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"). Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. The fact that Oliver's methodology has not been subjected to peer review and that he has not published any articles about it does not invalidate it. 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. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit these kinds of arrangements. 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. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. Law 13-316(c). 1024.41(h)(1), (4). R. Civ. 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. 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. Md. Nationstar's reliance on Accrued Financial Services v. Prime Retail, Inc., 298 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. 2605(f). v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. 164. They have a home in Damascus, Maryland purchased by Demetrius Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"). Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. 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. According to Nationstar's Underwriting Workflow Procedures, which sets forth the steps followed to review loans for modifications, when a borrower submits a loan modification application, a code is entered into LSAMS and updates the loan's substatus in Remedy Star. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! 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. Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. 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." The Robinsons assert that they have suffered damages in the lost opportunity to have their mortgage loan modified and to pursue other loss mitigation options; in the fees, late fees, and interest that Nationstar has assessed since they became delinquent on their loan; in the lost "time and effort" which they expended in "pursuing the loss mitigation process with Nationstar" rather than trying to improve their business; and in administrative costs, including "postage, travel expenses, photocopying, scanning, and facsimile expenses." 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. Claim Your Cash Every Week! Code Ann., Com. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 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. For example, Nationstar's own internal procedures reveal that when a loss mitigation application is received, a processor reviews it to determine if all required information and documents have been received, and enters one code, specifically "code HMPC" in LSAMS signifying "Financial Application Complete," and a different code, specifically "code HMPA," signifying "Financial Application Incomplete." 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. Id. 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. She alleges Nationstar was sent multiple disputes by both Experian and Equifax with documentation showing the debt was forgiven, yet Nationstar persisted in reporting the debt as valid. Through both a declaration by a Nationstar Vice President of Default Servicing, Brandon Anderson, and an expert report by Stuart D. Gurrea, Nationstar contests Oliver's analysis and endeavors to establish that the only way to identify RESPA violations using Nationstar's data is through a file-by-file review. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. . From January 2012 to December 2016, the CFPB and 50 state attorneys general claim Nationstar, which is now doing business asMr. Cooper, engaged in a number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. Ballard v. Blue Shield of S.W. Md. 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. Nelson, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (collecting cases). While Demetrius Robinson did appeal Nationstar's March 15, 2014 offer of an in-house modification, the requirements of subsection (h) were not triggered because the offer was not a denial of a loan modification application. at 300. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. Presently pending is Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, Nationstar's Motion to Strike, and the Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification. Id. 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. 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. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loan modification application; or 12 C.F.R. As to the third denial on November 7, 2013, Nationstar informed the Robinsons that the loan modification application was denied because the mortgage loan was not in default. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. 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. 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. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. Since the Court has already concluded that Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. When combined with the state settlements, Nationstar is on the hook to pay a total of $91 million overall: $85 million to harmed consumers and $6 million in civil penalties. 12 U.S.C. A plaintiff has the burden to show that all of the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met. 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. See MCC JR0529-31. Id. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. 2601 et seq. 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. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 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. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. R. Civ. See id. 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. . Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). 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. Law 13 . 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. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. Day to address discovery issues. 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. 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. Rather than striking the testimony, the Court may need to consider permitting supplemental discovery to correct for the lack of relevant data not previously made available to Oliver. These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. 28, 2017). The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. Id. 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. Congress enacted RESPA to protect consumers from "unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices" in the real estate mortgage industry, and to ensure "that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process." During this time and up until September 25, 2017, Nationstar had not begun any foreclosure proceedings on the Robinsons' home. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. The lawsuit alleges, however, that Nationstar has not made interest payments to the plaintiffs, nor provided any record that interest was accruing and due to the homeowners, at any time during or after December 1, 2018 to March 22, 2019 or May 1, 2020 through the present. While the particulars of Mr. Robinson's application process will not necessarily prove that Nationstar mishandled the applications of other individual class members, these facts fairly encompass the types of claims that would be brought by the members of the class. At different stages in the processing of a loan modification application, Nationstar employees enter certain codes into certain databases, and certain information can be stored and accessed through those applications. P. 23(b)(3). uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." 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. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. 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. 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 Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. 1024.41 Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) because there is no evidence in the record that Nationstar violated those provisions. See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. MCC JR 530. 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. A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." 13-316(e)(1). See Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 374 F. App'x 868, 873 (11th Cir. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. Compl. at 359-60. Since the parties do not argue that the Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass differ for the purposes of the class certification analysis, the Court will analyze them together. 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. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. Mr. Robinson's counsel is experienced in complex civil litigation and class action litigation. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. 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. 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. The commonality requirement is also met. 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." . McLean v. GMAC Mortg. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 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. EQT Prod. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. R. Evid. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. Cal. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. In Washington v. Am. That's one reason why the settlement, particularly the provisions requiring Nationstar to adhere to enhanced standards, is crucial.