After March 2014, Mrs. Robinson was primarily responsible for communicating with Nationstar and PaCE. 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. Northern District of Ohio, ohnd-1:2021-cv-00452 of 0 An error occurred while loading the PDF. The language of the regulation states not that a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X's requirements only for a borrower's first loss mitigation application, but that a loan servicer must "comply with the requirements" only "for a single complete loss mitigation application." Particularly where a class may be certified even if individualized damages calculations would be necessary, the incomplete nature of the damages analysis does not provide a basis for striking Oliver's expert testimony. or misleading oral or written statement . . 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." Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). 2011) ("[T]he possibility that a well-defined class will nonetheless encompass some class members who have suffered no injury . 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), which requires a servicer to respond to a completed loan modification application; or Md. Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 359-60 (4th Cir. Indeed, Mr. Robinson testified that Mrs. Robinson did not sign the Note because she did not purchase the property with him. Neither the rule nor the comment, however, state whether Maryland is one such jurisdiction. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. 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. After an additional period of expert discovery relating to the class certification motion, discovery closed on December 30, 2018. The "Maryland Subclass" consists of "[a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar after January 10, 2014, and through the date of the Court's certification order." 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. 14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.. Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. See Farmer v. Ramsay, 159 F. Supp. 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. . 2004). R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Since the MCPA and Regulation X allow recovery only of "economic damages," Md. Id 1024.41(c)(1). at 300. 1024.41(a). If a class is ascertainable, it must then satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. (2000) (reflecting that the prior version of the rules of professional conduct prohibited an attorney from "acquiesc[ing] in the payment of compensation to a witness contingent on the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case"). Class Cert. Cent. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the Final Approval Order. Likewise, the articulated concern that Nationstar would not be required to respond to loss mitigation applications filed within a certain number of days of a foreclosure sale, can be addressed through the provision of data relating to the dates of scheduled foreclosure sales. Md. 1024.41(c)(1)(ii), 1024.41(b)(1), the Court concludes that common computerized analysis will substantially advance the resolution of such claims, even if not entirely eliminating the need for reviewing certain specific file documents. The next day, Nationstar sent a letter noting that the August 25 application had been received and requesting additional information. Fed. 28, 2017). 2d 873, 883 (D. Md. This argument runs contrary to the plain language of Nationstar's own procedures, which describe the application as "complete" based on the processor's determination, leading to the referral of the complete package to an underwriter. 2003). McLean II, 398 F. App'x at 471. 2605(f)(1)(A)). 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." 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. 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. J. Id. For example, since default fees are often paid by sources other than the borrower, such as in a short sale or refinancing, Nationstar challenges Oliver's assessment that fees identified through LSAMS can be deemed to constitute damages from RESPA violations, because the software does not reflect who paid the fee. 26-1. The commonality requirement is also met. R. Civ. "[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.'" Nationstar further argues that summary judgment must be entered in its favor on the Robinsons' claims under 12 C.F.R. 2010). 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. 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. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for actual damages and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of non-compliance by the servicer, up to $2,000 in statutory damages. Cf. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). Compl. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. The use of a class action is primarily justified on the grounds of efficiency, because it advances judicial economy to resolve common issues affecting all class members in a single action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jillyn K Schulze on 9/9/2016 . Co., 595 F.3d 164, 179-80 (4th Cir. For example, in EQT, the court concluded that a proposed class of all individuals who owned an interest in a gas estate was not ascertainable because the actual owners could be determined only through an individualized review of land records. Mrs. Robinson was the primary point of contact for the Robinsons in interacting with Nationstar. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. R. Civ. 2605(f). Id. After they became delinquent on their loan, the Robinsons submitted another loan modification application to Nationstar on March 7, 2014. See id. 20-cv, -2202, 2021 WL 4462909, at *1 (S.D. Eligible consumers will be contacted by Nationstar or the settlement administrator about refunds under the settlement. Whether an application is complete depends on the requirements of the investor who holds the loan. 15-3960, 2017 WL 623465, at *8 (D. Md. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). In their Motion for Class Certification, the Robinsons seek certification of two classes. 1967). If a borrower is experiencing issues or not getting the help needed, contact your state attorneys general. EQT Prod. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. 877-683-9363. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be entered on the Robinsons' MCPA claim under section 13-316 because the Robinsons have not shown that they submitted a complaint or inquiry that triggers a duty to respond. 2006). Courts have wide discretion to certify a class based on their familiarity with the issues and potential difficulties arising in class action litigation. Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Id. In this photo illustration, the Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. logo seen displayed on a smartphone. 1024.41(f), (g). The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. 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. ; 78 Fed. 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. Under subsections (f) and (g), a loan servicer is not permitted to begin foreclosure proceedings or move for foreclosure judgment if "a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application" except in certain circumstances. In Accrued Financial, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that where commercial real estate tenants assigned their potential claims against their landlords to a commercial real estate auditor under an arrangement through which the auditor would receive a percentage of any recovery in litigation, the assignments violated public policy because where the auditor's employees could testify in such litigation, the assignments "provide for supplying expert testimony for a contingent fee." Sept. 29, 2017); Billings v. Seterus, Inc., 170 F. Supp. that it is improper to pay an expert witness a contingent fee." The distinction is crucial. 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. Id. TDC-14-3667, 2019 WL 4261696 (D. Md. Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 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." Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. "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." Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/18/2015. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Ohio 2014). Mortgage servicers seek government aid as forebearance requests soar, How this 39-year-old earns $26,000 a year in California. Likewise, he concluded that for approximately 53 percent of sampled loans, Nationstar failed to comply with the requirement of acknowledging receipt of the application within five days. 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." R. Civ. Id. See 12 C.F.R. Baez, 709 F. App'x at 983. Law 13-101 to 13-411 (West 2015). 17-0982, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6 (M.D. 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. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 427-28. 1972). Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. 1024.41(b)(1). If the loan servicer denies a loan modification application where the complete application was received more than 90 days before a foreclosure sale, the servicer must allow the borrower to appeal and must respond to the appeal within 30 days of receiving it by stating in writing whether the appeal was granted and a loan modification will be offered. State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. 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. 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." v. DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. . 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. Md. Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. PO Box 3560. See Farber, 2017 WL 4347826 at 15; Billings, 170 F. Supp. These letters are based on standard Nationstar templates, and the code reflects the type of letter sent. Accordingly, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303. Fed. LLC, No. The servicer "is liable for any economic damages caused by the violation." Id. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. The Nationstar Mortgage Unwanted Phone Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Wright, et al. 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 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. A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar or Defendant) violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by failing to adhere to its requirements with respect to its customers loss mitigation applications and that Nationstar violated Maryland law by not timely responding to its customers mortgage servicing complaints.

S246d Corporations Act, Articles R