15-0925, 2015 WL 5165415, at *4 (D. Md. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. Summ. Fed. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . Congress enacted RESPA to protect consumers from "unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices" in the real estate mortgage industry, and to ensure "that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process." Some of the alleged damages are not supported in law or in fact. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 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. 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. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. . See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. 2010) (holding that a plaintiff who "was not a borrower or otherwise obligated on the . Code Ann., Com. 3d 712, 728 (S.D. The Complaint asserts two claims. In its Motion to Strike, Nationstar moves to strike the report of the Robinsons' expert witness, Geoffrey Oliver, on the grounds that (1) Oliver was hired pursuant to an ethically improper contingency fee agreement; and (2) his testimony does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 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." This assertion mischaracterizes the burden of proof in a civil case. Code Ann., Com. 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. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. While Mrs. Robinson stated that she was conducting bookkeeping for Green Earth Services during the relevant time frame, she testified that her work was less than six hours per week, and the Robinsons have not shown that her time spent communicating with Nationstar "resulted in actual pecuniary loss" to Mr. Robinson or the business. In its complaint, filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia, the Bureau alleges that Nationstar engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and violated the Homeowner's Protection Act of 1998 (HPA). See 12 C.F.R. Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. That claim will be subject to common proof, namely sampling and analysis of loan files along the lines suggested by Oliver. Finally, the named plaintiff must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of class" without a conflict of interest with the absent class members. If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. In support of this argument, Nationstar contends that the ethical rules for attorneys prohibit contingency fee arrangements with expert witnesses. 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. Nationstar Call Settlement Administrator. Cent. It is the plaintiffs who bear the burden of proving their claims. 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. WASHINGTON, D.C. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered Nationstar Mortgage LLC to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty for violating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 through 2014. In Frank v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. Nationstar sent Mr. Robinson two letters denying his loan modification application on July 17, 2014 and September 9, 2014, but there is no evidence in the record that the Robinsons submitted an appeal to either of those letters. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. PO Box 3560. All but $28.6 million of its. 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. Filed by Janie Robinson. 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. To prepare his expert report, Oliver reviewed a randomly selected sample of 400 loans serviced by Nationstar in which a loan modification application was submitted. 16-0117, 2017 WL 4347826, at *15 (D. Md. Id. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. 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. 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. 1024.41 (2019), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. or other representation . R. Civ.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Multiple States Enter into See Broussard, 155 F.3d at 344. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) ("[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." 877-683-9363. The Robinsons assert that they have suffered damages in the lost opportunity to have their mortgage loan modified and to pursue other loss mitigation options; in the fees, late fees, and interest that Nationstar has assessed since they became delinquent on their loan; in the lost "time and effort" which they expended in "pursuing the loss mitigation process with Nationstar" rather than trying to improve their business; and in administrative costs, including "postage, travel expenses, photocopying, scanning, and facsimile expenses." Bouchat v. Balt. Code Ann., Com. Id. 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (d), because the Robinsons made no showing that the Rule 23 requirements were met. Where the PaCE consulting fee was a one-time fee to advise the Robinsons in their interactions with Nationstar paid in August 2013, several months before they first submitted the March 2014 loan modification application, this cost was incurred "whether or not [Nationstar] complied with its obligations." Mot. See Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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.
Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC - Justia Dockets & Filings The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. 164. 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. He was retained by the Robinsons under an arrangement through which he is to be paid a flat fee of $125,000: $62,500 up front, with an additional $62,500 to be paid if a class is certified in this case. For example, it was undisputed that on May 30, 2014, Mr. Robinson, in response to Nationstar's requests for additional information, resubmitted the same information sent with his March 2014 loan modification application. 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.
PDF NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, D/B/A MR. COOPER, Defendant. While Mr. Robinson sought to reduce his monthly mortgage payment in applying for a loan modification, his deposition testimony reflects that he understands that the present lawsuit contends that Nationstar did not process the Robinsons' loan modification application correctly. According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. Finally, Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the RESPA claims because the Robinsons cannot establish that they have suffered actual damages as a result of Nationstar's violations of Regulation X. 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. Id. On July 17, 2014, Nationstar informed Mr. Robinson by letter that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification and that since the March 14 loan modification offer had not been accepted, it was withdrawn. at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C.
Robinson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC - law360.com 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. 2605(f), is common question of law and fact that Mr. Robinson and the class members would all be required prove in their individual cases in order to qualify for statutory damages.
Nationstar to pay $91 million to settle claims of it harmed - CNBC 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. the same interest in establishing the liability of defendants." R. Civ. Id. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir.
Robinson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC - Casetext That notice must be provided within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application. 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. 19-303.4 cmt.3. 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. 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. These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent. 222. Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir.