Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. Ins. 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 Robinsons assert that they have paid a total of $6,147.12 in unspecified fees to Nationstar. 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. A code is entered in Remedy Star when the letter is sent. 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. Thus, Mrs. Robinson is not "obligated" to pay the amount due on the Note and therefore is not a "borrower" for purposes of RESPA. Nationstar Mortgage Robocall Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), which requires that an acknowledgment letter be sent within five days of receipt of a loss mitigation application; 12 C.F.R. Law 13-303(4)-(5), 13-408. Deiter, 436 F.3d at 466-67. Id. Finally, to the extent that Oliver did not execute his stated methodology for identifying damages, that limitation is again based in part on Nationstar's failure to make relevant data available to him. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. 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." 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. Id. 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. Proof of these claims requires a showing of the dates that an application was received, an acknowledgment letter was sent, an application became complete, Nationstar sent a decision letter to the borrower, and a foreclosure sale is scheduled. The fact that Oliver's methodology has not been subjected to peer review and that he has not published any articles about it does not invalidate it. Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Robinson will adequately represent the absent class members. Code Ann., Com. Tenn. Aug. 28, 2018) (holding that a spouse who signed a deed of trust stating that a person who did not sign the promissory note was not obligated on the security instrument, but did not sign the promissory note, was not a borrower under RESPA). In contrast, Nationstar maintains that there is no way to reliably identify when a loss mitigation application is submitted or complete using codes and status change entries in its existing software, and that the only way to make those determinations is through a file-by-file review. 1024.41(i). Petitioner: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC: Respondent: TAMARA ROBINSON and DEMETRIUS ROBINSON: Case Number: 19-379: Filed: September 24, 2019: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals . MCC JR 530. See id. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. Fed. at 248-49. 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. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. Individual damages would be below the cost of litigation even if each class member could establish that Nationstar's conduct consisted of a pattern or practice of violating Regulation X, because the statute limits such damages to $2,000 per borrower. 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. Subsequent Loss Mitigation Application. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . This Court previously held that a loan modification application can be an inquiry under the MCPA that triggers a duty to respond, and that in the case of the Robinsons, the loan modification application that was "submitted at the request of Nationstar[] necessarily seeks a response." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Nationstar's criticism that Oliver failed to use the correct data field to identify the date when a loss mitigation application was complete, and failed to consider the timing of application relative to the date of scheduled foreclosure sale, ring hollow because Nationstar provided to Oliver only limited data fields, which did not contain clear field names or definitions. Nationstar filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion to proceed before a magistrate . 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. 1967). Part 1024). 2605(f), caused by the violation, which likely consist of administrative fees and costs, the individual recovery available for each class member would likely be low, far below the cost of litigating the claims themselves. See 12 C.F.R. 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. Portland, OR 97208-3560. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). 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. The record is undisputed that as of September 25, 2017, Nationstar had neither started foreclosure proceedings nor moved for foreclosure judgment on the Robinsons' home. Amchem Prods. When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. The Borrower Payment Amount shall be used: (1) for payments to borrowers who submit claims and are in either or both of the Service Transfer and Property Preservation Populations set forth below; and (2) for reasonable costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, including taxes and fees for tax counsel. MCC JR 318, 530-531. The Nationwide Class and the Maryland Subclass are ascertainable and satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors. 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. For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Strike will be DENIED; and the Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Between July 2010 and November 2013, the Robinsons submitted and Nationstar denied three applications for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. See Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) ("When 'one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defense peculiar to some individual class members.'" In assessing this element, "numbers alone are not controlling" and a district court should consider "all of the circumstances of the case." First, as a threshold matter, the Court notes that in ruling on Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will grant judgment in favor of Nationstar as to Mrs. Robinson's claims, Mr. Robinson's RESPA claims under 12 C.F.R. 2006). Nationstar correctly notes that the Robinsons have not identified a false or misleading statement or representation by Nationstar in the record. 2605(f)(2). JA 130. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed Claim Form to receive a payment. The Magistrate Judge ordered Nationstar to run those scripts and return the electronic data to the Robinsons. 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. . 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. A class action allows representative parties to prosecute not only their own claims, but also the claims of other individuals which present similar issues. Id. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. . Reg. The Motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the issues. 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. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Nationstar, the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the U.S., is set to pay $91 million to settle claims brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and state attorneys general alleging. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. Instead, the Robinsons assert that Nationstar has not affirmatively proven that it conducted such reviews. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . While the date that Nationstar's systems came into compliance, is unknown, Nationstar's systematic noncompliance presents common questions of law and fact for all class members. Indeed, since previous versions of the Maryland rule expressly stated that contingency fee arrangements for experts were forbidden, but that explicit language was removed, it is reasonable to conclude that the amendment changed the rule in Maryland to no longer bar contingency fee arrangements. 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." Tagatz, 861 F.2d at 1042; cf. Home [robinsonsettlement.com] 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.