See 12 C.F.R. P. 23(b)(3). 2013) (holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded actual injury or loss under the MCPA where he alleged that he suffered "bogus late fees," damage to his credit, and attorney's fees); see also Cole v. Fed'l Nat'l Mortg. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 2015). A borrower may enforce violations of these provisions through a private cause of action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 120. The trial court granted the motion over the Robinsons' objection, noting in its order that Nationstar had now waived its claim for attorney feesthe claim that had been the sole impediment to a final judgment being entered after the trial court granted Nationstar's request to reopen the evidence after entry of the initial final judgment. Nationstar will need to enhance its policies and processes around how it handles consumer complaints, performs escrow analyses and conducts audits, for example. 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. Id. Regulation X went into effect on January 10, 2014. The Deed specifies that a person who signs it but "does not execute the note" is a co-signer of the Deed in order to mortgage and convey that person's interest in the Property under the terms of the Deed, but "is not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument," and her consent is not required to alter the terms of the Deed or the Note. JA 130. FCRA). 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Like the class members, to prove his case, Mr. Robinson will have to show that Nationstar failed to timely and appropriately respond to his loan modification applications by pointing to the dates of his submissions and the dates and contents of Nationstar's responses. 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. Where the deed of trust explicitly states that Mrs. Robinson is not obligated on the loan, the Court finds that she is not a borrower under RESPA and cannot bring the claim against Nationstar under Regulation X. Once the documents are received, the Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code are changed again to mark the application complete. Id. To calculate damages, Oliver stated that he would look to data from the LSAMS application, including data tables that contain fee information, to identify fees that would not have been charged but for Nationstar's various RESPA violations, but that he was not able to evaluate this data in his report because it had not been provided to him. Am. Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. Any additional updates will be posted here. Filed by Janie Robinson. 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. 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. More importantly, while a determination of an individual violation would not require extensive analysis, specific proof of a pattern or practice of RESPA violations in any individual case would be a substantial undertaking, likely requiring the same type of complex analysis proposed here: a sampling of Nationstar files, compilation of all relevant data for such files, expert analysis to identify violations, and an assessment whether the identified violations are sufficient to establish a pattern or practice of violations. Although section 13-316 provides a remedy only for economic damages arising from a mortgage servicer's failure to respond to an inquiry, see Md. 2010). In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288, 297-98 (6th Cir. . McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. Id. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. LLCNo. 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. 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. Day to address discovery issues. In Robinson v., Under the RESPA, civil liability is limited to "borrowers": "[w]hoever fails to comply with any provision of, Full title:DEMETRIUS ROBINSON and TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. McLean v. GMAC Mortg. If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. 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. See Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 356-57 (3d Cir. After two more extensions were granted, based on a finding by the Magistrate Judge that "Defendant has failed to comply" with its discovery obligations and delayed the process, discovery closed on March 22, 2018. Id. 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. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. Law 13-316(c). Id. Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 1994) (noting that a single common issue is sufficient to meet the commonality requirement). 12 C.F.R. 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. 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."). First, Nationstar correctly notes that Mr. Robinson, in his Motion, and Oliver, in his expert report, do not put forward any evidence establishing that the necessary prerequisites for a class action have been met with respect to the claim that Nationstar did not evaluate borrowers "for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower," in violation of 12 C.F.R. 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. They do not seek damages in the Amended Complaint for emotional distress or include such a claim in their itemized list of damages submitted in discovery. 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. 1024.41(i). Am. At a minimum, the question of when a loss mitigation application is "complete" under RESPA within the workflow of Nationstarwhether at the time of the processor's designation of the file as complete or at a later stageis a significant unresolved question of law and fact that would be common to all RESPA claims against Nationstar. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. 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." Class Certif. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. Life Ins. Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. "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.". Opp'n Mot. R. Civ. R. Civ. at 248-49. 10696, 10708 (Feb. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 C.F.R. 2003). At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must rely on facts in the record, and not assertions in the pleadings. If the loan servicer denies a loan modification application where the complete application was received more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it by stating in writing whether the appeal was granted and a loan modification will be offered. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 2601 et seq. Actual damages may include late fees; denial of credit or access to the full amount of a credit line; out-of-pocket expenses incurred in dealing with a RESPA violation, such as expenses for preparing and copying correspondence; and lost time and inconvenience, including time spent away from employment while preparing correspondence "to the extent it resulted in actual pecuniary loss." Class Cert. The fee arrangement will be considered as an issue potentially affecting the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the expert testimony. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. Class litigation would also promote consistent results on the common question whether Nationstar engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X and would provide Nationstar with finality and closure on that issue. 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. Id. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Before the error was discovered, Mr. Robinson appealed this offer as insufficient on April 10, 2014. Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. In addition to the fee paid to PaCE, the Robinsons also assert as damages $50.58 in administrative costs, specifically postage fees for sending information relating to their loan modification application to Nationstar, and 120 hours of time expended on the loan modification process. Ask to speak in court about the fairness of the Settlement. As the Supreme Court noted in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), Daubert "made clear that its list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive," and it is not always the case that an expert witness's claim will have been subjected to peer review. Id. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." Va., Inc., 543 F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. 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. Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014, 78 Fed. 12 U.S.C. Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. When those scripts did not produce data that allowed the Robinsons to conduct the sampling, the Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar on April 3, 2018 to run certain "structural scripts" on two of its four databases. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. Several states also fined Nationstar in 2018 over failing to have proper procedures in place and "unfair and deceptive" mortgage modification policies. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. However, if the costs are shown to have been incurred in response to the RESPA violation, the Court finds that they would be actual damages within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. "There are going to be a lot of homeowners who need a home loan modification or other assistance," Raoul says. The distinction is crucial. Aug. 19, 2015). Sept. 29, 2021). Nationstar's Motion will be denied as to this claim. Because Nationstar employees used standard templates to communicate with borrowers, Oliver concluded that Regulation X violations can be identified through the existence of noncompliant templates and the dates that those templates were in use. Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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. On November 21, 2014, the Robinsons filed suit against Nationstar on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals nationwide.