robinson v nationstar settlement robinson v nationstar settlement

Nationstar also does not argue that the class is not numerous, as there approximately 33,855 members who submitted loss mitigation applications from January 10, 2014 to March 30, 2014. 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. Where Accrued Financial addresses a different scenario with a different remedy, the Court does not find that it requires that the testimony of an expert witness paid on contingency fee basis must be excluded. Fed. 1024.1 to 1024.41 and known as "Regulation X," see 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(c)(1)(i)-(ii), (g). Law 13-316(c) are triggered upon the submission of a loss mitigation application, while 12 C.F.R. 120. Sept. 2, 2015). The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. J. See D. Md. Tagatz v. Marquette Univ., 861 F.2d 1040, 1042 (7th Cir. The proposed settlement with the CFPB requires Nationstar to pay $73 million in restitution to affected borrowers, as well as a $1.5 million civil penalty to the agency. A code is also added to LSAMS to put a hold on foreclosure proceedings. . ; 78 Fed. The plaintiff's claim "cannot be so different from the claims of absent class members that their claims will not be advanced by" proof of the plaintiff's own individual claim. 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. For the foregoing reasons, Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 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." Johnson, 374 F. App'x at 873; Keen v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. Nationstar has no process for standardizing file names. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 424 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615). Nationstar also argues that Oliver's report should be stricken as unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. Opp'n Mot. Rather, the Court finds, based on the reasoning of Tagatz and Universal Athletic Sales, that the potential violation of an ethical rule does not itself make Oliver's testimony inadmissible. 3d 249, 266 (D. Md. 1024.41(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii) and Md. Plaintiffs "must present specific evidence to establish a causal link between the [servicer's] violation and their injuries." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). . In assessing the Motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with all justifiable inferences drawn in its favor. This is not the first time Nationstar has been the subject of federal and state investigations. Id. 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." See Stillmock, 385 F. App'x at 274 ("[T]here is no reasoned basis to conclude that the fact that an individual plaintiff can recover attorney's fees in addition to statutory damages of up to $1,000 will result in enforcement of [the Fair Credit Reporting Act] by individual actions of a scale comparable to the potential enforcement by way of class action."). Based on the language of Regulation X, the Court finds that a loss mitigation application submitted before the effective date does not count as the single application subject to the regulation. Additional facts relevant to the pending motions are set forth below. That is not so here. The Robinsons also claim as damages interest overcharges of approximately $141,000. 2601(a). When Nationstar received the application, it prevented late fees from being assessed and put a hold on any foreclosure proceedings. at 359-60. A servicer that fails to comply with Regulation X is liable for "any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure" to comply. Id. P. 23(a)(4); Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. On May 5, 2014, Nationstar asked the Robinsons for additional information to evaluate the appeal, including documents to verify their income. 2015) (holding that Regulation X did not apply to loss mitigation applications submitted before the effective date). Code Ann., Com. 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. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. 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. Thus, based on his report and experience, Oliver concludes that Nationstar "failed to comply" with Regulation X and that it is possible to "identify violations" of Regulation X "using the methodologies" he described, without the necessity of a file-by-file review. Moreover, although the court stated that an arrangement for providing expert testimony for a contingent fee would violate public policy, the court did not address the question of the admissibility of evidence at issue here. The first of these prerequisites is that the class must exist and be "readily identifiable" or "ascertainable" by the court through "objective criteria." 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. 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. 1024.41(f), (g), and (h) and Md. Code Ann., Com. 1024.41(b)(2)(B). 702, 703. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 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. 2d 452, 468 (D. Md. Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to such claims. These claims do not have to be factually or legally identical, but the class claims should be fairly encompassed by those of the named plaintiffs. 2018). Nationstar denies all allegations of wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. If the settlements are approved by the D.C. district court, Nationstar will be required to immediately set aside about $15.6 million to pay borrowers it has not yet remediated. Date: September 9, 2019, Civil Action No. Here, Mrs. Robinson signed the Deed but did not sign the Note. If more documents are required, then the same Remedy Star substatus and LSAMS code that denote missing documents are entered. Co, 445 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. The denial letters stated that the loan's principal balance exceeded the limit under HAMP. Cf. Summ. 2605(f). Nationstar said in a statement that its settlements were based on "loan-servicing practices" that the company used between 2010 and 2015 and has since discontinued. Law 13-301 and 13-303, because the Robinsons do not have standing to bring those claims. . at 152. Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. The Robinsons' designated expert, Geoffrey Oliver, has offered a methodology for identifying class members and when their rights under RESPA and the MCPA have been violated. "We will be watching the mortgage interest industry to ensure they are treating homeowners fairly and fulfilling their obligations.". Mar. 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." 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." While it is not necessary to identify every class member at the time of certification for a class to be "ascertainable," a class cannot be certified if its membership must be determined through "individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." 3d at 1014. Similarly, since Mr. Robinson has not suffered injury under these provisions, he may not bring those claims on behalf of the class. 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. Cal. Furthermore, according to Nationstar, to identify the content of a letter sent to a borrower, the letter itself must be viewed. 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. 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. The Robinsons do not address this argument in their Opposition. But see Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 228 F. Supp. Finally, the Court notes that a decision to certify a class is based on whether or not a putative class satisfies the Rule 23 factors, not on a preliminary assessment of the underlying merits of the claim. Notably, Oliver's analysis did not consider foreclosure information because the data produced did not include dates of foreclosure sales. 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"). 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. 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. The Robinsons and Nationstar then engaged in a series of tortured exchanges over the next several months. Nationstar argues that it should be granted summary judgment on all of the RESPA claims because Nationstar was required to comply with Regulation X only as to a borrower's first loss mitigation application, and the Robinsons' March 7, 2014 application was not their first loan modification application. If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an . 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 that the company failed to honor mortgage forbearance agreements and unfairly foreclosed on homeowners. The Court does not find such a prohibition in the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. See id. 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. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ("Opp'n') 13, ECF No. Code Ann., Com. MCC JR 318, 530-531. Rules 19-303.4(b) (2018). 2018); Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.4 (11th Cir. In addition to the fines and restitution, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said the settlements require Nationstar to adhere to increased "servicing standards." 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). R. Civ. Code Ann., Com. 2006). Every mortgage has a unique loan number that can be used to identify the borrower and the loan in each of the four databases. Moreover, Nationstar cites no authority for the proposition that a loss mitigation application would not be deemed "complete" for purposes of RESPA upon such a formal designation, and any rule that would deem such an application incomplete in the event that an underwriter subsequently decided to ask for additional material would be entirely unworkable. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. Contact the Class Action Administrator at 1-855-917-3477 (Toll-Free). Nationstar ultimately became the servicer of the Robinsons' loan. Code Ann., Com. Nationstar's claim that the above-described coding is not dispositive, because an underwriter could subsequently determine that more information was needed after all, is not persuasive. 13-316(e)(1). P. 23(b)(3). ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. 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. Regulation X's effective date reflected "an intent not to apply it to conduct occurring prior to that date." That provision provides, in parallel, that a loan servicer which does not comply with Regulation X is liable "to the borrower." According to Oliver, if he used incorrect data, that was a result of the limited data fields and definitions provided to him. 3d 1011, 1015 (W.D. Md. A Scheduling Order was first entered on November 24, 2015, and the period for discovery was extended four times between November 2015 and January 2017. If the named plaintiff satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, then class certification is appropriate. This abandoned high school was converted into a 31-unit apartment building, number of unlawful practices in handling mortgages following the Great Recession. The comments to that rule state that the "common law rule in most jurisdictions is . Nationstar's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to Tamara Robinson. Thus, the Court concludes that, while Nationstar may have defenses as to some borrowers, the common proof that establishes the asserted violations, as well as the common question of whether the Robinsons can prove a pattern-or-practice violation by Nationstar, will predominate over the individual issues as to these claims. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977))). 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. 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. 1976) (holding that while it may be unethical for a lawyer to testify on behalf of a client as an expert, "it does not necessarily follow that any alleged professional misconduct" would require exclusion of the testimony because the rules of professional conduct do "not delineate rules of evidence"); United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 26 (4th Cir. 1 Nationstar later conceded that at the time the Robinsons submitted their application, it had not yet updated its systems to comply with Section 1024.41. 2010). He asserts that damages to borrowers can be calculated based on entries in LSAMS and other data showing that fees were assessed, and that it would be possible to identify which fees would not have been assessed but for a RESPA violation. Under the terms of the Settlement, if nothing else occurs in the litigation, then the Settlement will become effective 95 days from the date of that decision by the Court of Appeals. Aug. 19, 2015). State attorneys general are here for homeowners, Raoul adds. 12 U.S.C. Thus, the nature of the proof of whether there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations provides substantial support for a finding of predominance. On March 8, 2014, Nationstar sent to Mr. Robinson a letter stating that he was ineligible for a HAMP modification, but on March 15, 2014, it sent a different letter offering a loan modification under which Mr. Robinson would receive a reduced interest rate for two years. Reg. While class members would not be eligible for statutory damages unless actual damages are shown, see 12 U.S.C. 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), 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 Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. ("MCC") 2, ECF No. Am. Code Ann., Com. 2d at 1366. For purposes of ascertainability, the requirements of 12 C.F.R. Mich. 2016), at least one district court has held that loan servicers need not comply with Regulation X if the borrower had previously submitted a loss mitigation application before the January 10, 2014 effective date, see Trionfo v. Bank of America, N.A., No. Summary judgment will therefore be entered for Nationstar on the claims that Nationstar violated subsections (f) and (g). 1024.41. Id. While she is trained as a bookkeeper, at the time of the Robinsons' 2014 application for a loan modification and in the subsequent months, Mrs. Robinson was not employed in any capacity. A dispute of material fact is only "genuine" if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists for the trier of fact to return a verdict for that party. The loan is then evaluated for loan modification options. And given that the class includes all borrowers who have submitted an application since January 10, 2014, joinder of all members is eminently impractical. Gunnells v. Healthplan Serv., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 458 (4th Cir. See 12 C.F.R. In approving such a modification, Nationstar made a mistake: the underwriter working on the Robinsons' loan had erroneously double-counted their income. Fed. In addition, Nationstar asserts that not all loan modification applications referred to an underwriter are complete. In Frank, due to the state's community property laws, the mortgage was "a community debt," and after her husband died, the plaintiff "was therefore obligated to make the loan payments" because of her interest in the home. 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. 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. All Rights Reserved. 12 C.F.R. 2004). 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. Joint Record ("MCC JR") 0907. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. Ins. Any additional updates will be posted here. Gunnells, 348 F.3d at 429 ("[T]he need for individualized proof of damages alone will not defeat class certification."). Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. 2005))). Summ. Subscribe to our free newsletter right now. 2016) ("[F]ortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition. "There are going to be a lot of homeowners who need a home loan modification or other assistance," Raoul says. Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("Regulation X"), 78 Fed. 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." Id. at 983. 2605(f)(1)(B), a borrower cannot recover these additional damages "without first recovering actual damages." Corp. ("McLean II"), 398 F. App'x 467, 471 (11th Cir. Mrs. Robinson was the primary point of contact for the Robinsons in interacting with Nationstar. See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046-47 (holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act). 1024.41(c)(1)(i). Therefore, Nationstar was required to comply with section 1024.41 in processing it. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to this argument. Although she has worked as a bookkeeper for various companies, she was not employed between March and September 2014. Fed. At different stages in the processing of a loan modification application, Nationstar employees enter certain codes into certain databases, and certain information can be stored and accessed through those applications. The Deed specifies that a person who signs it but "does not execute the note" is a co-signer of the Deed in order to mortgage and convey that person's interest in the Property under the terms of the Deed, but "is not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument," and her consent is not required to alter the terms of the Deed or the Note. Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 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's failings resulted in "substantial consumer harm," CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger said in a statement. Moreover, whether Nationstar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of Regulation X violations, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Accordingly, a loan servicer must comply with Regulation X as to the first loss mitigation application submitted after the effective date. 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. Furthermore, Nationstar's argument that the Robinsons are not typical largely recycles the same arguments made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." Hickerson, 882 F.3d at 480 (quoting Cooper, 259 F.3d at 199). 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that postage costs incurred by the plaintiff to send the "initial request for information is not a cost to the borrower 'as a result of the failure' to comply with a RESPA obligation," because a violation has not occurred and will not "necessarily occur" at the time the plaintiff paid the postage. Moreover, even if the fee arrangement violated the ethical rules for attorneys, "it does not follow that evidence obtained in violation of the rule is inadmissible." Id. McLean I, 595 F. Supp. See McGraw, 646 F.2d at 176. Class Cert. Nationstar argues that summary judgment should be granted against Mrs. Robinson because she is not a "borrower" within the meaning of RESPA. At least one court has found a similar expert report by Oliver to meet the Daubert standard. See 12 C.F.R. The Court will address the varying claims in turn. PO Box 3560. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Id. Claim Your Cash Every Week! at 300. At the time, Nationstar had not completed the process of updating its systems to conform to those requirements. After several customers of Green Earth Services canceled its services, the Robinsons sought loss mitigation in the form of a loan modification from Nationstar. In focusing on whether RESPA violations can be established through computerized analysis rather than individual file review, the parties lose track of the fact that because statutory damages are predicated on a finding that there has been a pattern or practice of RESPA violations, that issue common to almost any individual claim plays an outsized role in the predominance analysis. In addition to the fee paid to PaCE, the Robinsons also assert as damages $50.58 in administrative costs, specifically postage fees for sending information relating to their loan modification application to Nationstar, and 120 hours of time expended on the loan modification process. Rule 702 permits an expert to testify if the testimony "will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," "is based on sufficient facts or data," and "is the product of reliable principles and methods," and if the expert has "reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Although the Robinsons contend that they would have pursued other loss mitigation options in the absence of the RESPA violations, they have not identified any such options in a way that would permit a calculation of damages associated with any lost opportunity. 1024.41(b)(1), which requires reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application; and Md. For a class action brought for violations of Regulation X, a servicer is liable for "actual damages to each of the borrowers in the class" and, upon a finding of a "pattern or practice" of noncompliance, statutory damages amounting to a maximum of $2,000 per class member up to a total of the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the servicer's net worth. The Fourth Circuit has stated that 74 members is "well within the range appropriate for class certification," Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136, 145 (4th Cir. 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. "When these issues were identified several years ago, we immediately made restitution to our impacted customers and invested in process improvements to prevent reoccurrence," Jay Bray, CEO and chairman of Mr. Cooper said in a statement Monday. Cent. 1024.41, a regulation of RESPA that outlines loss mitigation procedures. Portland, OR 97208-3560. . Under Count I, the Robinsons allege a violation of 12 C.F.R. 702. In Washington v. Am. While Mr. Robinson signed the promissory note ("the Note"), the deed of trust ("the Deed"), and the balloon payment rider for the 2007 loan, Tamara Robinson ("Mrs. Robinson") signed only the Deed and balloon payment rider and did not sign the Note. 15-05811, 2016 WL 3055901 (N.D. Cal. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 925 F.3d 643, 658 (4th Cir. 1024.41(i). 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. 1024.41(i). 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 one-time consulting fee was paid in August 2013 to PaCE, a forensic loan auditor, to advise the Robinsons on how to communicate with Nationstar and to handle their loan. Id. See Keen, 2018 WL 4111938, at *5-6. Distribution of funds to Class Members, however, could not occur because a member of the Class filed an objection to the Settlement and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Specifically, the loan servicer failed to honor borrowers' loan modification agreements. The entry under "objected" acts as a unique identifier for an electronic file, but it does not contain information about the file's substance and could in fact contain multiple submissions or documents relating to one borrower.