UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a 

MR. COOPER, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff, ALBERTO MUNIZ DEL VALLE, by and through their undersigned counsel, 

and bring this action against the Defendant, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. 

COOPER (“Nationstar”), and in support allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is an action brought by consumers for Defendant's violation of the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. (“RESPA”), and their implementing 

regulations. 

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is the primary regulatory 

agency authorized by Congress to supervise and enforce compliance of RESPA. The CFPB 

periodically issues and amends mortgage servicing rules under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024, 

and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026, RESPA and the respective implementing regulations. 

3. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks the remedies as provided in RESPA for the Defendant's 

failure to comply with Section 2605(k) of RESPA, Sections 1024.35 and 1024.36 of Regulation 

X. 

ALBERTO MUNIZ DEL VALLE, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 1 of 12
JURISDICTION 

4. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Complaint 

alleges a federal claim and requires the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. 

5. Moreover, this case is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States over 

which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

6. Venue in this District is proper because the property (the “subject property”) is 

located in Miami County, Florida, and this is the District where a “substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

PARTIES 

7. At all times material hereto the Defendant was and is a Delaware limited liability 

company duly licensed to transact business in the State of Florida. 

8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff owned and continues to own the subject 

property, which is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida with an address of 25273 SW 117th 

Place, Homestead, FL 33032. 

9. At some point in time prior to the violations alleged herein, the Defendant was hired 

to service the subject loan. 

10. At all times material hereto, the Defendant is and was a loan servicer as the term is 

defined in 12 U.S.C. § 2605(i)(2) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.2(b), that services the loan obligation 

secured by a mortgage upon the subject property. 

11. The subject loan is a “federally related mortgage loan” as defined in 12 U.S.C. § 

2602(1) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.2(b) and referred to by the Defendant as loan number 

XXXXXX2783. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 2 of 12
BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

12. On or about November 25, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a promissory note 

agreement with Freedom Mortgage Corporation (the “Note”) for what he intended to be his 

primary residence. 

13. The Note was secured by a mortgage on the subject property (the “Mortgage”) (the 

“Note” and the “Mortgage” are collectively referred to as the “Loan”). 

14. Plaintiff entered into a Loan Modification with the original servicer, Freedom 

Mortgage Corporation, and began making modified loan payments in amount of $2,484.31 on or 

about September 1, 2021. 

15. Shortly thereafter, the loan was service released to its current servicer 

NATIONSTAR. 

16. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, he has made payments on the loan such that 

the loan should be current despite NATIONSTAR’s statements and actions to the contrary, or at a 

minimum, any past due balance would be substantially less than what NATIONSTAR has alleged. 

17. NATIONSTAR has assessed numerous fees and charges to the account that should 

have never been assessed. 

18. Plaintiff retained Loan Lawyers, LLC (“Loan Lawyers”) as counsel to represent 

him in his efforts to get answers as to what has happened that has caused NATIONSTAR to assert 

that Plaintiff is delinquent on his loan obligations. 

I. The Request for Information and Notice of Error 

19. In furtherance of the efforts to assist Mr. Muniz Del Valle, Loan Lawyers sent a 

Qualified Written Request in the form of a Request for Information (RFI) and Notice of Error 

(NOE) to NATIONSTAR on or about July 22, 2022. (see Exhibit B) 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 3 of 12
20. Plaintiff will not detail every request in the RFI and NOE the body of this 

complaint, but incorporates Exhibit B into the complaint and will provide a few highlights herein. 

21. The Qualified Written request was received by NATIONSTAR on or about August 

4, 2022. 

22. As the date this lawsuit document NATIONSTAR has not responded to even one 

inquiry nor produced one documents in response. 

23. The Request for Information itself was very pointed and specific and requested 

specific information that Plaintiff and his counsel needs to see exactly was has gone awry. 

Requests such as these are the very reason that the Request for Information regulations found at 

12 C.F.R. §1024.36 were enacted. 

24. NATIONSTAR was specifically asked about forced placed insurance on the 

property as this was not an escrowed loan, but at some point NATIOSNTAR apparently forced 

placed an escrow account. 

25. As referenced in the RFI, Plaintiff entered into a Loan Modification with Freedom 

Mortgage Corporation (original servicer). Payments under the aforementioned Loan Modification 

began on or about September 1, 2021, prior to the loan being transferred to its current 

NATIONSTAR. Plaintiff, not Plaintiff’s counsel has received any correspondence from Defendant 

as to the status of the agreed upon loan modification, hence the request was made in the RFI for 

an explanation, as is set forth in detail in Exhibit B. 

26. The RFI also requested NATIONSTAR to provide all related correspondence 

related to the transfer of the loan from the original loan servicer to NATIONSTAR so that Plaintiff 

and his counsel can see any and all communication referencing the loan. This information is 

necessary to determine exactly where things have gone awry. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 4 of 12
27. The RFI also referenced payments that NATIONSTAR has not applied to Mr. 

Muniz Del Valle and was asked to provide information regarding these payments, as more 

specifically set forth in Exhibit B. This information would allow Plaintiff and his counsel to see 

if NATIONSTAR has committed any servicing violations (as it appears that they have), but 

without this information, Plaintiff and his counsel are left in the dark. 

28. The RFI specifically requested acknowledgement if NATIONSTAR is possession 

of the loan modification agreement between Freedom Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Muniz Del 

Valle. 

29. Furthermore, the RFI requested NATONSTAR to acknowledge if the Loan 

modification entered into by Freedom Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Muniz Del Valle had been 

honored by NATIONSTAR. Mr. Muniz Del Valle has no idea if NATIONSTAR credited Mr. 

Muniz Del Valle payments toward the agreed upon loan modification or considers Plaintiff’s loan 

to be in default, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Muniz Del Valle has been making payments 

during this time and assumed his loan to be in good standings. This has caused Mr. Muniz Del 

Valle significant distress and is directly related to NATIONSTAR’s failure to provide any 

information to the same. 

30. NATIONSTAR was further asked if Mr. Muniz Del Valle monthly mortgage 

payment(s) for the loan modification were accepted. If not, what was the monthly mortgage 

amount NATIONSTAR shows Mr. Muniz Del Valle owed as of January 1, 2022, and provide a 

breakdown as to the same. To date, NATIONSTAR has not provided any of the requested 

information, which may be leading to the misapplication of payments that has caused a further 

fictitious default on this loan. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 5 of 12
31. The above are several highlights of the issues that Mr. Muniz Del Valle and his 

counsel need answers to. 

32. In addition to the RFI portion of the qualified written request, NATIONSTAR was 

also put on notice of mortgage servicing errors as more particularly set forth in Exhibit B. 

33. These errors included violations such as misapplication of payment(s), and failure 

to honor the loan modification agreement entered into by the previous loan servicer Freedom 

Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Muniz Del Valle. 

34. NATIONSTAR has never responded to either the RFI portion of the qualified 

written request, nor the NOE portion. 

35. It appears that NATIONSTAR has botched the servicing of this loan on many 

fronts. 

36. Borrowers such as Mr. Muniz Del Valle have a right to receive information and 

explanations as set forth in Regulation X. 

37. Mr. Muniz Del Valle lives in the subject property with his wife and children and is 

suffering greatly from emotional distress without having this information. 

38. Mr. Muniz Del Valle is in the dark as to what has gone wrong with his loan despite 

making regular monthly payments. 

39. Every day that goes by that NATIONSTAR continues to ignore the qualified 

written request is in another day of suffering from the uncertainty of what is going on with this 

loan. 

40. Mr. Muniz Del Valle worries that the home he lives in will be placed into 

foreclosure, and NATIONSTAR’s failure to provide the requested information is causing Mr. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 6 of 12
Muniz Del Valle to suffer from stress and anxiety about not knowing what went wrong with his 

loan and what will happen. 

41. Further, Mr. Muniz Del Valle counsel is unable to provide any meaningful answers 

to Mr. Muniz Del Valle nor provide any assistance to help him resolve these issues without the 

requested documents and explanations. 

42. In furtherance of the effort to obtain this much needed information, Mr. Muniz Del 

Valle’s counsel sent a letter via certified mail on September 19, 2022 reminding NATIONSTAR 

of its obligations to respond to the qualified written request. 

43. NATIONSTAR received the aforementioned letter on or about September 26, 2022 

and still has not provided any response whatsoever. (attached as Exhibit C) 

44. Once Mr. Muniz Del Valle has the information requested in the Qualified Written 

Request and the explanation from NATIONSTAR, he can then take the next steps to rectify 

whatever has gone wrong. 

II. Requirements After NATIONSTAR Received Plaintiff's Qualified Written Request 

45. The Defendant was obligated to acknowledge receipt of Plaintiffs' Qualified 

Written Request in writing within five (5) business days pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(c) and 

12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d). NATIONSTAR never provided the acknowledgement letter. 

46. The Defendant was further required to provide a written response to Plaintiffs' 

additional information requests within thirty (30) business days, with the requested information 

included or a written statement that the “requested information is not available to the servicer” and 

the “basis for the servicer’s determination.” See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d). 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 7 of 12
47. Pursuant to RESPA under 12 C.F.R. §1024.36(d) NATIONSTAR was required to 

provide its’ written response to the Request for Information by August 21, 2022. Despite more 

than 4 months elapsing since receipt of the RFI, NATIONSTAR has still failed to do so. 

48. The Defendant was further required to provide a written response to Plaintiffs' 

Notice of Error within thirty (30) business days after having conducted a reasonable investigation 

and sharing the results of that investigation with Mr. Muniz Del Valle, and correcting any servicing 

errors. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e). Despite more than 4 months elapsing since receipt, 

NATIONSTAR has still failed to do so. 

49. Exhibit C provided the Defendant with an additional opportunity to comply with 

the law thus granting an extension without a request, however NATIONSTAR has still failed to 

comply. 

50. Despite those efforts, the Defendant has failed or refused to respond to and/or 

correct the errors of which they were advised, contrary to 12 C.F.R. §1024.35, and has failed or 

refused to respond to Plaintiff's RFI, contrary to 12 C.F.R. §1024.36(c) and 12 C.F.R. 

§1024.36(d)(2)(i)(B), as well. Each of these errors in NATIONSTAR’s servicing conduct is a 

violation of RESPA. 

COUNT I –VIOLATION OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k) 

51. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 

against the Defendant. 

52. Section 6, Subsection (k) of RESPA states in relevant part: 

(k) Servicer prohibitions 

(1) In general 

 A servicer of a federally related mortgage shall not-- 

**** 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 8 of 12
(C) fail to take timely action to respond to a borrower’s requests to 

correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for purposes 

of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other standard servicer’s 

duties; 

**** 

(E) fail to comply with any other obligation found by the [CFPB], by 

regulation, to be appropriate to carry out the consumer protection purposes 

of this chapter. 

12 U.S.C. § 2605(k) 

53. Sections 1024.35 (Notice of Error) and 1024.36 (Request for Information) of 

Regulation X were both promulgated pursuant to Section 6 of RESPA and thus subject to RESPA’s 

private right of action. See 78 Fed. Reg. 10696, 10714, FN. 64 (Feb. 14, 2013)(“The [CFPB] notes 

that regulations established pursuant to section 6 of RESPA are subject to section 6(f) of RESPA, 

which provides borrowers a private right of action to enforce such regulations”). See also 78 Fed. 

Reg. at 10737, 10753 (the CFPB noting that Section 1024.35 and 1024.36 implement Section 

6(k)(1)(C) and 6(k)(1)(D) respectively). 

54. The CFPB’s authority to prescribe such regulations under Section 2605(k)(1)(E), 

is stated in Section 2617 of RESPA: “The [CFPB] is authorized to prescribe such rules and 

regulations, to make such interpretations, and to grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of 

transactions, as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter.” 12 U.S.C. § 2617. 

55. NATIONSTAR’s failure to respond to the Request for Information and Notice of 

Error is a violation of federal Regulation X. 

56. Defendant has also failed to or refused to comply with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(c) and 

12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(B) by not providing any written response to a request for information 

within the required timeframe. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 9 of 12
57. Further, by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of the errors alleged by 

Mr. Muniz Del Valle, by failing to inform Mr. Muniz Del Valle of the results of that investigation, 

and by failing to correct any errors, the Defendant has also failed to or refused to comply with 12 

C.F.R. §1024.35(e)(1) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e)(3)(i)(B). 

58. Further, Defendant appears to have misapplied payment(s) as set forth above and 

in the RFI in violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(b)(2) by applying monies paid by Mr. Muniz Del 

Valle for regular monthly payment as laid out in the loan modification agreement. 

59. Further, Defendant has assessed late fees and other default related fees on the loan 

during times the loan should have been deemed current in violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(b)(5). 

60. As such, the Defendant has committed multiple violations of 12 U.S.C. § 

2605(k)(1)(E) and the implementing regulations found at Regulation X. 

61. Plaintiff has hired Loan Lawyers, LLC, for legal representation in this action and 

has agreed to pay a reasonable attorney's fee. 

62. The Plaintiff has been injured in fact, and suffered actual damages by virtue of the 

Defendant’s repeated violations of those legal rights and protections, which Congress provided to 

the Plaintiffs and other consumers like them. The threshold of the Defendant’s violations stem 

from the failure to provide the information requested in the Request for Information and for failing 

to conduct a reasonable investigation of the errors alleged by Mr. Muniz Del Valle, by failing to 

inform Mr. Muniz Del Valle of the results of that investigation, not honoring the loan modification, 

by misplaying payments, causing his loan balance to increase, and by failing to correct any errors. 

These injuries are also in the form of postage costs for sending Exhibit C and emotional distress 

damages as more particularly described herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 10 of 12
63. In addition, Mr. Muniz Del Valle seeks nominal damages for violation of his rights 

pursuant to RESPA and implemented through regulation X as is more particularly described 

herein. 

64. Therefore, Plaintiff’s injuries result in-part from the Defendant’s invasion of a 

legally protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual. Simply stated, the Defendant 

violated the Plaintiffs’ procedural rights under RESPA by not providing the information 

responsive to the Plaintiffs’ requests for that information and for failing to respond to the notice 

of error and for all of the other violations set forth herein. 

65. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages and nominal damages as a result of 

Defendant’s failure to comply with Regulation X and RESPA, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 

2605(f)(1)(A), including but not limited to: (1) photocopying costs and postage costs incurred in 

mailing Plaintiff’s reminder letter and notice and opportunity to cure (Exhibit C) and (2) emotional 

distress due to Defendant’s failure to adequately respond to inquiries as required by RESPA. See

Martinez v. Shellpoint Mortg. Servicing, No. 16-60026-CIV, 2016 WL 6600437 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 

8, 2016); Porciello v. Bank of America, N.A., 2015 WL 899942 (M.D. Fla. 2015)(same); Bryan 

v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 2014 WL 2988097 (M.D. Fla. 2014)(finding that the plaintiffs 

sufficiently alleged damages in the form of emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment). Plaintiff 

has also suffered actual damages in the form of emotional distress, anxiety, the constant fear of 

losing his property, worry, embarrassment, and anguish as a result of the ongoing failures of the 

Defendant to address the Plaintiff’s concerns relating to his loan. See Bryan v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. 

Ass’n, 2014 WL 2988097 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (the court finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged 

damages in the form of emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment). 

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 11 of 12
66. Plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorney's 

fee as determined by the court, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(3). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ALBERTO MUNIZ DEL VALLE, respectfully ask this Court 

to enter an order granting judgment for the following: 

(a) That the Defendant be required to provide the totality of the information requested in 

Plaintiff's request for information with detail and specificity; 

(b) That the Defendant be ordered to conduct a reasonable investigation of the errors alleged 

by Mr. Muniz Del Valle, inform Mr. Muniz Del Valle of the results of that investigation, 

and correct any errors found in the investigation; 

(c) For actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f); 

and 

(d) Such other relief to which this Honorable Court may deem just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, ALBERTO MUNIZ DEL VALLE, hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues 

so triable. 

Date: December 21, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Matthew D. Bavaro 

Matthew D. Bavaro, Esquire 

FL Bar No.: 175821 

E-mail: matthew@fight13.com 

LOAN LAWYERS, LLC 

3201 Griffin Road #100 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 

Telephone: (954) 523-4357 

Facsimile: (954) 581-2786 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-24142-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 12 of 12