If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox Business)   Wells Fargo asks "How can we make this worse?" Answer: "Let's sue ourselves"   (foxbusiness.com) divider line 29
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

3797 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Jul 2009 at 1:52 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-07-11 12:41:47 AM  
"It's gold, Jerry! Gold!"
 
2009-07-11 12:43:19 AM  
laff
 
2009-07-11 01:34:58 AM  
Went expecting to see the filing against the second leinholder, itself, didn't expect that the lawyers they hired for defense didn't immediately go, "Okay." Couldn't you get disbarred for those kinds of shenanigans?
 
2009-07-11 01:58:36 AM  
I think these gentlemen know how to handle this type of situation

Link (new window)
 
2009-07-11 02:11:12 AM  
I'm thinking someone divided by zero.
 
2009-07-11 02:11:55 AM  
Or maybe it preserves the position of the second lien holder so it is next in line to collect surplus funds after the first lien is satisfied, Fernandez said.

Never let an actual legal rationale get in the way of a bad article.
 
2009-07-11 02:17:25 AM  
Skip to 8:44, then to 9:30 (new window) The clip explains the situation quite well.
 
2009-07-11 02:18:14 AM  
FTA: "McKillop, the condo owner's attorney, told me he thinks Wells Fargo doesn't know what it's doing, and that its lawyers figure it is all billable hours to them."
 
2009-07-11 02:22:32 AM  
HAHAHAHA!

FTFA:

"Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property," the answer reads. "All other allegations of the complaint are denied."

They answered their OWN FARKING LAWSUIT with a DENIAL. That line alone is worth the price of admission.
 
2009-07-11 02:30:59 AM  
"Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property," the answer reads. "All other allegations of the complaint are denied."

www.tnrevolution.com
 
2009-07-11 03:04:53 AM  
OK, for those of us who get into fights with mortgage lenders regularly -- and I'm in court against one in about 70 hours -- this is one of the most wonderful things that can happen.

The whole mortgage servicer industry is one large clusterfark of conflicts of interest in any event so it's pretty much symbolic of the whole process.
 
2009-07-11 03:12:02 AM  
Is it me or does this make perfect sense when it's not reported by an idiot?

Doesn't the primary lien holder (Wells Fargo) have to file papers against ALL other lien holders, including in this case, themselves? Oh yeah, they do.
"Due to state foreclosure laws, lenders are obligated to name and notify subordinate lien holders," said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke.

And what a shock, a company the size of Wells Fargo has more than one law firm on it's payroll. I don't think the same firm can represent a plaintiff and a defendant in the same case.

So basically, they're trying to win the case as the primary lien holder to get their money and show they're not liable as ONE of the secondary lien holders "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property," the answer reads. "All other allegations of the complaint are denied.". So any surplus awards should come to them after the first lien is paid. "Or maybe it preserves the position of the second lien holder so it is next in line to collect surplus funds after the first lien is satisfied, Fernandez said."
 
2009-07-11 03:27:50 AM  
glave27: Is it me or does this make perfect sense when it's not reported by an idiot?


It's going to hinge on state law. But in many states, the junior lienhoder's interests don't require them to litigate to preserve their rights. They can rely on their recorded mortgage in the unlikely event of a surplus.

More likely is bureaucratic stupid. Wells is likely a servicer for both loans -- jut the agent for the true investors (a trust). That's very common. Different departments manage the different portfolios. And they refer their stuff out to different (USFN) attorneys (usually selected thru the LPS/Fidelity network). Now, even if there's no reason to defend, they may defend anyway. The cost is likely to come out of the trust's repayment so who cares?

Well, except the entire economy that's praying these securities will turn out to be worth more than they are now. Oh, and the homeowner. Yeah, any true excess after all the liens would go to them. But, hey, who counts more, the lawyers or the homeowner?
 
2009-07-11 03:44:38 AM  
Dalar: laff

Total*Farkers pay to give us this info. Enjoy it while we get it for free.
 
2009-07-11 04:00:12 AM  
wejash: glave27: Is it me or does this make perfect sense when it's not reported by an idiot?


It's going to hinge on state law. But in many states, the junior lienhoder's interests don't require them to litigate to preserve their rights. They can rely on their recorded mortgage in the unlikely event of a surplus.

More likely is bureaucratic stupid. Wells is likely a servicer for both loans -- jut the agent for the true investors (a trust). That's very common. Different departments manage the different portfolios. And they refer their stuff out to different (USFN) attorneys (usually selected thru the LPS/Fidelity network). Now, even if there's no reason to defend, they may defend anyway. The cost is likely to come out of the trust's repayment so who cares?

Well, except the entire economy that's praying these securities will turn out to be worth more than they are now. Oh, and the homeowner. Yeah, any true excess after all the liens would go to them. But, hey, who counts more, the lawyers or the homeowner?


Ok, this makes more sense. You're right. Probably the department handling the primary filed the normal forclosure papers and another department receiving notice from the court filed their usual defense papers. Looks stupid as hell but not the end of the world moronic like the author tries to make it sound like. The real dumb part was allowing banks to give both mortgages in the first place.

Glad he added this little tidbit in passing....
One of them, Tampa attorney Kristofer Fernandez, said he's seen several cases where a large bank has sued itself for foreclosure as the holder of both first and second mortgages.

"Four or five years ago, you would have never seen this," Fernandez said. "Now, it's very common."
 
2009-07-11 09:10:09 AM  
"Being a taxpayer-subsidized, too-big-to-fail institution, it's possible that one of the few ways for Wells Fargo & Co. to know what it is doing is to notify itself with a court filing."

Wells Fargo was never in any danger of failing. And it was one of the few institutions that didn't get involved in the whole sub-prime debacle. Its hard to understand what the heck is the real story iswhen every other line is opinionated dribble.
 
2009-07-11 09:13:51 AM  
Good to see the judge think a reasonable man would look at this case not think, "holy cheesus mother farker this farking stupid pile of lawyerfied bullshiat I've ever seen"
 
2009-07-11 09:27:16 AM  
The author of the article certainly makes his irrational opinions clear in the article. When you look past that, it seems like this was a reasonable process to me, for reasons already cited in this thread.

It's possible that two different divisions of Wells each have one of the two mortgages on the property, so each division would have followed their routine internal procedures. Nothing to see here.
 
2009-07-11 10:17:38 AM  
devilsnight: it seems like this was a reasonable process to me

What the hell, why not. I stopped reading when Wells Fargo hired a second law firm to defend itself from itself. Ya'll go ahead and pull out all the lawyerific voodoo mumbo jumbo you want. At the end of the day, they still hired a second law firm to defend themselves from themselves.
 
2009-07-11 11:40:39 AM  
Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher 2009-07-11 10:17:38 AM

What the hell, why not. I stopped reading when Wells Fargo hired a second law firm to defend itself from itself. Ya'll go ahead and pull out all the lawyerific voodoo mumbo jumbo you want. At the end of the day, they still hired a second law firm to defend themselves from themselves.


I don't think they can use the same law firm to work both sides of the issue; they would have to have hired another firm to represent their other mortgage since the second mortgage's interests are subordinate to the primary mortgage's interest.
 
2009-07-11 12:53:08 PM  
Wells Fargo hired Florida Default Law Group., P.L., of Tampa, Fla., to file the lawsuit against itself.

And then Wells Fargo hired another Tampa law firm -- Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer P.A. -- to defend itself against its own lawsuit, according to court documents.


So if they hired one law firm it would be a conflict of interest?

/my brain hurts
 
2009-07-11 02:11:36 PM  
As a stockholder of this firm I'm getting a kick...
 
2009-07-11 07:25:24 PM  
devilsnight: The author of the article certainly makes his irrational opinions clear in the article. When you look past that, it seems like this was a reasonable process to me, for reasons already cited in this thread.

It's possible that two different divisions of Wells each have one of the two mortgages on the property, so each division would have followed their routine internal procedures. Nothing to see here.


Except the article suggests they are the same division
 
2009-07-11 07:45:19 PM  
**Sigh**

Here's the deal folks. Wells Fargo has to put all the other lien holders on notice for its intent to foreclose. This is a legal requirement.

Also, while WFC is the Servicer and required to make these filings and responses, I would guarantee that they are not the owner of the second loan - and possibly not even the first. Since they are just servicing the loan, they are required to file an answer on behalf of the owner. And they will be getting any legal fees paid by the owner of the loan, since they would not be responsible for any.

So basically, this is an uninformed article trying to make a stupidity mountain out of a molehill. Granted, it makes for sensational writing, but the reality is that this is all just run of the mill foreclosure filings.
 
2009-07-11 10:38:22 PM  
Oh you wacky Fourteenth Amendment, you're always allowing the craziest things to happen.
 
2009-07-11 10:42:18 PM  
As a lifelong customer of Wells Fargo (27 years and counting), I hope they win this lawsuit
 
2009-07-11 11:21:01 PM  
EngineerAU: Oh you wacky Fourteenth Amendment, you're always allowing the craziest things to happen.

Like Blacks being people
 
2009-07-14 01:18:42 AM  
Enrico Pallazzo: As a lifelong customer of Wells Fargo (27 years and counting), I hope they win this lawsuit

That was funny as hell to me, not even sure why.
 
2009-07-14 01:56:52 AM  
Narc_: **Sigh**

Here's the deal folks. Wells Fargo has to put all the other lien holders on notice for its intent to foreclose. This is a legal requirement.

Also, while WFC is the Servicer and required to make these filings and responses, I would guarantee that they are not the owner of the second loan - and possibly not even the first. Since they are just servicing the loan, they are required to file an answer on behalf of the owner. And they will be getting any legal fees paid by the owner of the loan, since they would not be responsible for any.

So basically, this is an uninformed article trying to make a stupidity mountain out of a molehill. Granted, it makes for sensational writing, but the reality is that this is all just run of the mill foreclosure filings.


Actually, the legal fees will be coming out of any potential excess funds from the sale of the property -- meaning it will come out of the homeowner's potential recovery.

The argument that the filings of, for example, the DEFENSE of the case was made by the lawyers who filed it. the guys who want to be paid. Without even looking, I bet there's a way to handle that without filing a meaningless defense and running up a fee.

Actually I'm almost certain of it. If there's anything that's true about the mortgage servicer lawyers, it's that if there's a $5 way to achieve a result and a $500 way....guess which they'll pick?

And, yeah, I was fighting with one in court over a $500 fee today for sending what amounted to a letter to my clients. Been there, seeing that every day of the week.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report