to notify borrowers of their appeal rights or the failure to exercise diligence in requesting documents based on repeated requests for the same documents, 12 C.F.R. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. or misleading oral or written statement . 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. Although the parties have not offered specific details on the nature and timing of those costs and fees, it is reasonable to infer that at least some portion of them were incurred after they submitted their March 7, 2014 loan modification application and after Nationstar had violated Regulation X. 1024.41(i). This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. They have claimed $141,000 in interest; $6,147.12 in fees assessed by Nationstar; $2,275 in consulting fees; $50.58 in administrative costs; and lost time and labor of approximately 120 hours; as well as punitive and statutory damages. Class Certif. If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. See Stillmock, 385 F. App'x at 274 ("[T]here is no reasoned basis to conclude that the fact that an individual plaintiff can recover attorney's fees in addition to statutory damages of up to $1,000 will result in enforcement of [the Fair Credit Reporting Act] by individual actions of a scale comparable to the potential enforcement by way of class action."). Based on the language of Regulation X, the Court finds that a loss mitigation application submitted before the effective date does not count as the single application subject to the regulation. 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. In Frank, due to the state's community property laws, the mortgage was "a community debt," and after her husband died, the plaintiff "was therefore obligated to make the loan payments" because of her interest in the home. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. For example, since default fees are often paid by sources other than the borrower, such as in a short sale or refinancing, Nationstar challenges Oliver's assessment that fees identified through LSAMS can be deemed to constitute damages from RESPA violations, because the software does not reflect who paid the fee. 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. Rather, the Court finds, based on the reasoning of Tagatz and Universal Athletic Sales, that the potential violation of an ethical rule does not itself make Oliver's testimony inadmissible. J. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). 2015). Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. Id. 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. But where the broad methodology is sound, the lack of consideration of unproduced data cannot provide a basis to strike the expert witness's testimony. 2019) (noting that the purpose of certifying a class "is not to identify every class member at the time of certification, but to define a class in such a way as to ensure that there will be some administratively feasible [way] for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member at some point" (internal citation omitted) (quoting EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. MCC JR 0003. Code Ann., Com. 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). The "Maryland Subclass" consists of "[a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. 12 C.F.R. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Wright et al. . 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"). 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. Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 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." Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 12 C.F.R. Code Ann., Com. See id. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. PO Box 3560. A Division of NBC Universal. Since Mrs. Robinson may not bring a claim under Regulation X, she may not be a named class representative. Wesleyan Coll. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 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. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. 164. Since the Court already considered and ruled on these issues, see supra part I.B, it will not revisit those arguments here. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. It will be otherwise denied. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." 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. Factors "pertinent" to the predominance and superiority requirements include the "class members' interests in individually controlling" the litigation, whether litigation on the matter has already been begun by other class members, whether concentrating the litigation in one forum is desirable or undesirable, and the potential difficulties managing the class action presents. In Washington v. Am. 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"). The Borrower Payment Amount shall be used: (1) for payments to borrowers who submit claims and are in either or both of the Service Transfer and Property Preservation Populations set forth below; and (2) for reasonable costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, including taxes and fees for tax counsel. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." 1024.41(a). 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. 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive a payment. Likewise, the articulated concern that Nationstar would not be required to respond to loss mitigation applications filed within a certain number of days of a foreclosure sale, can be addressed through the provision of data relating to the dates of scheduled foreclosure sales. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Throughout discovery, Nationstar repeatedly stated that it could not produce the data on loss mitigation or loan modification applications from its databases in the form requested by the Robinsons.