Wells Fargo — More Lies

Any judge that gives Wells Fargo Bank the “benefit of the doubt” on any assertion, allegation or document is ignoring what is plain for all to see — that its business plan is based upon reporting profits, whether they are real or not, and that it method of operation consists of fraud.

The practices outlined in this article  are not restricted to WFB. This is the business method of all the major banks in virtually all interactions in consumer lending.

The internal policies of the banks are designed to take advantage of the common bias of judges to believe that the bank must have gotten it right and that the consumer is trying to get off with a technicality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The borrowers have it right and the banks are getting off with legal technicalities that do not require them to actually prove that anything they say is or ever was real.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

see  Deceptive Auto Insurance Game Follows Familiar Routine for Wells Fargo

Revealing a practice of using brute force against borrowers, Wells Fargo has once again been caught stealing from its loan customers and those it claims are loan customers. The industry is awash with outright fraud — as was revealed when Chase was caught giving “mortgage relief” (as per “settlement”) to loans that were either nonexistent or that had been sold.  This time 800,000 customers were charged fro insurance they neither wanted nor needed and 200,000 of them had their cars repossessed —- all for a “default” in not paying for insurance they had already paid for.

The base line is the cynical bank assumption that regulators are too stupid or distracted to understand what is going on in the world of finance. There is a growing suspicion now that false claims of securitization were not only multiplied by multiple sales of the same loan, but that the current pandemic of “resecuritization” is merely enabling the banks to add a new layers of false documents and securities without ever accounting for the fraudulent manner of false securitization in the first place. This probably extends to payoffs of loans where the mortgage backed securities supposedly deriving their value from loans are unaffected by foreclosure, sale or any other kind of payoff of the loan.

Here we have an exact correlation between the “escrows” supposedly “managed” by “servicers” in the mortgage industry. Many readers will recall all the cases where BOA and other banks were caught putting the insurance payment in a suspense account, then billing for insurance that had already been obtained or paid for in the monthly payment of the homeowner.

When the false invoice is not paid, the banks or “servicers” make “temporary postings” that give rise to a nonexistent default. Then the bank forecloses over the cries of foul by homeowners who have made every payment exactly as claimed by the bank, who probably had no right to collect or enforce anything in the first place. The icing on the cake comes from the bank not accepting the regular monthly payment because the account is in default, this creating the illusion that the “borrower” refused or failed to pay.

The main take-away from this is that lawyers for consumers should be aware that they should assume that everything the bank says is false. Anything less and the court will assume that the loan is true and valid, that the documents are authentic and the defenses are rubbish. And THAT is because of the improper use of legal presumptions when the bank produces false documentation. The presumption is in favor of authenticity whereas the fact is that the document is a fabrication referring to a nonexistent transaction in real life.

The assumption by the consumer lawyer, that nothing about the loan or its administration is true, leads inescapably to objections and discovery that will show the absence of any evidence that any financial transaction occurred in the “chain” relied upon by the “bank” (in mortgage foreclosures usually a “trust” where the false assumption is that a bank is foreclosing.)

It should also lead to motions in limine to prevent the sue of legal presumptions for documents introduced by the “bank” because of the widespread common knowledge that the banks have been caught in a pattern of conduct in which they fabricated, forged and robo-signed documents.

Look up the rules of evidence in your state. It will probably say that such presumptions arise unless there is a reasonable basis for questioning the credibility of the party seeking to introduce the “evidence” that would otherwise receive the benefit of the presumption. Once the presumption is removed, the foreclosing party is left to prove its case with facts (which do not exist) instead of relying upon legal presumptions.

What you are looking for is any evidence in which one party ends up with a loan receivable and the other ends up with a loan payable. No doubt that the loan payable exists. But the loan receivable? Not so much — not in the chain claimed by the banks. This is why I have periodically written about why CPA’s should be used as expert witnesses in these cases. They know how to define a loan receivable. Thus they know how to define the “owner” of the loan.

The practice of creating false insurance contracts at Wells Fargo dates back to at least 2005. Here are some significant quotes from the article:

The confidential report, prepared by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and reviewed by The New York Times, criticizes Wells Fargo for forcing hundreds of thousands of borrowers to buy unneeded auto insurance when they took out a car loan, as well as its handling of the problems once they were detected.

The bank is still trying to recover from a scandal in which its employees created millions of credit card and bank accounts that customers had not requested, eventually leading to the ouster of the bank’s chief executive and millions of dollars in regulatory fines.

Wells Fargo’s improper auto insurance practices came to light in July, after The Times obtained an internal report prepared for the bank’s executives. That analysis showed that more than 800,000 people who took out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto insurance they did not want or need, typically because they already had coverage.

That internal report said the costs of the unneeded insurance, which covered collision damage, had caused some 274,000 Wells Fargo customers to fall behind on their car loans, and almost 25,000 vehicles were wrongly repossessed. Customers on active military duty were among those hurt by the practice.

The comptroller’s review of Wells Fargo’s auto lending and insurance practices has been underway for several months.

The report paints a damning picture of a bank that didn’t monitor its contractors, that lacked the impetus to correct problems once they were uncovered and that proved unresponsive to complaints from its customers.

Wells Fargo’s auto insurance practices violated a section of the Federal Trade Commission Act that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce, the report said. For example, the bank did not break out the insurance costs embedded in car loans; rather, it included the amounts owed on the unneeded coverage in the monthly payments. Had borrowers known what the cost increases were for, the comptroller’s office said, they could have taken action more quickly to avoid harm.

Even when Wells Fargo borrowers notified National General that they already had car insurance, they had trouble reversing the erroneous charges. The comptroller office’s review of loan files and consumer complaints showed that Wells Fargo’s customers often had to submit proof of coverage multiple times before the coverage was canceled.

7 Responses

  1. Maxim – Deceit and fraud shall excuse or benefit no man.

  2. I have a letter from a Wells Fargo lawyer that was trying to make me sign a confirmatory mortgage back in 2010. I have one letter where she offered me $500. to sign it. which I did not and I have a letter with she’s explicitly writes ” we r trying to correct a clouded Title “. She had sent me a letter & a slighly worded different one to my attorney at the time. It has always made me believe that Wells Fargo never foreclosed on me because they do not have the proper documents to do so. Instead they stuffed it in a pile & gave it to somebody else. Who did an illegal foreclosure in May. I have an eviction trial 11-29-17. I do not believe it will go forward as I have not received discovery even after opposing council asked for 30 more days. The date came & went. I just sumbitted papers for a dismisal. This was an a Washington mutual refi that immediately was transfered to WF in 05. I feel like I am in a good position.

  3. Criminals. When will they finally be taken down for good.
    WF. BOA. Citi. Chase. There is never just 1 cockroach.

  4. when, oh when, will our honorable public servants protect us from this scourge?? I want specifics. WHEN ?

  5. Hey Neil, I just received a modification from Ocwen that I accepted in late August. I signed and released the Lawyers I had through this 5 year process. I did everything I was asked to do on the contract. Notary etc etc…I was gauranteed the final paperwork would arrive in 2 weeks and its been two months?? Ive emailed and they say they need more time?? Have you ever seen this behavior? Is there cases where the Bank never signs the final paperwork? Tom

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: