Parker v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company Limited Partnership
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: GJH-20-3581 |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 559 |
| Parties | Michael T. PARKER, Patrice Parker On behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons., Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Phillip R. Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC, Silver Spring, MD, Thomas Joseph Minton, Goldman and Minton PC, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs.
Melissa O. Martinez, McGuireWoods LLP, Baltimore, MD, Andrew Justin Narod, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington, DC, John E. Goodman, Pro Hac Vice, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company Limited Partnership.
Andrew Justin Narod, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington, DC, Melissa O. Martinez, McGuireWoods LLP, Baltimore, MD, Brian E. Pumphrey, Pro Hac Vice, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, John E. Goodman, Pro Hac Vice, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant NewRez LLC.
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Michael and Patrice Parker, brought suit against Defendants Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company Limited Partnership d/b/a Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company ("Goldman Sachs") and NewRez LLC (f/k/a New Penn Financial, LLC) d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ("Shellpoint")(collectively "Defendants") alleging that they improperly charged property inspection fees in violation of Title 12, Subtitle 1 of the Maryland code, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-121(b), and Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-201, et seq. ("MCDCA") and Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-101, et seq. ("MCPA"). Pending before the Court are two motions including Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 20, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations, ECF No. 10,1 No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, ECF No. 20, is denied, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and to Strike Class Allegations, ECF No. 10, is granted, in part, and denied, in part.
Plaintiffs Michael and Patrice Parker are owners of the property located at 6714 Berkshire Dr. in Temple Hills, MD 20748 (the "Property"). ECF No. 7 ¶ 7. The Parkers are the borrowers on the mortgage loan ("Parker Loan") subject to this action, and the Parker Loan is a federally related mortgage. Id.
Shellpoint is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shellpoint Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Id. ¶ 8. Shellpoint is a licensed Maryland lender and collection agency. Id. ¶ 8(b). Shellpoint Partners LLC is wholly owned by NRM Acquisition LLC and NRM Acquisition II LLC, both of which are Delaware limited liability companies. Id. ¶ 8. Both NRM Acquisition entities are wholly owned by New Residential Mortgage LLC, which is also a Delaware limited liability company, and New Residential Mortgage LLC is wholly owned by New Residential Investment Corporation, a Delaware corporation. Id. New Residential Investment Corporation is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Id. Plaintiffs state that "Shellpoint makes more money on behalf of NRZ by churning fees and making advances related to borrowers it believes are delinquent or in foreclosure and there is ‘limited risk’ that those sums will not be reimbursed to it—even if it has no right to impose the fees and charges in the first instance." Id. ¶ 8(a). Goldman Sachs was formed under the law of New York, but all of its partners and subsidiaries are unknown. Id. ¶ 9. Goldman Sachs Real Estate Funding Corporation is the general partner for Goldman Sachs. Id.
Plaintiffs acquired the Property on or about December 17, 1993, and on or about December 7, 2005, the Parkers’ refinanced their mortgage loan with Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. ("HFN") by obtaining an extension of credit in the amount of $193,482.00. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. Shortly thereafter, HFN assigned the Parker Loan to the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"), and Fannie Mae assigned the Parker Loan to Goldman Sachs on August 13, 2019. Id. ¶ 22. At the time of this assignment, Goldman Sachs authorized "Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper for collection," but then engaged Shellpoint to take over collections as of October 4, 2019. Id.
In the Parker Loan's express terms and conditions, HFN and the Parkers agreed that the loan would be governed by Maryland law, specifically that:
[HFN and all of its assigns] may not charge fees that are expressly prohibited ... by [controlling applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances and administrative rules and orders (that have the effect of law) as well as all applicable final, non-appealable judicial opinions].
Id. ¶ 23(a) (citing Deed of Trust) (brackets in original). Nationstar, on behalf of and with the authorization of Fannie Mae, and Plaintiffs, later, partially modified the Parker Loan on December 14, 2009 ("Loan Modification"). Id. ¶ 24. In this partial Loan Modification, Nationstar and the Parkers agreed, relevant to this dispute, that "the [Parker Loan documents] are composed of duly valid, binding agreements, enforceable in accordance with their terms and are hereby reaffirmed." Id. ¶ 24(a). It also provided that:
[A]ll terms and provisions of the [Parker Loan documents], except as expressly modified by [the Loan Modification], remain in full force and effect ... and that except as otherwise specifically provided in, and as expressly modified by, [the Loan Modification], the Lender and I will be bound by, and will comply with, all of the terms and conditions of the [Parker Loan documents].
Id. ¶ 24(b) (citing Loan Modification) (brackets in original). Plaintiffs allege that "[a]t no point did all authorized persons party to the Parker Loan ever agree to modify or change the specific terms described in ¶¶ 23(a) or 24(b) supra ." Id. ¶ 25. Moreover, the Parkers contend that Fannie Mae, Nationstar, Shellpoint, and Goldman Sachs "never entered into any written agreement with the Parkers or anyone else to permit them to disclaim the responsibilities and obligations agreed to by HFN (and any of its successors) as described in ¶¶ 23(a) or 24(b) supra ." Id.
Plaintiffs contend that Shellpoint and Goldman Sachs are aware of the terms and conditions of the Loan Modification because Shellpoint sent them a copy of it in a June 11, 2020, correspondence, and that "as successors and assignees of the Parker Loan as modified by the Loan Modification to Nationstar they are bound by its terms." Id. ¶ 26. And "as assigns and successors to the Nationstar Assurance," Plaintiffs also contend that Shellpoint and Goldman Sachs are likewise bound to the terms and conditions of that agreement. Id. Shellpoint and Goldman Sachs are additionally aware of the Parker Loan documents’ terms and conditions. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that, in a monthly periodic statement from Shellpoint on behalf of Goldman Sachs dated November 13, 2019, Shellpoint represented to them that it charged and collected a payment from a fee for a property inspection relating to the Parker Property and the Parker Loan, in an amount totaling $105.00 on November 8, 2019. Id. ¶ 27. Also, in the June 11, 2020 correspondence to the Parkers, Shellpoint, with authorization from Goldman Sachs, additionally represented that the $105.00 property inspection fee imposed and collected by Shellpoint on November 8, 2019 related to both the Parker Loan and Property, as part of its Loan History Summary. Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiffs further allege that "[n]owhere in either the November 13, 2019 periodic statement to [them] or the June 11, 2020 Loan History Statement did Shellpoint claim or represent to [them] that it did not actually impose and collect from [them] the property inspection fee." Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiffs contend that "neither Shellpoint nor Goldman Sachs have any right to impose any property inspection fees on the Parker Loan and the Parkers," as was done on the November 13, 2019 statement and the June 11, 2020 Loan History Summary, because such fees are barred under Maryland law. Id. ¶ 30. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that the "Parker Loan is not satisfied," and that they have been damaged and have sustained losses as a proximate cause of Defendants’ "improper, unfair, and/or deceptive practices[.]" Id. ¶¶ 32–33.
On or about October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a four-class, two-count putative class action complaint against Defendants in the Circuit County Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1; ECF No. 2. On December 10, 2020, Defendants removed the suit to this Court on the basis that this action "falls under this Court's original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, 1446 and 1453, and is one that may be removed to this Court based on CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1453." Id. ¶ 3. On December 17, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations, ECF No. 4, and on December 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, as of right, ECF No. 7.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants illegally harvested property inspection fees that they were not entitled to collect under Maryland law. Id. ¶¶ 1–3, 29–30. Plaintiffs allege a violation of Com. Law § 12-114(a)(1)(ii) (Count I), or, in the alternative, violations of Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), Com. Law § 14-201, et seq. , and Maryland's Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Com. Law §§ 13-101, et seq. Id. ¶¶ 51–79.
Plaintiffs sue on behalf of the Shellpoint Inspection Fee Usury Class, which it defines as:
Those persons in the State of Maryland for whom (i) Shellpoint has acted as a maker or assignee of a mortgage...
To continue reading
Request your trial