See Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267, 275 (4th Cir. Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Demetrius Robinson 20-cv, -2202, 2021 WL 4462909, at *1 (S.D. 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 . Id. at 300. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Sept. 2, 2015). 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. Likewise, although Mrs. Robinson expended time corresponding with Nationstar, she was not working for pay at the same time, and the Robinsons have not provided evidence to quantify the loss to Mr. Robinson, the only viable plaintiff here. While the particulars of Mr. Robinson's application process will not necessarily prove that Nationstar mishandled the applications of other individual class members, these facts fairly encompass the types of claims that would be brought by the members of the class. 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. 2605(f)(2) is not fatal to the predominance inquiry. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. 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. 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. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. 1024.41(d). After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. In 2017, the CFPB fined Nationstar $1.75 million for failing to report accurate data about its mortgage transactions. Furthermore, to the extent that the Robinsons' claim is that Nationstar falsely stated that it would evaluate the Robinsons for all available loss mitigation plans, the Robinsons point only to statements in letters that the Robinsons "may" be eligible for certain non-HAMP loan modification programs. 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. Factors "pertinent" to the predominance and superiority requirements include the "class members' interests in individually controlling" the litigation, whether litigation on the matter has already been begun by other class members, whether concentrating the litigation in one forum is desirable or undesirable, and the potential difficulties managing the class action presents. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. . 2010) (considering consistency of results that provide finality to the defendant as favoring a finding of superiority). 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. Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Civil Action No. TDC-14-3667 The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 16-0307, 2017 WL 1167230, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Compl. Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. Id. 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. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. . While the Nationstar employee who conducts the initial processing of an application may refer it to an underwriter based on its facial completeness, the underwriter makes the final determination of whether the application is complete and is responsible for obtaining any additional required documentation. See Wirtz, 886 F.3d at 719-20. Cf. The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." PDF United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division After attempts to modify the 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. 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. Section 13-316(c) governs "mortgage servicing" and, among other requirements, provides that a "servicer shall designate a contact to whom mortgagors may direct complaints and inquiries" and that the "contact shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested." 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. Marais v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 24 F. Supp. As of November 22, about 2.8 million homeowners were in a forbearance plan, according to the latest research from the Mortgage Bankers Association. On July 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling and required Nationstar to produce all outstanding "records subject to discovery orders." 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. loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. 26-1. The company has already paid about $57.5 million in restitution to affected consumers, according to the CFPB. 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." MCC JR 0003. The Robinsons' Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. 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. Rule 702 permits an expert to testify if the testimony "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," "is based on sufficient facts or data," and "is the product of reliable principles and methods," and if the expert has "reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." 1024.41(h)(1), (4). Once an underwriter is assigned, that employee double-checks whether the application contains all required documentation and is complete. 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. Rather, the Court finds, based on the reasoning of Tagatz and Universal Athletic Sales, that the potential violation of an ethical rule does not itself make Oliver's testimony inadmissible. 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. "); see also 1 William Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions 2:3 (5th ed. Law 13-301 and 13-303, because the Robinsons do not have standing to bring those claims. 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. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. Moreover, the possibility that some members of the class as defined by the Robinsons have not suffered any injury cognizable under RESPA or MCPA does not preclude certifying the class. Where such statements in no way promise approval, the Robinsons appear to claim that such statements are false or misleading because Nationstar never intended to, and did not, evaluate the Robinsons for the various loss mitigation options. See supra parts I.B.1, I.B.3, I.C.1. For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. R. Civ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. See id. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Multiple States Enter into 12 U.S.C. In support of these claims, Mr. Robinson testified in his deposition that the $141,000 in interest represents the amount that the Robinsons have been overcharged over the life of the loan. Petitioner: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC: Respondent: TAMARA ROBINSON and DEMETRIUS ROBINSON: Case Number: 19-379: Filed: September 24, 2019: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals . 15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. Because such information is stored electronically and based on objective criteria, the members of the class will be ascertainable without significant administrative burden. 2605(f)(2). Id. Reg. RESPA's implementing regulations, codified at 12 C.F.R. R. Evid. MSJ JR 0284. Finally, a loan servicer "is only required to comply with the requirements" of section 1024.41 "for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower's mortgage loan account." The Complaint asserts two claims. 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. 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. 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. 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." 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. Lembach v. Bierman, 528 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 2601(a). 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. The Court agrees that costs, including administrative costs, "incurred whether or not the servicer complied with its obligations" are not actual damages "caused by, or 'a result of,'" the RESPA violation, whether or not they occurred before or after the violation. Law 13-316(c), which requires a response to a loan modification application within 15 days. The cases cited by the Robinsons do not alter the Court's conclusion. From January 2014 to the present, the Robinsons have not pursued other loss mitigation options, such as a short sale.