This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 7
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 21 PageID# 8
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 3 of 21 PageID# 9
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 4 of 21 PageID# 10
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 5 of 21 PageID# 11
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 6 of 21 PageID# 12
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 7 of 21 PageID# 13
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 8 of 21 PageID# 14
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 9 of 21 PageID# 15
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 10 of 21 PageID# 16
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 11 of 21 PageID# 17
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 12 of 21 PageID# 18
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 13 of 21 PageID# 19
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 14 of 21 PageID# 20
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 15 of 21 PageID# 21
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 16 of 21 PageID# 22
□ □ □
□ □ □
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 17 of 21 PageID# 23
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 18 of 21 PageID# 24
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 19 of 21 PageID# 25
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 20 of 21 PageID# 26
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 21 of 21 PageID# 27
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COVER SHEET FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS
Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 21 PageID# 8
(CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY)'
CITY OF NORFOLK
WELLS FARGO.BANK, N.A
or relief sought.) [ ] Accounting
I, the undersigned [ ] plaintiff [ ] defendant [x] attorney for [x] plaintiff [ ] defendant hereby notify the Clerk of Court that I am filing the following civil action. (Please indicate by checking box that most closely identifies the claim being asserted
[ ] Confessed Judgment [ ] Conservator of Peace
[ ] Administrative Appeal [ ] Adoption
[ ] Adoption - Foreign
[ ] Judicial Review
[ ) Construe Will
[ ] Aid and Guidance
[ j Adult Protection
[ ] Annexation
[ ] Contract Action
[ ] Annulment
[ j Correct/Erroneous State/Local Taxes [ 1 Counterclaim - Monetary Damages
[ ] Counterclaim - No Monetary
[ j Contract Specific Performance
[ ] Landlord/Tenant [ ] Law Enforcement Petition [ ] Mechanics Lien
[ ] Appeal Decision of ABC Board
[ ] Motor Vehicle Tort [ ] NameChange [ ] Order to Sever
[ ] Partition
[ ] Medica) Malpractice
[ ] Appeal Decision of Employment
[ j Appeal Decision of Board of Zoning [ j Appeal Decision of Comp Board
[ ] Cross Claim
[ J Custody/Visitation/Support/
[ ] Appeal Decision of Local
[ ] Appeal Decision of Marine Resources
[ ] Appeal Decision of Voter
[ ] Detinue [ ] Divorce [ ] Ejectment
[ j Declare Death [ ] Delinquent Taxes
Equitable Distribution [ ] Declarator)' Judgment
f ] Reformation of Trust f j Reinstatement of Driving
[ ] Product Liability [ ] Quiet Title [ ] Referendum Elections
[ j Petition
Substitute Fiduciaries f ] Approval of Right to be Eligible to
[ ] Appointment of Church Trustee,
[ j Encumber/Sell Real Estate
[ ] Escheat
[ ] Enforce Vendor's Lien
[ ] Establish Boundaries
[ ] Expunge
[ j Removal
[ ] Reinstatement (General)
[ ] Termination of Mineral
[ ] Standby Guardian/ Conservator
[ j Separate Maintenance
[ ] Asbestos Litigation [ ] Attachment
[ ] Bond Forfeiture Appeal
[ j Child Abuse and Neglect [ ] Civil Contempt
[ j Freedom of Information [ ] Garnishment
[ j Forfeiture of U.S. Currency
[ ] General Tort Liability (other than
[ ] Guardian/Conservator Appointment
[ ] Grievance Procedures
[ ] Unlawful Detainer [ ] Vehicle Confiscation [ I Will Contested
[ ] Compromise Settlement
[ J Condemnation
[ ] Complaint - (Miscellaneous)
[ ] Claim Impleading Third Party Defendant - No Monetary Damages
[ ] Claim Impleading Third Party Defendant - Monetary Damages
[ J Interdiction
[ ] Impress/Declare a Trust
[ ] Writ of Quo Warranto
[ ] Wrongful Death [ ] Other
[ j Writ of Prohibition
[ ] Writ of Habeas Corpus [ ] Writ of Mandamus
[ j Writ of Certiorari
f ] Judgment Lien-Bill to Enforce
Zi'5.9.9:P9. are claimed
[ ] Intentional Tort
[ ] Interrogatory
[ ] Damages in the amount of $
April 8, 2011
I 1 PLAINTIFF
| ] DEFENDANT
[.] ATTORNEY FOR (.] PLAINTIFF
I ] DEFENDANT
ADDRESS/TELtPHONE NUMBER OF SIGNATOR
FORM CC-I4I6 (MASTER) PAGE ONE 10/10
* See reverse side for Civil Action Type Codes - for Clerk's Office Use Onlv
Mortgage services like Defendant Wells Fargo provide sen-ices relating to the collection ot mortgage payments in return for a servicing fee. VA 23505 Plaintiffs v. Background thousands of loans are pooled together into a trust and then bonds are issued to investors based on the combined expected payment streams of all the pooled loans) has led to the relatively new industry of loan servicing. Suite 120 Virginia Beach. P. ) ) ) \ COMPLAINT & EMERGENCY PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Serve Clerk of State Corporation Commission Wells Fargo Bank.01-622. VA 23462-4377 Defendants ) ) ) ) Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction To the Honorable Judge of Said Court: Bill of Complaint & Pursuant to Va. The securitization process (in which . ) ) ) Norfolk. David Hinton and Claudette Hinton. Plaintiffs. N. 1A 50306-0335 AND ) ) ) Samuel I. file this Complaint and Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 3 of 21 PageID# 9 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CITY OF NORFOLK David Hinton And Claudette Hinton 140 Filbert St. Code § 8. As Substitute Trustee R/A: William Adam White ) ) ) 5040 Corporate Woods Drive. Box 10335 Des Moines.A.O. Loan services are not paid on the performance of the loans but rather 1. White. and state upon information and belief as follows: I. ) ) P.C.
4. November 18 ?0l0 '" ' . make the majority of their money from monthly servicing fees and fees charged to borrowers in result in a significant loss for the investors.house. major mortgage servicers including Wells Fargo announced that they would aid homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments 3. However. possible. This behavior may be largely due to the fact that servicers have almost no financial incentives to modify loans but do have incentives to keep homeowners in default and foreclose.198 permanent loan modifications had been given according to the federal government's "Making Home Affordable Program Servicer Performance Report through June 2010. the servicer will issue a 3-month Trial Period Plan in which the homeowner will make a modified monthly payment for three months. On February 18. which provided guidelines and financial incentives for servicers to modify mortgages. unlike investors and homeowners. Modifications not only make the mortgage affordable for the homeowner. servicers do usually lose money on loan modifications. Loss Mitigation. If the homeowner makes all three payments on time. only 398. Despite their claims. by modifying mortgages to lower monthly payments and interest rates. they will be granted a permanent loan modification. as of June 2010. Inc. the major servicers including Defendant Wells Fargo have engaged in a pattern of behavior in stark contrast to their claims of desiring to help homeowners. 6. Defendant Wells Fargo often delays and obstructs the modification process for homeowners like Plaintiffs.aspx?NewsID=1376 "Robo-Signing." This is despite the fact that the major servicers including Wells Fargo have affirmed before Congress their intention to help as many eligible homeowners avoid foreclosure as 5. homewoners must meet certain eligibility requirements and also prove that they can afford to pay a modified monthly loan payment. Chain of Title. Under the MHA's Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). (or imminent default). available athttp:/Vfinancialservices. In the wake of the current foreclosure crises. October 2009. but also serve investors by preserving their payment streams and reducing the likelihood of foreclosure which could often 2. and Other Issues in Mortgage Servicing". the federal government announced its Making Homes Affordable ("MHA") initiative. Rather than adequately allocating resources. Homeowners must provide their servicer with the relevant financial documents as well as a hardship affidavit explaining the change in circumstances that led to their default. properly training staff and working diligently to modify eligible loans.See "Why Servicers Foreclose When They Should Modify and Other Puzzles of Servicers Behavior" National Consumer Law Center. Hearing Before the House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee n Housing and Community Opportunity. do not generally lose money on foreclosures and in fact they often make money on them. Despite the MHA's intent to help 3 to 4 million eligible homeowners.gov/HearingsftearingDetails.. Servicers.2009. . If it is determined that a homeowner qualifies for HAMP.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 4 of 21 PageID# 10 default.
198 loans eligible for loan modification.at28. at vii-viii. disorganization and the wrongful denial of permanent loan modifications to qualified homeowners like Plaintiff. According to the federal government's statistics. These fees essentially reward servicers for getting borrowers into and keeping them in default. employees often relay false or misleading information to ' 3 Id. The current model of collecting their fees from the proceeds of foreclosure before the investors are paid has been very profitable for servicers and they have little incentive to change despite the obvious disadvantages to investors and homeowners. The reimbursement offered for loan modifications by 9. Id. servicers like Defendant Wells Fargo are not equipped with the adequate staff to modify loans even if they had the genuine desire to do so. 6 W. However. Servicers' largest expenses are the advances of principal and interest payments they must pay to investors for loans that are in default. Apart from their obvious financial incentives to not modify loans. The monthly fee servicers receive is based on the outstanding principals of their loans. servicers would have to expend upfront overhead costs.3 servicers lose no money from foreclosures because they recover all of their expenses and fees' once the loan is foreclosed upon even before the investors are paid. servicers like Defendant Wells Fargo were not providing adequate staffing in their loss mitigation departments. after a loan is modified.4 8.125. In order to 10. as of June 2010. This was in part because it is rapidly (and subsequently so has the number of homeowners seeking foreclosure alternatives) while loss mitigation staffs continued to be woefully understaffed and undertrained. Conversely. . at vi. including staffing and physical infrastructure as well as out-of-pocket expenses like property valuation and credit reports as well as financing costs. which gives servicers an incentive to increase the loan principal by adding delinquent amounts and junk fees. the requirement to make these advances to investors stops.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 5 of 21 PageID# 11 7. at vi-vii. This has become an increasing problem as the number of mortgages in default has increased who prefer foreclosure from a financial perspective. under the current rules. As with foreclosure. Consequently.6 cheaper to hire and train line-level collections employees than line-level loss mitigation staff.3 modify this number of loans. MHA is simply not substantial enough to outweigh these other costs and induce servicers to change their existing business model. Furthermore. this lack of qualified staff has led to confusion. Even prior to the foreclosure crisis. servicers are delayed in recovering these advances when they do a modification. 12. there were an estimated 3. 5 Id. homeowners that stalls and hampers the loan modification process to the benefit of the servicers. This staffing deficit is a major problem for servicers and inevitably leads to negligence on the part of the servicers' employees who are not prepared to deal with homeowners and do not understand the HAMP. 11. servicers lack the established infrastructure to cope with the number of loan modifications currently being sought.
2007. Wells Fargo representatives communicated through mail and telephonically numerous times over the next two years with the Hintons. WITH IMPROVEMENTE THEREON. EACH OF SAID LOTS FRONTING 25 FEET ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF FIRST STREET NOW KNOWN AS FILBERT STREET. which is serviced by Wells Fargo Bank." 14. Hinton and Mrs.00. the Hintons were unable to make their current mortgage payment. and advertises its participation on its website at: https://www. another documentation indicating that they should simply send in some additional documents to qualify for a modification.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 6 of 21 PageID# 12 II..A. representative told them that they did not qualify for any modification and'that they had to make a full reinstatement on the loan to avoid foreclosure. N. Because of the loss of income.200. ON THE PLAT OF THE TRACT OF F.com/homeassist/loanmodification 18. Hinton were forced to change employment and subsequently had a loss in income. Supplemental Directive 10-02 Issued by the Dept. IN BLOCK 7. AND RECORDED IN MAP BOOK #3. Each of these communications led the Hintons to believe that the Defendants were confused and/or negligent and were using this confusion against them. In the fall of 2008. According to the HAMP. Virginia. Facts 13. Only a few days later. 15. The property is also described as "LOTS 52 AND 53. a . HANCOCK KNOWN AS BOLL1NGBROOKE. Therefore. Each telephone conversation would be with a different representative and the representatives would often contradict the previous representative. They also received documents indicating that the Defendants were going to foreclose on the home and then received 17. PAGE 45. the Browns contacted Wells Fargo to seek a modification of the loan. On July 10. BETWEEN PARALLEL LINES. the Defendants' communications to the Plaintiffs led the Plaintiffs to believe that the Defendants did not know what was going on with the loan or with their home and this caused great frustration and anxiety. Defendant Wells Fargo is a lender and servicer who actively participates in the government's Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") and other loan modification options. wellsfargo. That Plaintiff owns a tract of real estate located in Norfolk. 16.A. Plaintiff used the property in question to secure a mortgage loan of $235. ("Wells Fargo"). and can be found all over the internet if a person googles "HAMP foreclosure". After receiving documents from Wells Fargo notifying them of the options available to them. For example. Virginia. of Treasurery which is available on the Making Homes Affordable website as cited by Defendant Wells Fargo. Norfolk. a number of representatives told the Hintons that they qualified for a modification and that they were going to get the modification package in the mail shortly. which has a physical property address of 140 Filbert St. AND RUNNING BACK 100 FEET. MADE BY GRAHAM AND RIDDLE CIVIL ENGINEERS. both Mr.
2011. 2011. HJT spoke with Wells Fargo representative "Yolanda" who stated that no modification packet was ever received and that the file was in active foreclosure. 24. HJT faxed the completed modification packet to Wells Fargo at the fax number given. HJT resent in the complete modification packet. P.C. On February 28. sent in the complete modification packet. 19. even when they received notice from the Substitute Trustee of a foreclosure scheduled for April 12. they did not know if this was truly scheduled for a foreclosure or not. again according to HAMP regulations generally available on the internet. On March 4. On March 29. and is allowed a 30 day response period if denied (the servicer cannot conduct a foreclosure sale within 30 calendar days after the date of a Non-Approval Notice). 23. 2011. HJT spoke with defendant representative "Cindy" who stated that HJT should formally call for a postponement of the foreclosure sale inside of 10 days before the . In fact. On March 2. Plaintiffs received notification that their home was to be foreclosed upon on April 12. It further states that they will stop any foreclosure proceeding until the party • has been evaluated for the program. 21. 22. • has been determined to be ineligible. 2011. 20. HJT formally requested that the file be rereviewed for modification since all documents had been sent in now at least twice by HJT. Thompson. borrowers are to be considered for alternative foreclosure prevention options if they are denied the HAMP modification. 2011. for the third time. Defendant representative "Monica" stated that a request for additional documents had been sent out overnight and that the file was still in active foreclosure with no foreclosure date. 27. • • has received a denial in writing from the lender.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 7 of 21 PageID# 13 lender will not initiate foreclosure actions while reviewing a party for HAMP modification program. On February 2. the loan balance. On January 27. and the monthly payments and interest rate. Based on the Hintons" gross monthly income. 26. 2011. 28.2011. the foreclosure action may be resumed. Only in the event that the Home Affordable Modification or alternative foreclosure prevention options fail. Plaintiffs hired the law office of Heath J. HJT again. In late March. The misleading and contradictory information provided by the Defendants caused the Plaintiffs to not know what was going on with their property. Furthermore. 25. HJT determined Plaintiffs are eligible for a HAMP loan modification. ("HJT") to represent them in foreclosure avoidance and obtaining a loan modification. Defendant representative "Nicole" stated that the file was not in review for a HAMP modification and that it had been removed from such review in January because of insufficient documents.
in violation of the contract between the Defendants and the Hintons. Defendant Wells Fargo and Plaintiffs mutually and voluntarily agreed to modify Plaintiffs' existing first mortgage ("the Note"). 2011. and Defendant Wells Fargo accepted and began working on the review of that paperwork. 30. according to Defendant Wells Fargo's solicitations. HJT called back and spoke with representatives "Kayla" and "Zen" who both confirmed receipt of the modification packet. 2011. HJT faxed the additional and corrected documents to Wells Fargo. She also stated that the "postponement should be accepted She also requested three other additional because they are in review for a modification. as it stands now. 34." documents and for a correction on one submitted document. On April 4. the Plaintiffs are under review for a loan modification but their home is still scheduled for a foreclosure on Tuesday April 12. a contract to modify the Note was established. Defendant Wells Fargo Breached Its Contract To Modify Plaintiffs' First Mortgage. Plaintiff Alleges: III. 31. in-house modification. April 6. deed-in-lieu. . On March 30 and 31. 35. Defendant Wells Fargo induced Plaintiffs through Defendant Wells Fargo's representations to rely in good faith on their mutual agreement to modify the loan and thereby forgo any other foreclosure avoidance options such as a short sale. Incorporating Paragraphs 1-32: 33. Wells Fargo would process Plaintiffs' application in accordance with the HAMP program. Once Plaintiffs submitted the required modification application and requested documents in accordance with Defendant Wells Fargo's offer. Therefore. 2011. stated that the file was currently under review for modification and confirmed that a request for postponement of the foreclosure had been sent.2011 to check the status. HJT spoke with representative "Candice" and formally requested postponement of the foreclosure. 2011. 37. 32. She submitted the formal request for postponement and asked HJT to call back on Wednesday. On April 6. 36. Defendant Wells Fargo's active solicitation constitutes an irrevocable offer to Plaintiffs that if they filled out the appropriate application and submitted the proper paperwork.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 8 of 21 PageID# 14 date scheduled for foreclosure. Defendant Wells Fargo solicited Plaintiffs to apply for a HAMP loan modification as a first choice in foreclosure avoidance alternatives. 29. they would be properly and timely reviewed for a modification. or other foreclosure options.
Giving up the opportunity to seek other foreclosure avoidance options serves as adequate consideration on behalf of Plaintiffs in exchange for Defendant Wells Fargo to modify the Note and forbear the foreclosure while the modification was under review. and within less than 30 days from that sale date. 41. 39. Plaintiffs have suffered severe damage to their credit scores. As a part of the contract. 38. If Plaintiffs did not qualify for a loan modification pursuant to HAMP guidelines.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 9 of 21 PageID# 15 repayment plan. they would not otherwise owe. forbearance. or even attempting to sell the house on their own. eliminating time for Plaintiffs to appeal or apply for other foreclosure alternatives b. Defendant Wells Fargo has breached its contract by: a. and are needlesslylosing their home in foreclosure. Not forbearing foreclosure proceedings until Plaintiffs has been reviewed for other the HAMP modification or other foreclosure alternatives. Not reviewing Plaintiffs for any other foreclosure alternatives c. . had Defendant Wells Fargo performed the terms of the contract. and resulting in irreparable harm to Plaintiff. Further. 42. Parties mutually agreed that Defendant Wells Fargo would forbear foreclosure on Plaintiffs' home while the modification application was under review. including the foreclosure of their home and damage to their credit scores. then Defendant Wells Fargo would forbear foreclosure on Plaintiffs' home while Plaintiffs were reviewed for other foreclosure alternatives. Plaintiffs are now responsible for attorney and foreclosure fees that. 44. Not informing Plaintiffs or their agents of the outcome of the HAMP review until after a new foreclosure sale date had been scheduled. 40. As a result of this breach. Another pan of the contract is that Plaintiffs would have 30 days to appeal any negative decision concerning their application for a modification. 43. and that if Plaintiffs satisfied the condition precedent of qualifying for a loan modification pursuant to the HAMP guidelines. then the loan modification would be granted. for an entire year.
keeping in contact with borrowers and their agents during the modification process. Defendant Wells Fargo breached this duty with their contradictory and misleading communications with the Plaintiffs since the fall of 2008 and with their failure to review the Plaintiffs for a loan modification. Defendant Wells Fargo owed a tort duty of care to Plaintiffs in handling Plaintiffs' loan modification. Based upon Wells Fargo's duty owed to Plaintiff. in-house modification. A tort duty of due care arises from contractual dealings with professionals. Defendant Wells Fargo voluntarily undertook a new duty of due care owed to Plaintiff.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 10 of 21 PageID# 16 IV. outside the previous relationship between Servicers and Borrowers. Further. it owes its customer a duty of due care in the processing and determination of that application. . By offering a new contractual service. 51. As such. 50. repayment plan. 52. 46. banks owe the same duty to borrowers when they offer to modify a borrower's mortgage. by not being transparent in their review of the loan modification application. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable damage. 48. By analogy. As a result of Defendant Wells Fargo's negligence. Defendant Wells Fargo Negligently Processed Plaintiffs' Modification Application Causing Severe Harm to Plaintiff. 47. loan modification. namely the foreclosure of their home and severe damage to their credit scores. or if they were denied for a HAMP modification. and notifying Plaintiffs if they were no longer in modification review. such as the dealings between a borrower and a bank. such as a short sale. 49. or even attempting to sell the house on their own. and not working with Plaintiffs and their agents. When a bank has agreed to process an application for a loan. Plaintiffs detrimentally relied on Defendant Wells Fargo to process their application correctly and in a timely manner. The duty of due care in processing a loan modification application would reasonably include timely and accurate processing of the modification application. forbearance. and Defendant Wells Fargo's negligence has eliminated any time or opportunity Plaintiffs had to pursue other any other potential foreclosure avoidance options. deed-inlieu. forcing them further into debt due to late fees and attorney fees. Defendant Wells Fargo has extended the time Plaintiffs have been in modification review. Incorporating Paragraphs : 1 -32: 45.
Incorporating Paragraphs 1-32: 53. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Wells Fargo that Plaintiff would rely on Defendant's promise to review their application and documents for a loan modification. Defendant Wells Fargo has engaged in behavior that demonstrates it does not intend to provide these services as advertised. Furthermore. These deceptive and fraudulent business practices are a violation of Virginia Code §59. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Wells Fargo's promise to their detriment by foregoing the opportunity to pursue other foreclosure avoidance options and now they have no time to pursue such options as their foreclosure is scheduled for April 12. VI. . Plaintiffs now face foreclosure and damage to their credit score as a result of relying on Defendant's promise. 59. Defendant Wells Fargo Should Be Estopped From Claiming There Was No Contract. Defendant Wells Fargo's Actions are in Violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act: 57. 60. specifically foreclosure and damage to Plaintiffs' credit scores. Defendant Wells Fargo has relayed false and misleading information to Plaintiffs.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 11 of 21 PageID# 17 V. 58. Despite these claims. false pretense.1200. Defendant Wells Fargo knew that Plaintiff would be foregoing other options in reliance that the review would be done with due care and in a timely manner. 2011. Defendant Wells Fargo promised Plaintiffs they would review them for a HAMP loan modification. Defendant Weils Fargo has represented to that Plaintiffs would be reviewed for a loan modification pursuant to the advertised terms when in reality. Defendant Wells Fargo has not abided by those terms. 55. 56. 54. Defendant Wells Fargo uses false and misleading advertising that entices homeowners into applying for loan modifications Defendant Wells Fargo does not intend to approve (even if the homeowner is qualified) which typically results in a windfall of late fees for Defendant Wells Fargo. harm would result. false promise or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction. Defendant Wells Fargo advertises that it follows the HAMP guidelines and that it will review homeowners for loan modifications according to certain requirements. fraud. Defendant Wells Fargo should be estopped from claiming there was no contract to review Plaintiffs for a HAMP loan modification because Plaintiffs relied on Defendants' promise to Plaintiffs' detriment. Defendant Wells Fargo also was aware that by not granting the modification or by negligently handling the loan. which prohibits the advertising of services with the intent not to provide them as advertised as well as the use of any deception.
as appointed agents for Defendant Wells Fargo. as many homeowners whose loans are services by Wells Fargo are in a similar position as Plaintiffs and have sought similar assistance. Defendant Wells Fargo has not forborn Plaintiffs' foreclosure as promised so that Plaintiff can be reviewed for a modification and has not granted Plaintiffs a Trial Period Plan as promised if they met the eligibility requirements. 63. 69. Defendant Wells Fargo advertises a service that it has no intent to actually provide according to the advertised terms.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 12 of 21 PageID# 18 61. practicable. Defendant Wells Fargo has blatantly mishandled Plaintiffs' loan to the detriment of Plaintiffs and has breached its contract to modify Plaintiffs' loan. when this complaint is reviewed. Based on the facts as set out. These actions have damaged Plaintiffs in that they have robbed them of any time to pursue any other foreclosure avoidance options and they have resulted in a windfall of late fees to Defendant Wells Fargo that have accrued in the time Wells Fargo was supposedly reviewing Plaintiffs for a loan modification. with they have. there is a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this case. Defendant Substitute Trustee. Defendant Wells Fargo's actions are also a threat to public policy. Defendant Substitute Trustee Breached the Contract to Modify Plaintiffs' First Mortgage Incorporating Paragraphs : 1-32: 64. VI. besides an injunction. to stop the foreclosure sale of their home. VII. 62. Preliminary Injunction Incorporating Paragraphs: 1-32: 66. An injunction is feasible. Homeowners who are wrongfully denied a loan modification are left in a worse position. There is no other adequate legal remedy available to Plaintiff. are bound by the same contractual terms as Defendant Wells Fargo concerning foreclosure on the property in question. 65. A preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo until the complaint can be reviewed and the matter adjudicated. 68. Defendant Substitute Trustee breached the contract established between Defendant Wells Fargo and Plaintiffs by following through with foreclosure proceedings without first receiving certification from Defendant Wells Fargo that foreclosure was proper. and an effective way to vindicate the Plaintiff. . 67.
500.C. Plaintiffs will lose their home in a foreclosure sale and suffer serious detriment to their credit score. agents. 71. VA 23502 757-480-0060 (o) 757-257-0088 (f) heathjthompson@hotmail. to properly process Plaintiffs' loan modification application. Thompson VSB# 66748 Christian R.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 13 of 21 PageID# 19 70. Without an injunction. their servants. or in the alternative. Further.com . your Plaintiffs prays that the Court ENJOrN and RESTRAIN Defendants and each of them. employees or other parties acting on their behalf from instituting foreclosure proceedings on the instant property.00. P. The actions taken by Defendants Wells Fargo and Substitute Trustee are in violation of public policy. Ste 3 Norfolk. and directly results in harm to the public good. 3770 Progress Road. undermine government efforts to improve the economy during the current fiscal crisis. Gunderson VSB# 80013 Counsel for Plaintiff Heath J. Granting the injunction would therefore not adversely affect the public interest. Thompson. WHEREFORE.) Date: 4/06/2011 David Hinton and Claudette Hinton By: _ Of Counsel Heath J. Plaintiffs further ask the court to ORDER Defendant Wells Fargo to specifically perform Plaintiffs' loan modification. This hardship substantially outweighs Defendants' hardship of advertising costs for the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs requests compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Wells Fargo in the amount of SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($74.
VA 23502 757-480-0060 (o) 757-257-0088 (f) christian@heaththompson.A. Ste 3 Norfolk. N.com . Suite 120 Virginia Beach. Mail to the following listed individuals on this the 8th Day of April.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 14 of 21 PageID# 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY a copy of the foregoing Bill of Complaint and Petition for Preliminary Injunction was sent by U. Gunderson VSB# 80013 Counsel for Plaintiff Heath J.O. Thompson. P. VA 23462-4377 Christian R. • • Wells Fargo Bank. PC R/A: William Adam White 5040 Corporate Woods Dr. 3770 Progress Road.S. White. IA 50306-0335 AND • Samuel I.C. P. Box 10335 Des Moines.. 2011.
WELLS FARGO BANK NA HEATH THOMPSON PC HINTON.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 15 of 21 PageID# 21 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OFFICIAL RECEIPT NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL DATE: 04/08/11 TIME: KNC REG: 16:12:15 ACCOUNT: NU30 FILING: INJ 710CL11002898-00 TYPE: FULL PAYMENT RECEIPT: 11000016547 CASHIER: CASE COMMENTS: ACCT OF: HINTON. SCHAEFER . DAVID INJUNCTION + SERVICE PLAINTIFF: NO HEARING SCHEDULED CLERK OF COURT: GEORGE E. RECD: CHECK: DESCRIPTION 1: 2: 3: $98. DAVID DAVID V.00 2952 HINTON.
Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 16 of 21 PageID# 22 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT Civil Division 100 ST. CHRISTIAN R 757-480-0060 Instructions: Returns shall be made hereon.2011 For Sheriff Use Only . April 11. 2011 Served by: STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION Style of case: HINTON. DAVID vs WELLS FARGO BANK NA Service on: CLERK OF SCC WELLS FARGO BANK PO BOX 10335 DES MONIES IA 50306 Judge: Attorney: GUNDERSON.2011 attached. showing service of Summons issued Monday.2011 with a copy of the Complaint filed Friday. Hearing date : Service issued: Monday. April 08. April 11. PAUL'S BOULEVARD NORFOLK VA 23510 (757) 664-4387 Virginia: In the NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT Proof of Service Case number: 710CL11002898-00 Service number: 001 Service filed: April 08.
Rural Routo. Rural Route. etc..g.1-1056 A 3 □ 50-73.. NOTICE.1-931 E □ 38.135 G D 50-73. ___ Proceeding Pending in Court's Mailing Address: (jurisdiction) (Name of Court or Tribunal) too M ■ Pa~ W 2.1-19. etc. The service being made relates to the following proceeding: Stvle of Proceeding: oiyic a —Ea! CW^U. P.B~J<»^A.59 E Code Section or statutory authority (Specify): □ 13.1-1018 B D 50-73.) ^ (city or town) O4 (state) (zip code) Telephone No: *? S7 . Pursuant to the foregoing legal authority.1-836 Other Va.w-W>w plaintiff vs.1 ip STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION ON THE CLERK OF THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AS STATUTORY AGENT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (07/10) SERVICE OF PROCESS.58 A 3 B □ 13.2-809 D 50-73.2-1216 E □ 13.1-920 E □ 13 1-928 B □ 38. or in the matter of. name of the Q>^^.1-1057 E □ 50-73. Box.W ?Q -OQG O (optional) AN ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY OF THIS FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH TWO COPIES OF THE PAPERS TO BE SERVED SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED . Send the Commission's receipt for the payment of the fee for service on the Clerk to: Name: Attn: Address: (number/street. B □ 13.1 and (mark the appropriate box): B □ D □ D D 13 1-637 B D 131-758 F 13 1-766 13 1-767 13 1-769 13.7 B E D 13.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 17 of 21 PageID# 23 SOP-19.140 __ 3.O.) o. ORDER OR DEMAND 1. Service is being made on the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 12. P. UpeVladefendant. Box. the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission is being served as statutory agent of UqcAVs (name of business entity) The mailing address of the defendant (business entity) being served (one address per form) is (number/street. name of the C^K Case/File/Matter No.139 A 3 □ 50-73. etc.2-801 □ 38.(e.) S (city or town) (state) (zip code) 4.O.
2011 Joel H.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 18 of 21 PageID# 24 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION VIRGINIA.---> WELLS FARGO BANK.. PO BOX 10335 DES MOINES. notice.1 of the Code of Virginia as statutory agent was mailed on April 19.1-19.A. .ETAL "7 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that a copy of the process. IA 50306-0335 Dated: April 19. Peck Clerk of the Commission Enclosures SERVOP CIS0317 11-04-18-1605 . N. VA 23510 r s DAVID HINTON vs Case/File/Matter Number: CL11 2898 t l> r: • X ^ i 1 . order or demand in the above-styled matter served upon the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission pursuant to § 12.A. 2011 by First Class mail to the following: WELLS FARGO BANK. in the CIRCUIT COURT of the CITY OF NORFOLK 100 ST PAUL'S BLVD NORFOLK. N.
April 11. showing sen'ice of Summons issued Monday. CHRISTIAN R 757-480-0060 Instructions: Returns shall be made hereon.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 19 of 21 PageID# 25 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA . April 08. (757) 664-4387 *f$A 2] r* m ° \ Virginia: In the NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT Proof of Service Case a Service number: 002 Service filed: April 08. 2011 attached. PAUL'S BOULEVARD N':v£ft NORFOLK VA 23510 Civil Division ' ' '^r. DAVID vs WELLS FARGO BANKNA Service on: SAMUEL I WHITE PC R/A WILLIAM ADAM WHITE Q 5040 CORPORATE WOODS DRIVE 0 SUITE 120 VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23462 Attorney: GUNDERSON. 2011 . April 11.-■> NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT'. Hearing date : For Sheriff Use Only Service issued: Monday. 201 Served by: NORFOLK CITY Judge: Style of case:HINTON. ^ 100 ST.2011 with a copy of the Complaint filed Friday.
^ 3oJ*u <rf IT IS SO ORDERED this M "^ ^ RED day of of^/p^'l Judge 20^/ ^t (11/07) . Qtoc*»J.Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 20 of 21 PageID# 26 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Fourth Judicial Circuit Plaintiff v- Docket Number: I v Defendant S. n ^ proper notice ha^iiig-Luen given tu all \f Now the Court ^wm^s jILjr £u^ fu o^fe. ORDER This action is before the Court today for y ***!/* i • p '.
^wp»^flticft4iavinB been given tn nil ■parties^ JL'i . Defendants. u ORDER This action is before the Court today for .Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 Page 21 of 21 PageID# 27 VIRGINIA: THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Fourth Judicial Circuit H . Plaintiff Docket Number: A. ■ 20^// . t-k V. P. Now the Court: fr gir IT IS SO ORDERED this H-fk day of / J*&^ *<e I—T^ » 7 //VWr^TZ. x.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.