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. 2601-2617 (2012), specifically RESPA's implementing regulations known as "Regulation X," 12 C.F.R. But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may 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. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale. In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. LLC, No. Wesleyan Coll. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. 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. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. Id. It will be otherwise denied. 1024.41(d). Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. TDC-14-3667 (D. Md. Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. 2605(f). Nationstar broke that trust by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices," Kraninger added. 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. Docket for Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 8:14-cv-03667 Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Ins. As a result, on January 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted the Robinsons' Motion to Compel in which the Robinsons had sought to have the Court order Nationstar to accept and run scripts created by the Robinsons' expert to extract the relevant data from Nationstar's databases on the sample of loans from which they could test their methodology for identifying members of the proposed classes. P. 23(b)(3). 1024.41(f), (g), and (h), and Mr. Robinson's MCPA claim under sections 13-301 and 13-303. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. Where a contingency fee arrangement for expert witnesses is not expressly prohibited by the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court declines to find that the fee arrangement here constituted an ethical violation. 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. "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". But see Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 F. Supp. See id. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." 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." 1024.41(f), (g). 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. 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. Id. . 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 . Questions? The Robinsons' designated expert, Geoffrey Oliver, has offered a methodology for identifying class members and when their rights under RESPA and the MCPA have been violated. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. 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. Id. P. 23(a)(3); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466-67 (4th Cir. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. . Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. Mr. Robinson then submitted another loan modification application on August 25, 2014. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). Feb. 14, 2017) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded damages under the MCPA where she alleged that the defendant's failures to respond "resulted in the continual assessment of accruing interest, fees and costs on the mortgage account," as well as "stress, physical sickness, headaches, sleep deprivation, worry, and pecuniary expenses"). Bouchat v. Balt. Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. MCC JR 318, 530-531. 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. 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. 13-316(e)(1). Nationstar seeks summary judgment on the Robinsons' RESPA claims on the grounds that (1) Mrs. Robinson is not a proper plaintiff because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA; (2) RESPA is inapplicable because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to the Robinsons' first loss mitigation application; (3) there is no evidence to support a violation of 12 C.F.R. The Motion will be otherwise denied. 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." Summ. 1972). Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." Mot. 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. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. 26-1. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Under subsection (h), if a loan servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale but then denies the application, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it. The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. 2d 1360, 1366 (S.D. To view the settlement agreement and consent order, please visit the CSBS's website. Fed. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 188 (4th Cir. 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. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . Fed. Compl. 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. Home Loans, No. 2d 754, 768-69 (D. Md. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. 2014). The Motion will be granted as to all of Tamara Robinson's claims and as to Demetrius Robinson's claims under 12 C.F.R. 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. 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. 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." 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). 14-3667, 2015 WL 4994491, at *1-2 (D. Md. 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. "Since then, we have continued to invest in technology, people, and leadership to ensure that our compliance and risk management programs not only meet our regulators' expectations but also support sustainable growth and maintain our position as an industry leader.". Class Cert. Under subsections (f) and (g), a loan servicer is not permitted to begin foreclosure proceedings or move for foreclosure judgment if "a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application" except in certain circumstances. Id. Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). 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. In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. MCC JR 0003. If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive a payment. If the initial application is complete, the substatus in Remedy Star is changed to refer the application to an underwriter for review, and an additional code is added in LSAMS. Md. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. See id. Although similar to Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, the test for predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is "far more demanding" and "tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. Where the cost of litigation as compared to the potential recovery gives class members little incentive to bring suit, and there is little reason to individually control the litigation, a class action is a superior method to vindicate the rights of class members. 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. Nationstar claims that manual review of each file would take about 60 to 90 minutes per file. . Md. He asserted that the amount of fees was calculated based on Nationstar's statements, but he could not specify the nature of the fees. Likewise, he concluded that for approximately 53 percent of sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement of acknowledging receipt of the application within five days. See Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. 2015) Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. The Complaint asserts two claims. 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. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Summ. 2016) (dicta). The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2003) ("[I]f Lierboe has no stacking claim, she cannot represent others who may have such a claim, and her bid to serve as a class representative must fail. On September 9, 2014, Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson a letter denying the loan modification application and stating that it could not offer him any modification because his income was not high enough to cover the mortgage payments under any modification option. In February 2014, after their income had further decreased, the Robinsons ceased making payments on the mortgage loan.