Geoffrion v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
182 F. Supp. 3d 648
E.D. Tex.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Geoffrion and Kasmir sued Nationstar under RESPA §2605, alleging multiple Qualified Written Requests (QWRs) were sent and Nationstar failed to respond; jury found QWRs on Dec. 16, 2013 and Jan. 3, 2014 and found Nationstar failed to adequately respond to Jan. 3.
- Jury awarded $23,500 pecuniary damages, $151,500 for past mental anguish, and $2,000 statutory damages (finding a pattern/practice) and ordered an accounting; Nationstar moved for JMOL, to alter judgment, or for a new trial.
- Key factual disputes at trial: whether the Jan. 3 letter qualified as a QWR (method of delivery, address/attention line, and whether it was repetitive or overbroad), whether Plaintiffs proved causation and amount of actual damages, and whether Nationstar had institutional procedures for QWRs in 2013.
- Nationstar's corporate witness (Janati) gave inconsistent testimony between deposition and trial about QWR policies and whether specific letters were treated as QWRs; the Court questioned the witness at trial and denied Nationstar's recusal motion.
- The district court denied Nationstar's renewed motion for JMOL and motion for new trial, upholding the jury's findings on QWR status, damages (pecuniary and emotional), pattern/practice, and accounting; court held mental anguish may be recoverable under RESPA as "actual damages."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jan. 3, 2014 communication was a QWR | The Jan. 3 letter (also transmitted by certified mail in same envelope) sought servicing/accounting information, was sent to the correct physical address and to a designated contact, and contained new, specific inquiries distinct from Dec. 16 letter | Jan. 3 was faxed/ addressed to an individual (not to the exclusive QWR office/attention line), possibly repetitive or overbroad, so it did not trigger RESPA duties | Jury reasonably found Jan. 3 was a QWR; district court denied JMOL — evidence supported that Jan. 3 was mailed to the proper address (included in certified envelope) and not unduly overbroad |
| Whether Plaintiffs proved pecuniary (actual) damages | Plaintiffs testified they could have rented the house while away and lost rental income; offered testimony about market rent estimates | Nationstar: pecuniary loss proof speculative and insufficient under RESPA caselaw | Court found evidence sufficient to support $23,500 award as reasonable portion of lost rental income claimed |
| Whether mental anguish is recoverable under RESPA and proved here | RESPA is remedial consumer-protection statute; "actual damages" can include emotional distress; Plaintiffs gave lay testimony of nausea, sleeplessness, missed work and differentiated stress from niece's illness | Nationstar: Fifth Circuit/Supreme Court haven't decided; some district courts within Fifth Circuit deny emotional damages; damages here speculative and not causally tied to the single RESPA violation | Court held RESPA is remedial and "actual damages" can include mental anguish; evidence was sufficient to support the jury's $151,500 award and causation was for the jury to decide |
| Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages for a pattern or practice | Plaintiffs point to company practices, inconsistent testimony about written policies, and corporate witness concessions to support a pattern/noncompliance | Nationstar: jury found only one RESPA violation as to Plaintiffs; two violations are generally insufficient to show "pattern or practice" and no institutionalized noncompliance shown | Court concluded jury could reasonably infer a pattern/policy problem from testimony (including lack or ambiguity of written QWR policy) and denied JMOL on statutory damages |
| Standing of Kasmir to sue under RESPA | Plaintiffs: Kasmir signed the Deed of Trust, was an owner affected by servicing issues, suffered injury (lost rental opportunity) | Nationstar: Kasmir did not sign the note and thus is not a "borrower" under RESPA; standing argument raised post-trial so was waived; alternatively the argument is prudential/statutory not Article III | Court treated the challenge as prudential/statutory and found Nationstar waived late challenge; did not decide the underlying statutory standing question but rejected JMOL on waiver grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co., Inc., 230 F.3d 828 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard for JMOL/JNOV review)
- Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 708 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2013) (servicer’s designated QWR address controls whether a transmission is a QWR)
- Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., 756 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing servicer option to designate exclusive QWR address and effect on borrower’s delivery requirements)
- Catalan v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 629 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2011) (accepting that emotional distress can fall within RESPA’s "actual damages" when proven)
- McLean v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (addressing speculative nature of some RESPA emotional/pecuniary damage claims)
- Stevenson v. TRW, Inc., 987 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1993) (consumer-protection statutes’ "actual damages" may include mental anguish)