Mr. Cooper asks for servicing "junk fee" suit be thrown out

Mr. Cooper has filed a motion to dismiss a suit accusing it of charging borrowers a "junk fee" of $25 for payoff quote statements. This comes on the heels of a $3.6 million settlement from another junk fee suit lobbed against the lender and servicer.

In its motion filed May 9, Mr. Cooper said the recent suit, which was elevated to federal court after plaintiffs filed it in a Washington state courthouse in February, "artfully omit[s] the fact that every one of the payoff quotes were requested on an expedited basis, thereby justifying the fee." 

Such fees are "special services" outside of the scope of the basic services provided by the company and as such does not constitute a breach of the deed of trust, the company argues.

The lender also rejects that its $25 fee is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as is alleged in the suit. Mr Cooper's representation notes Regulation Z expressly permits fees for expedited payoff statements. 

"Simply put, it cannot be 'misleading' under the FDCPA to act in compliance with [Truth in Lending] and Regulation Z," Mr. Cooper's motion read. Law 360 first wrote about the development.

Mr. Cooper declined to comment on pending litigation. An attorney representing the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The original complaint, which is seeking class action status, argues the fee Mr. Cooper charges is "already paid to Nationstar as the percentage of interest it collects from borrowers" and that the company is in violation of federal and state consumer protection laws. 

"Other honest mortgage servicers are also harmed by Nationstar seeking and realizing a competitive advantage of imposing and collecting junk fees not expressly authorized by contract or law," the lawsuit said. 

In addition to allegedly violating borrowers' mortgage contracts, Mr. Cooper has also failed to seek authorization for the fees from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's National Servicing Center, the suit states.

Two of the lead plaintiffs were in default at the time Mr. Cooper acquired their servicing rights and paid payoff statement fees. Another Maryland homeowner said the company charged a fee because the prior servicer, Community Loan Servicing, incorrectly identified the borrower as in default.