Rdr2 Whispering Woods, Articles R

Law 13-316(c), the Court will grant class certification as to those class members and claims. 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. Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. Likewise, Oliver's expert report provides no analysis on how Nationstar's databases allow for a systematic determination whether Nationstar failed to inform borrowers of the specific reasons for the servicer's decision to deny each loan modification option, in violation of 12 C.F.R. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." For the requirements that hinge on the timing of a communication or response, Oliver's methodology consists of using Nationstar's data from the LSAMS and FileNet software applications relating to a sample of 400 loans to identify the dates when certain events occurredsuch as the filing of a loan modification application, when a loan modification application became complete, and the sending of an acknowledgment or decision letter to a borrowerand then counting the days between the dates to assess whether a RESPA timing requirement was satisfied. R. Civ. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. 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. In the case of Tony Robinson and Debra Robinson vs Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the appeals court ruled that the lender did not actually have the right to foreclose on the property. 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. Discovery Order, ECF No. Instead, he analyzed certain data fields that were returned by the scripts written by a different expert. 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. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. See Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. Ass'n, No. 1024.41(b)(2)(B), (c)(1)(ii); Md. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. 2001) (striking expert testimony because of a contingent fee arrangement), aff'd, 43 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. Where the Robinsons, after discovery, cannot point to evidence that Nationstar did not even consider or evaluate the Robinsons for loss mitigation options, they have not established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of false or misleading statements. The relevant rule prohibits an attorney from "offer[ing] an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." But, Nationstar is correct that Owens-Benniefield may When considering whether expert testimony is reliable or should be excluded, the court considers the following factors: "When an expert's report or testimony is 'critical to class certification,'" the district court "must make a conclusive ruling on any challenge to that expert's qualifications or submissions before it may rule on a motion for class certification." 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. EQT Prod. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. Specifically, the application itself would have to be reviewed to determine when it was stamped as received by Nationstar. 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. Where it is now apparent, in hindsight, that Nationstar was permitted to withhold relevant and necessary data in the discovery process, it is unsurprising that Nationstar employees would then review loan files, with their complete data, and identify problems. R. Civ. 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. See, e.g. It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. The ruling serves as a reminder that Florida remains one of the top states for both mortgage fraud and lender errors. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 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. 2605(f)(1)(A)). Nationstar Mortgage agreed to settle an action commenced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for $91 million to resolve allegations surrounding mortgage servicing misconduct and deceptive practices that resulted in financial harm to borrowers. 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. 1972). 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. 1987) (holding, in the context of an informant who is paid a contingent fee, that the fee should be treated "as a credibility factor"). Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. However, Nationstar did not comply with all requirements of Regulation X, which became effective on January 10, 2014. McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 1024.41(c) and (d) impose obligations on a loan servicer once it receives a "complete loss mitigation application" and once the completed application is denied. A conflict of interest will not defeat the adequacy requirement when "all class members share common objectives[,] the same factual and legal positions, and . Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. 12 C.F.R. 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 the Amended Complaint, the Robinsons claim that Nationstar's representations that it offered many loss mitigation plans and "would evaluate" borrowers "for eligibility for all these loss mitigation plans" were false. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. Id. However, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that other class members exist and that their joinder is impracticable; a court may not rely on mere speculation that numerosity has been satisfied. A complete loss mitigation application is "an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower." 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. According to Nationstar's Underwriting Workflow Procedures, which sets forth the steps followed to review loans for modifications, when a borrower submits a loan modification application, a code is entered into LSAMS and updates the loan's substatus in Remedy Star. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 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. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. 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. 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. 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. is generally unproblematic as the non-injured parties can just be sorted out at the remedies phase of the suit."). at 300. 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." And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. (2012), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge. 702. She alleges Nationstar was sent multiple disputes by both Experian and Equifax with documentation showing the debt was forgiven, yet Nationstar persisted in reporting the debt as valid.