robinson v nationstar settlementrobinson v nationstar settlement
During this period, in August 2013, the Robinsons retained a forensic loan auditor, Professional Compliance Examiners ("PaCE"), and paid it $2,275 to help them communicate with Nationstar. Because of the need to protect the rights of absent plaintiffs to assert different claims and of defendants to assert facts and defenses specific to individual class members, courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" of whether a proposed class action meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 before certifying a class. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. Id. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide. 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." 1024.41(a). 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. 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." R. Evid. 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. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. 125. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. Furthermore, determining whether statutory damages are available will require no individualized consideration, because the pattern-or-practice claim "would be based solely on" Nationstar's conduct and can be established through sampling. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 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. 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. 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." Law 13-301 and 13-303, because the Robinsons do not have standing to bring those claims. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. 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. 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. Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. "When these issues were identified several years ago, we immediately made restitution to our impacted customers and invested in process improvements to prevent reoccurrence," Jay Bray, CEO and chairman of Mr. Cooper said in a statement Monday. Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. . 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. In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. If the initial application is not complete, a different Remedy Star substatus notation and LSAMS code are entered, and a letter is created and sent to the borrower asking for the required documents. Your Email Please enter your email. Nationstar said in a statement that its settlements were based on "loan-servicing practices" that the company used between 2010 and 2015 and has since discontinued. 1024.41(d). This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. R. Evid. . Others, however, have concluded that "all expenses, costs, fees, and injuries fairly attributable to" a servicer's RESPA violation are damages, "even if incurred before the" violation, because the "wrongful act . 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." 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."). If the application is denied, a notice to that effect is sent to the borrower. 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. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. 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. See id. First, to the extent that there was a period of time during which Nationstar failed to implement procedures to comply with RESPA, the facts establishing such a gap would be highly relevant to a pattern or practice determination and would be common in every case. 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. Sep. 9, 2019). The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Finally, the Court notes that a decision to certify a class is based on whether or not a putative class satisfies the Rule 23 factors, not on a preliminary assessment of the underlying merits of the claim. 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. Fed. Because such a common question would have to be resolved in many if not all individual cases, it advances, rather than undermines, the argument in favor of predominance. Code Ann., Com. Wesleyan Coll. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. 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. Id. 28, 2017). These events will be represented by discrete data points in Nationstar's databases, such that these violations may be proved through that data. Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. The Class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC. All Rights Reserved. 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." For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. . Law 13-316(c). 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. Local R. 105.6. Although based on imperfect data, Oliver's expert report reveals that such analysis can substantially address whether Nationstar violated 12 C.F.R. The Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. Id. A class action may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) if common questions of law or fact "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" and a "class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Although Monday's case specifically addresses Nationstar's actions following the Great Recession, the outcome can affect today's homeowners, says Kwame Raoul, attorney general of Illinois. Indeed, Nationstar does not seriously contest the commonality prong. R. Civ. 2012). 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. Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). 143. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. In focusing on whether RESPA violations can be established through computerized analysis rather than individual file review, the parties lose track of the fact that because statutory damages are predicated on a finding that there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations, that issue common to almost any individual claim plays an outsized role in the predominance analysis. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. 2013); Poindexter v. Teubert, 462 F.2d 1096, 1097 (4th Cir. 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. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. . But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. 2605(f)(1). The regulation is silent on whether a loss mitigation application submitted before January 10, 2014 could qualify as the "single complete loss mitigation application."
robinson v nationstar settlement