Ocwen Loan Servicing, a major mortgage servicer, agreed to resolve a class action accusing it of overcharging borrowers for property-valuation add-ons commonly used in servicing and default management—Broker Price Opinions (BPOs) and “Hybrid” valuations (a mix of automated data and human review). The lawsuit centers on allegations that, between November 5, 2010 and September 29, 2017, Ocwen billed borrowers amounts that included undisclosed markups rather than charging only the actual cost of the third-party valuation, which borrowers say made their mortgage-related fees higher than represented. The case was filed to challenge whether those marked-up charges were lawful and properly disclosed, and it matters because mortgage servicing fees can accumulate quickly and are often paid by consumers who have little ability to shop around or negotiate. Although Ocwen denies wrongdoing, the settlement offers eligible class members about $60 per BPO fee and $70 per Hybrid fee (with a California subclass potentially receiving credits or reversals for unpaid assessed fees if their loans are still serviced by Ocwen), and it creates a mechanism for borrowers to seek compensation by submitting a claim by September 29, 2025. More broadly, this dispute fits a recurring pattern in mortgage-servicing litigation: claims that servicers or their vendors profited from “pass-through” services—like property inspections, valuations, or other default-related charges—by adding markups that weren’t clearly disclosed or contractually permitted. The industry operates under a web of mortgage contract terms and consumer-protection rules, and regulators have long focused on transparency and accuracy in servicing, including how fees are assessed and described; cases like this reinforce that even routine servicing line items can trigger legal exposure when borrowers allege the amount charged exceeds the true cost without clear disclosure.