WELLS FARGO IS RUTHLESS AS IT TRIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HOMEOWNER IN BANKRUPTCY
By R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Hi Everyone:
I came upon this case today that I thought would make for informative reading. Wells Fargo knew that there had been a mistake on a stipulation regarding a relief from stay action. The property in the motion was identified as the one the borrowers wanted to live in. But everyone involved thought that the motion related to a property that the debtors were surrendering.
Instead of just stipulating to vacate that stipulation and enter the correct one, the lawyer for Wells Fargo represents to the court and everyone that his client (WELLS FARGO) would not agree to stipulate to correct the wrong stipulation. As a result, the debtors are forced to spend hundreds of dollars correcting the mistake.
Homeowners beware. Wells Fargo and Every Other Bank out there will foreclose on your house if you have not made the payments. Even if they tell you they won't, I wouldn't trust any of them to not try to take advantage of you if a mistake is made. In my humble experience and opinion I haven't seen any of the banks not play the same kinds of games when it comes to homeowners are in default.
Take a word of advice. In most cases you are the safest to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and try to argue about loan modification AFTER you file your bankruptcy. Try to get your loan modified, but once a Notice of sale has been issued, file your bankruptcy and then fight for your house from a position of safety instead of being under the gun! Note: If you do file for bankruptcy it will disqualify you from a number of the government programs for modification. So BEWARE. See a competent real estate and bankruptcy attorney to decide what is best for your specific circumstances.
United States Bankruptcy Court,
D. Nevada.
In re Hector J. MARTINEZ and Tiffany T. Martinez, Debtors.
No. BK-S-07-15189-BAM.
Aug. 1, 2008.
Background: Order to show cause was entered why sanctions should not be imposed on mortgage lender and its attorneys for opposing Chapter 13 debtors' request for relief from stipulation lifting automatic stay, given that all parties acknowledged that, due to mutual mistake, stipulation erroneously identified real property as to which stay was to be lifted.
Holdings: The Bankruptcy Court, Bruce A. Markell, J., held that:
(1) mortgage lender, law firm that represented mortgage lender, and individual lawyer in firm each violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011 in opposing Chapter13 debtors' request to set aside stipulation;
(2) mortgage lender's conduct was vexatious, wanton or oppressive, and provided grounds for sanctions in exercise of court's inherent powers;
(3) public reprimand was appropriate sanction for attorneys' error; and
(4) lender would be required to pay attorney fees incurred by debtors, as well as to refrain from collecting any fees to which it might otherwise be entitled, in its capacity as oversecured creditor, in connection with debtors' motion for relief from stipulation.
Under Nevada law, any contract formed under mutual mistake by parties as to property to which it relates can be reformed by either party or, if not reformed, avoided.
Rule 9011 sanctions are warranted when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable or without factual foundation, or is brought for improper purpose. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 9011, 11 U.S.C.A.
In considering sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, court measures attorney's conduct objectively against a reasonableness standard, which consists of competent attorney admitted to practice before the involved court. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 9011, 11 U.S.C.A.
Mortgage lender, law firm that represented mortgage lender, and individual lawyer in firm each violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011 in opposing Chapter 13 debtors' request to set aside stipulation for relief from automatic stay, where all parties acknowledged that, due to mutual mistake committed at time stipulation was signed, stipulation erroneously identified the real property as to which stay was to be lifted, not as real property that debtors intended to surrender, but as the separate residential property that they intended to retain; fact that neither the lender nor its counsel signed any pleading opposing debtors' request for relief from stipulation was not fatal to finding that Rule 9011 was violated, since their opposition to debtors' request was itself a ?presentation? within meaning of Rule 9011. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 9011, 11 U.S.C.A.
Rule 9011 requires a lawyer to exercise independent judgment with respect to claims that client wishes to bring and to decline to pursue claims that are frivolous. Fed.Rules Bankr.Proc.Rule 9011, 11 U.S.C.A.