PHILLIP R. CORVELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, DBA America’s Servicing Company, DBA Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Defendant-Appellee

Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Lawsuits Revived by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals


Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Lawsuits Revived by Court

In a separate action involving Wells Fargo, a U.S. Court of Appeals held that the bank must face lawsuits by home loan borrowers for refusing to offer them permanent mortgage modifications.

The federal government’s 2009 Home Affordable Modification Program requires the bank to offer permanent adjustments to homeowners who met the terms of a trial-period modification, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled.

“The program seems to have created more litigation than it has happy homeowners,” the judges said in yesterday’s decision.

Reversing a lower-court dismissal of two separate lawsuits, the panel rejected the conclusion Wells Fargo was only bound if it had actually offered the borrowers a fully executed copy of a modification agreement.

NOONAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

Read as a whole the TPP between Corvello and Wells

Fargo makes no sense. It is self-contradictory. Page one

promised Corvello in two places that if his representations

were accurate and if he were in compliance with the Trial

Period Plan, the Lender “would provide” him “with a Loan

Modification Agreement.” Paragraph 2G stated: “the Loan

Documents will not be modified unless and until (i) I meet all

of the conditions required for modification; (ii) I receive a

fully executed copy of a Modification Agreement and (iii) the

Modification Effective Date has passed.”

Wells Fargo drafted this document, and Wells Fargo must

be held responsible for it. The document promises a

substantial benefit to Corvello if he meets its terms. The

document then makes these benefits illusory because they

depend entirely on the will of Wells Fargo. To say, “I give

$100 for your watch but I will decide whether I pay you

$100” is not to make a contract but to engage in a flim-flam

or, in plain words, to work a fraud. You promise so that the

other will perform. You reserve your promise so that the

promise is empty while you have gotten what you wanted

from the promisee.

No purpose was served by the document Wells Fargo

prepared except the fraudulent purpose of inducing Corvello

to make the payments while the bank retained the option of

modifying the loan or stiffing him. “Heads I win, tails you

lose” is a fraudulent coin toss. Wells Fargo did no better.

The cases are Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 11-16234 and Lucia v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 11-16242, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Federal, 9th Circuit, California | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Barry Fagan, Law Offices of Barry S Fagan | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.