The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. See Fed. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. 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. Jennings' office said that these new standards are more robust than existing law and will be in place for three years starting in January 2021. Distribution of funds to Class Members, however, could not occur because a member of the Class filed an objection to the Settlement and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 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. 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. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). P. 23(b)(3). 12 C.F.R. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. 1972). Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. More Information 12 C.F.R. Before relating the facts relevant to the Motion for Class Certification, the Court will highlight the relevant procedural history affecting the record before the Court. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. Certification will not be granted as to the claims under 12 C.F.R. Sept. 9, 2019), there were multiple other claims at issue, for which Oliver's expert report seemed better suited to address. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. If the named plaintiff satisfies each of these requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court must still find that the proposed class action fits into one of the categories of class action under Rule 23(b) in order to certify the class. 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. 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. Id. The distinction is crucial. 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. 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. The first of these prerequisites is that the class must exist and be "readily identifiable" or "ascertainable" by the court through "objective criteria." That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." PO Box 3560. Local R. 105.6. 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. 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. Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. 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. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-10680087. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - Justia Dockets & Filings Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Sep. 9, 2019). Id. 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. To prepare his expert report, Oliver reviewed a randomly selected sample of 400 loans serviced by Nationstar in which a loan modification application was submitted. 2014). 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. Law 13 . 1024.41. (quoting East Tex. v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d 713, 719-20 (8th Cir. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. Md. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 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. See MCC JR0529-31. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. 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. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. PDF PUBLISHED - United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit These rights and optionsand the deadlines to exercise themare explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page of this website and in the Notice. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. See 12 C.F.R. See, e.g., Linderman v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 887 F.3d 319, 321 (7th Cir. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. 12 U.S.C. Mot. 2006). Auto. Code Ann., Com. 1024.41 See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. While Mr. Robinson signed the promissory note ("the Note"), the deed of trust ("the Deed"), and the balloon payment rider for the 2007 loan, Tamara Robinson ("Mrs. Robinson") signed only the Deed and balloon payment rider and did not sign the Note. Am. Id. 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. 2006). 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. See Md. 2605(f)(2), "Rule 23 contains no suggestion that the necessity for individual damage determinations destroys commonality, typicality, or predominance, or otherwise forecloses class certification." 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. 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. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). PDF In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 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. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . 2016) (dicta). Relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Nationstar's partial Motion to Dismiss. 222. Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 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. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. . Nationstar asserts that Oliver's testimony should be stricken because this fee arrangement includes an unethical contingency fee. 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. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. 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. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). 2601 et seq. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. Commonality requires that a class have "questions of law or fact common to the class" which are capable of classwide resolution, such that the determination of the truth or falsity of the common issue "will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. 2013)). Summ. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. Compl. Opp'n Mot. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." 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"). 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. Petitioner: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC: Respondent: TAMARA ROBINSON and DEMETRIUS ROBINSON: Case Number: 19-379: Filed: September 24, 2019: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals . See id. . 2605(f). And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. Robinson, 2015 WL 4994491, at *4 (citing Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 1984), and has upheld the certification of a class with as few as 18 members, Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. Ohio 2014). Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. . 2014))). 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. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. Maryland's Commissioner of Financial Regulation Announces Settlement See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046-47 (holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act). In the case of Tony Robinson and Debra Robinson vs Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the appeals court ruled that the lender did not actually have the right to foreclose on the property. Id. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . 2d 452, 467 (D. Md. Reg. Messner v. Northshore Univ. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. J. The Robinsons, however, have not identified any evidence that Nationstar did not intend to, and did not, conduct such evaluations. Id. 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. 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. MCC JR 318, 530-531. . 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. He asserts that damages to borrowers can be calculated based on entries in LSAMS and other data showing that fees were assessed, and that it would be possible to identify which fees would not have been assessed but for a RESPA violation. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) ("[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." at 359-60. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 1976). The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. Id. While the date that Nationstar's systems came into compliance, is unknown, Nationstar's systematic noncompliance presents common questions of law and fact for all class members. 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. 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." 2d at 1366. Many impacted consumers have already received refunds and more will be contacted by the settlement administrator in the coming weeks. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Moreover, the conflict must not be "merely speculative or hypothetical." 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). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). "[A]n evaluation of the merits to determine the strength of plaintiffs' case is not part of a Rule 23 analysis." 28, 2017). In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. Since it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met and Mr. Robinson has failed to do so, the Motion for Class Certification will be denied as to any claims that Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. 1024.41(i). This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 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. Part 1024). A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar" or "Defendant") violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by failing to adhere to its requirements with respect to its customers' loss mitigation applications and that Nationstar violated Maryland law by not timely responding 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.
En Route To Stockx For Authentication,
How Does A Man Feel When He Impregnated Someone,
Prattville Mugshots Released,
Articles R