Yardbird Dallas Happy Hour, Stephanie And Ashley Dr Phil, Artificial Christmas Tree Replacement Pole, Articles R

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. 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. (quoting East Tex. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. 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. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. 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. Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equip. After attempts to modify their 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. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. 2605(f)(1)(A); see 12 C.F.R. Id. 12 U.S.C. Md. You will not receive a payment if you fail to timely submit a completed Claim Form, and you will give up your right to bring your own lawsuit against the Defendant about the claims in this case. EQT Prod. . 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Md. LLC, No. 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. Id. An "unfair or deceptive" trade practice includes a "false . Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Id. News Ask a Lawyer . Cal. R. Civ. 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. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. See, e.g. An 85-year Harvard study found the No. The Final Approval Order, approving the Class-wide Settlement, was entered December 11, 2020. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. 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. 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. 1972). Nationstar also asserts that the Robinsons have not identified evidence sufficient to support their MCPA claims. 702, 703. After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. 10696, 10708, provides that "[a] servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." 120. Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. First, as a threshold matter, the Court notes that in ruling on Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will grant judgment in favor of Nationstar as to Mrs. Robinson's claims, Mr. Robinson's RESPA claims under 12 C.F.R. It follows that only borrowers may bring a claim that a loan servicer has violated Regulation X. 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. Compl. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. 2605(f)(2). THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. Law 13-301(1). "Mortgage servicers are entrusted with handling significant financial transactions for millions of Americans, including struggling homeowners. Fed. MCC JR 0003. 1024.41. 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. Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. . R. Civ. See 12 C.F.R. 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. Id. Because Oliver analyzed proprietary databases and data specifically disclosed for this litigation pursuant to a protective order, such that Oliver's peers lack access to the same information, Oliver's expert testimony is not of the type that ordinarily would be subject to peer review, and it would be unfair to require "general acceptance within a relevant scientific community." Md. Wesleyan Coll. 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." 3d at 1014. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. 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. 2007)), aff'd sub nom. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be DENIED. These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent. See 12 C.F.R. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. Code Ann., Com. At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. Cf. 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. Potentially eligible class members for all of these provisions can be identified through the LSAMS and Remedy data that marks that an application was received, identified as complete, and denied. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. Fed. 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." Eligible consumers will be contacted by Nationstar or the settlement administrator about refunds under the settlement. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of the regulation states not that a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X's requirements only for a borrower's first loss mitigation application, but that a loan servicer must "comply with the requirements" only "for a single complete loss mitigation application." at 152. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." 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. Id. The Class Action Administrator would then begin distribution of the settlement funds. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. "[N]amed class representatives [must] demonstrate standing through a 'requisite case or controversy between themselves personally and defendants,' not merely allege that 'injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. 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. See 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. Md. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara Robinson (the "Robinsons") have resided in a home in Damascus, Maryland that has been subject to a mortgage loan. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that postage costs incurred by the plaintiff to send the "initial request for information is not a cost to the borrower 'as a result of the failure' to comply with a RESPA obligation," because a violation has not occurred and will not "necessarily occur" at the time the plaintiff paid the postage. Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. 2. at 358. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Id. R. Civ. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. McAdams v. Nationstar Mortg. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. Messner v. Northshore Univ. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). 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. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). Opp'n Mot. The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application." 2015). Where the results of such an analysis would apply to any individual claim, it would be highly inefficient and wasteful to require duplicative analysis in each such case. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 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. Although each class member must individually show that they suffered "actual damages" under 12 U.S.C. 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. 1024.41(a). May 31, 2016), the plaintiff had signed the deed of trust but not the promissory note but was nevertheless deemed to have standing because she had owned the home with a right of survivorship with her deceased husband, who had signed the note. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. 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." 12 U.S.C. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997). If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . 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." Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . at 300. 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). 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.").