Upon the death of its mortgagor, the hulking beast that is Wells Fargo blindly slouched toward foreclosure heedless of the fact that it had sold an accidental death insurance policy to the mortgagor. The decedent’s personal representative, filed a complaint in state court alleging: 1) Wrongful foreclosure and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 2) unconscionable and unfair trade practices; 3) breach of contract; 4) violation of the Home Loan Protection Act; and 5) attorneys’ fees under NMSA § 48-7-24. The court found Wells Fargo liable under each of the five claims except the claim for violation of the Home Loan Protection Act. Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank, CV 2011-05295, Letter Decision (N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 27, 2013). Read More
Tag Archive: Sanctions
-
Wells Fargo Socked with Damages in Excess of $3 Million – Again
Posted by NCBRC - September 3rd, 2013
-
Wells Fargo Financial Finally Moving to Claims Review and Compensation
Posted by NCBRC - June 27th, 2013
In 2011, the Federal Reserve Board issued a cease and desist order and assessed an $85 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo & Company of San Francisco, a registered bank holding company, and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., of Des Moines. (as distinguished from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage or by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial employees steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans and separately falsified income information in mortgage applications. The order affect certain mortgage loans made between January 1, 2004 and September 30, 2008. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers.
Wells Fargo Financial made subprime loans that primarily refinanced existing home mortgages in which borrowers received additional money from the loan proceeds in so-called cash-out refinancing loans. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel steered borrowers who were potentially eligible for prime interest rate loans into loans at higher, subprime interest rates, resulting in greater costs to borrowers. The order also addresses separate allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel falsified information about borrowers’ incomes to make it appear that the borrowers qualified for loans when they would not have qualified based on their actual incomes.
According to both the Federal Reserve Board and Wells Fargo, some current and former customers of Wells Fargo Financial will receive notices that they may be eligible to file a claim. For more information, you can visit the Wells Fargo Financial Consent Order Website.
-
Creditor Must Return Repossessed Vehicle upon Bankruptcy Filing
Posted by NCBRC - May 13th, 2013
The Second Circuit upheld sanctions against vehicle loan creditor, SEFCU, for refusing to return debtor’s repossessed vehicle without a court order and adequate protection. Weber v. SEFCU, No. 12-1632 (May 8, 2013). SEFCU had lawfully repossessed the debtor’s pick-up truck pursuant to the loan agreement but when the debtor filed for bankruptcy SEFCU refused to return the vehicle. The bankruptcy court determined that SEFCU’s actions did not violate the automatic stay. The district court reversed. Weber v. SEFCU, 477 B.R. 308, 311 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). Read More
-
Creditor Sanctioned to the Tune of $50,000.00
Posted by NCBRC - May 1st, 2013
In In re Powell, No. 10–03859 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. June 26, 2012), the court put a leash on the creditor’s dogged pursuit of the debtors. The court found that the creditor, Bank of America and its servicer, violated the discharge injunction and the automatic stay when it foreclosed on the debtors’ residence after they filed bankruptcy, and relentlessly dunned them for payments post-discharge.
After the debtors obtained their bankruptcy discharge the creditor began sending monthly billing statements seeking to collect on the mortgage for property the debtors had surrendered. The debtors’ attorney responded with several warning letters and finally with a motion to the court for sanctions. With the exception of one letter claiming to be a debt collector under the FLSA, the creditor otherwise responded like a mindless automaton. It continued its monthly collection efforts unabated. At the hearing on the motion, which the creditor did not attend, one of the debtors testified to the stress and anxiety caused by the continued billing and the ever-increasing amount owed. The court invoked its contempt power under section 105, under which four conditions must be met: 1) there must be a valid decree of which the contemnor had actual or constructive knowledge; 2) the decree must be in the movant’s favor; 3) the contemnor must have violated the terms of the decree, with knowledge of such violations; and 4) the movant must have suffered harm as a result. Finding that each of these conditions was met, the court awarded attorney fees in the amount of $3,000.00, damages in the amount of $2,500.00 and sanctions in the amount of $50,000.00.
-
Sanctions Upheld against ECMC for Trying to Collect Repaid Student Loan
Posted by NCBRC - April 1st, 2013
The First Circuit upheld a sanction award against ECMC for abuse of bankruptcy process based on that lender’s continued efforts to collect a student loan that had been found to be fully satisfied prior to bankruptcy. Hann v. ECMC, No. 12-9006 (1st Cir. March 29, 2013). Read More
-
$3 Million Punitive Damage Award Upheld against Wells Fargo
Posted by NCBRC - March 27th, 2013
Despite repeated bludgeoning by the courts for its conduct, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., has tenaciously and relentlessly fought against accepting responsibility for misapplying mortgage payments and charging unapproved fees. Now the district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has upheld a punitive damages award of over $3 million against Wells Fargo. Jones v. Wells Fargo, No. 12-1362 (E.D. La. March 19, 2013). Read More
-
Attorney Fees for Litigating Damage Actions Based On Stay Violation
Posted by NCBRC - March 20th, 2013
The Ninth Circuit decision in Sternberg v. Johnston, reared its ugly head to limit recovery of attorney fees in a stay violation action in the recent case of Check Into Cash v. Snowden (In re Snowden), No. 12-1095 (W.D. Wash. March 11, 2013). Snowden came to the district court on appeal and cross-appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s award of damages for emotional distress and punitive damages resulting from Check Into Cash (CIC)’s violation of the automatic stay.
After affirming both the emotional distress and punitive damage awards the court rejected the debtor’s invitation to revisit its earlier decision in a previous appeal that the award of attorney fees was properly limited, under Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 102 (2010), to those fees pre-dating the adversary proceeding. Read More
-
Bank is Sanctioned for Rule 3001 Violation
Posted by NCBRC - March 11th, 2013
A bankruptcy court in Colorado sanctioned FirstBank for failure to comply with the itemization requirements of Rule 3001. In re Jimenez, No. 12-26282 (Bankr. Colo. Feb. 1, 2013). Read More
-
Sanctions for Willful Violation of the Automatic Stay
Posted by NCBRC - November 25th, 2012
The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois took decisive action to sanction an internationally active telecommunications company, Owtel Inc., for persistent violations of the automatic stay under section 362(a)(6). In re Galutan, No. 12-31837 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2012). The court found that Owtel was informed of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing on August 12, 2012, but continued to dun her for payments of the $74.00 debt with repeated letters and telephone calls to her home phone and cell phone as often as twice a day. Finding that the conduct was willful the court turned to the appropriate damage award under section 362(k). Although the Seventh Circuit does not permit monetary awards for emotional distress the court found actual damages in the amount of $2,940.00 for attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing the stay violation. In addition, the court found that the egregious nature of Owtel’s relentless pursuit warranted a punitive damage award of $15,000.00. The court ended with the warning that if the violations continue, it would consider further sanctions in the amount of $500.00 per day.
-
Ninth Circuit BAP Permits Appellate Attorney Fee Award for Stay Violation
Posted by NCBRC - July 5th, 2012
When a debtor is forced to defend both the ruling that the creditor violated the automatic stay and the award of sanctions for that violation, the debtor may recover her appellate attorney fees under section 362(k). Schwartz-Tallard v. America’s Servicing Co., No. 11-1429 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 28, 2012). Read More
-
Request Assistance
Request assistance with a case.
-
Help NCBRC
NCBRC needs your support to protect the rights of consumer bankruptcy debtors. The most effective way to support NCBRC is with a direct donation.
There are many other ways to give to NRBRC:
iGive.com: When you purchase items at over 1,400 online stores, a percentage of your purchase will be donated to NCBRC. Stores include Macy’s, Melissa and Doug, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nike, Petsmart, and more. Shop and Give today!
-
Keep up with NCBRC
Thank you!
Thank you to the following organizations without whose support our work would not be possible.
American College of Bankruptcy
The American College of Bankruptcy is an honorary public service association of bankruptcy and insolvency professionals who are invited to join as Fellows based on a proven record of the highest standards of professionalism plus service to the profession and their communities. Together with its affiliated Foundation, the College is the largest financial supporter of bankruptcy and insolvency-related pro bono legal service programs in the United States.NACBA
Visit NACBA.org
The only national organization dedicated to serving the needs of consumer bankruptcy attorneys and protecting the rights of consumer debtors in bankruptcy. Formed in 1992, NACBA has more than 3,000 members located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.