Order, ECF No. 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. The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. 12 U.S.C. The Complaint asserts two claims. 1024.41(a). Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Complaint with jury demand against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. See id. Specifically, if a loss mitigation application is received "45 days or more before a foreclosure sale," the loan servicer must provide a notice to the borrower "in writing within 5 days" of receiving it in which the servicer acknowledges receipt of the application and states whether the "application is either complete or incomplete." 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. Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(h)(1). The distinction is crucial. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . The economic challenges and burdens that homeowners currently face are similar to the ones experienced following the Great Recession. R. Civ. 8:2014cv03667 - Document 18 (D. Md. 2010). Id. Id. The settlement in the form of a consent judgment, filed in the U . The Robinsons have not made any mortgage payments since January 2014 and have not been assessed any late fees since February 2014. The Robinsons appealed the Magistrate Judge's ruling because it did not require Nationstar to run a structural script for a third database. Am. Md. Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179 (4th Cir. Fed. 2006). 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. While several district courts have concluded that loss mitigation applications submitted before Regulation X's effective date do not count as the single application for which a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X, see, e.g., Farber v. Brock & Scott, LLC, No. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). "[N]amed class representatives [must] demonstrate standing through a 'requisite case or controversy between themselves personally and defendants,' not merely allege that 'injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. "If a borrower's complete loss mitigation application is denied for any trial or permanent loan modification option available to the borrower," the servicer must state in the required notice to the borrower "the specific reason or reasons for the servicer's determination for each such trial or permanent loan modification and, if applicable, that the borrower was not evaluated on other criteria." In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. In their memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition"), the Robinsons admit that they "do not have evidence that Nationstar dual tracked them" or began foreclosure proceedings while a loan modification application was pending. cause[d] damages retroactively" and "transmogrifie[d]" the costs that predate the RESPA violation into damages. Because such a common question would have to be resolved in many if not all individual cases, it advances, rather than undermines, the argument in favor of predominance. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Law 13-316(e), for the reasons stated above, see supra part I.B.4, the Robinsons have provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether they have suffered economic damages, in the form of administrative costs, fees, and interest. According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. Actual damages may also include "non-pecuniary damages, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering." Corp. ("McLean I"), 595 F. Supp. That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. HARRISBURG Attorney General Josh Shapiro, as part of a multistate effort, today announced that his office obtained an $86.3 million settlement from Nationstar Mortgage, the country's fourth-largest mortgage servicer. application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's . (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) Download PDF Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! at 983 (quoting 12 U.S.C. 2013). Corp., 546 F.2d 530, 538-39 (3d Cir. 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.'" v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Law 13-316(e)(1), and "actual damages," 12 U.S.C. These fees allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington state Collection Agency Act. LLC, No. The predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) are designed to ensure that the class action "achieve[s] economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote[s] . at 151. 09-08213, 2011 WL 11651320 (C.D. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." Because Oliver's methodology is reliable within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and Daubert, Nationstar's Motion to Strike will be denied. 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. 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. Law 13-316(c). In 2007, Mr. Robinson obtained a loan with the principal amount of $755,000 to refinance the property. 2006). 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. Md. 1024.41(c)(1)(i). 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 . 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. 2019) (noting that the purpose of certifying a class "is not to identify every class member at the time of certification, but to define a class in such a way as to ensure that there will be some administratively feasible [way] for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member at some point" (internal citation omitted) (quoting EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 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. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 2014))). loan" did not have standing to bring a RESPA claim); Nelson v. Nationstar Mortg. Questions? See id. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. Under subsection (h), if a loan servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale but then denies the application, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it. 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." Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1001 n.13 (1982)). If the initial application is not complete, a different Remedy Star substatus notation and LSAMS code are entered, and a letter is created and sent to the borrower asking for the required documents. Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. Furthermore, the Robinsons have made a sufficient showing that a central computerized analysis of Nationstar data would substantially, if not completely, resolve questions of whether RESPA violations occurred.