Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. Mot. 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. 2601(a). Id. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. However, if the costs are shown to have been incurred in response to the RESPA violation, the Court finds that they would be actual damages within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 2010). 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. Fed. The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. 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 denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). 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."). A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. An 85-year Harvard study found the No. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. 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. Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). Order at 2, ECF No. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). All but $28.6 million of its. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. 2003). The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. 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. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." The Robinsons assert, and Nationstar does not argue otherwise, that litigation regarding Regulation X is not proceeding against Nationstar in another forum. "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. 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. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. 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. Fed. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. In response, on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson sent Nationstar the exact same application that he had submitted on March 7, 2014. On February 16, 2017, the Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. See 12 C.F.R. 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. Day to address discovery issues. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. 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. Am. McAdams v. Nationstar Mortg. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. See 12 C.F.R. 2010). 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." A letter noting receipt of the application is automatically generated and sent to the borrower, and a Nationstar employee checks the application's documentation to determine if it is complete based on a checklist. 222. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. See MCC JR0529-31. The court, however, did not explain how in the absence of any obligation to pay back to the Note, the plaintiff qualified as a "borrower" under the RESPA statute. To the extent that, as Nationstar claims, such a determination could not be fully accomplished through computerized analysis alone, the resources needed to resolve this question would be even greater, such that the importance of having it resolved in a common fashion for all claims would be heightened. This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. 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. 1 . 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. The commonality requirement is also met. 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." For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Strike will be DENIED; and the Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. For a class action brought for violations of Regulation X, a servicer is liable for "actual damages to each of the borrowers in the class" and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of noncompliance, statutory damages amounting to a maximum of $2,000 per class member up to a total of the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the servicer's net worth. . McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Messner v. Northshore Univ. Code Ann., Com. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Portland, OR 97208-3560. 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. Am. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. Notably, although a borrower may recover up to $2,000 in statutory damages upon a showing of a "pattern or practice of non-compliance with the requirements" of Regulation X, 12 U.S.C. Id. The record is undisputed that as of September 25, 2017, Nationstar had neither started foreclosure proceedings nor moved for foreclosure judgment on the Robinsons' home. The Court agrees that costs, including administrative costs, "incurred whether or not the servicer complied with its obligations" are not actual damages "caused by, or 'a result of,'" the RESPA violation, whether or not they occurred before or after the violation. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/15/2021 Pg: 9 of 33 13-316(e)(1). Nationstar's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. 12 C.F.R. Id. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. Id. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. Moreover, although the court stated that an arrangement for providing expert testimony for a contingent fee would violate public policy, the court did not address the question of the admissibility of evidence at issue here. R. Civ. Likewise, Oliver's expert report provides no analysis on how Nationstar's databases allow for a systematic determination whether Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of the specific reasons for the servicer's decision to deny each loan modification option, in violation of 12 C.F.R. It does not mount any persuasive attack on Oliver's "principles and methodology," Westberry, 178 F.3d at 261, which largely consisted of counting the number of days between events and reviewing files for a particular loan to determine whether they contained certain standard content. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. 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. Appellate Win Affirms $3 Million Settlement in Class Action against Nationstar Mortgage - Tycko & Zavareei LLP Contact Us We look forward to hearing from you. Mar. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. 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. 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. If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. 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. 2012) (citing Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 277 (Md. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 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. Oliver is the Chief Executive Officer of Hilltop Advisors LLC, a financial services consulting, compliance audit, and accounting advisory firm, and has extensive experience conducting compliance reviews for mortgage servicers, including for compliance with loss mitigation procedures. Where the Robinsons may be able to show that they have suffered actual damages, their claim for statutory damages, upon a showing that Nationstar has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, remains viable. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. Fed. 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. Finally, Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the RESPA claims because the Robinsons cannot establish that they have suffered actual damages as a result of Nationstar's violations of Regulation X. 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. Reg. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. P. 23(b)(3). 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. Id. This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. Code Ann., Com. 1988) (distinguishing between a rule of professional conduct and admissibility of evidence); cf. News Ask a Lawyer The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. . United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1344 (7th Cir. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. 2006). P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. More importantly, while a determination of an individual violation would not require extensive analysis, specific proof of a pattern or practice of RESPA violations in any individual case would be a substantial undertaking, likely requiring the same type of complex analysis proposed here: a sampling of Nationstar files, compilation of all relevant data for such files, expert analysis to identify violations, and an assessment whether the identified violations are sufficient to establish a pattern or practice of violations. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). MCC JR 318, 530-531. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. After two more extensions were granted, based on a finding by the Magistrate Judge that "Defendant has failed to comply" with its discovery obligations and delayed the process, discovery closed on March 22, 2018. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 2014). application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . From this approach, Oliver concluded that for approximately 60 percent of the sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement that it inform the borrower of loss mitigation application determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. See Fed. A "borrower" may enforce the provisions of Regulation X pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 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."). 1024.41(a). Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(f), (g). Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h); and (4) there is no evidence of actual damages from any RESPA violation. In Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. See id. Wright et al. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. Id. When each event occurseither the mailing of a letter or the changing of a code or substatusthe date is recorded in the databases. Id. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. 12 U.S.C. 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"). 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. To establish an MCPA violation under this provision, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation; (2) the plaintiff relied upon the representation; and (3) doing so caused the plaintiff actual injury.