Wells Fargo Sues Self, Hires Different Lawyers To Respond

from the you-can't-make-this-up dept

Ah, the nuttiness of our legal system. Reader Bettawrekonize sends in the news that Wells Fargo has sued itself in a foreclosure dispute:
In this particular case, Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium, according to Sarasota, Fla., attorney Dan McKillop, who represents the condo owner. As holder of the first, Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is itself.
And, of course, being on the receiving end of a lawsuit, the bank has hired some lawyers (different than the ones it hired to file the lawsuit) to respond:
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.

Wells Fargo's defense lawyers even filed an answer to their client's own complaint.

"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."
Isn't it great to know that, post-bailout, banks aren't wasting all that taxpayer money we gave them?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    move along, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:01am

    nothing to see here

    subsidiaries, creditor rights, tax/corporate formalities. if you knew anything about the law, this would be a non-issue. happens all the time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:07am

      Re: nothing to see here

      which just highlights a few of the problems America has, notably within the legal system.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      bwp (profile), Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:22am

      Re: nothing to see here

      But it is an issue. It has nothing to do with knowing about subsidiaries, creditor rights, etc. and everything to do with common sense and what's become of America's legal system and the way it does business.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        interval, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:32am

        Re: Re: nothing to see here

        @bwp: "But it is an issue. It has nothing to do with knowing about subsidiaries..."

        Yes, it does. "move along" is right, this kind of thing happens a lot. The business relationships in these things are so complex that the matter of en entity suing itself is somewhat immaterial and academic.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ryan, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:45am

          Re: Re: Re: nothing to see here

          One of two things is happening here:

          1) Wells Fargo is completely inane and is wasting time and money suing itself unnecessarily (or is bound by an inane contract), or

          2) Wells Fargo is compelled to sue itself as the result of some dynamic in the law that is completely inane and results in waste and inefficiency in the marketplace

          Neither is immaterial, because resources are being wasted in a judicial black hole. Better #1 than #2, but if this is commonplace, then it is evidence of a pretty significant problem in the system. That you can think it immaterial that businesses are wasting money on lawyers is pretty odd to me...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          bwp (profile), Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:18am

          Re: Re: Re: nothing to see here

          Trust me. I'm in business and I deal with things like this at times so I know it happens. The point though is that it shouldn't happen. We've over-legislated ourselves. Now I can't make a agreement with another party without our lawyers going over the contacts ad nausem. Maybe I'm just being nastalgic today but I do miss the days when business people ran all aspects of their businesses unlike today where lawyers have more say than they should.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:49am

      Re: nothing to see here

      "subsidiaries, creditor rights, tax/corporate formalities. if you knew anything about the law, this would be a non-issue. happens all the time."

      ....wow, you must be a lawyer. Because to me, it's the fact that it happens all the time that MAKES it an issue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 13th, 2009 @ 10:35am

      Re: nothing to see here

      happens all the time.

      And you don't see that as an indication of a problem?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

      Re: nothing to see here

      if you knew anything about the law, this would be a non-issue. happens all the time.

      Well then, that just reinforces the point of the article, "the nuttiness of our legal system", doesn't it?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      schwim (profile), Jul 14th, 2009 @ 3:04pm

      Re: nothing to see here

      Which is precisely why it's as funny as it is. If it wasn't considered standard fare, it wouldn't make quite the same statement in regards to our legal system.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Swiggy (profile), Jul 14th, 2009 @ 7:10pm

      Re: nothing to see here

      perhaps this is what is wrong with the legal system today?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Brinker, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:10am

    How about just having the letter delivered to the team doing the lawsuit and not spending a dime? That way you can show you notifiyed all partys (including yourself)

    Even with Creditor rights you are most likly not required to notify yourself in the event your sueing on a product with 2 loans aginst it. This more sounds like lawyers trying to ensure more lawyers get paid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:28am

    Coke vs Coke Zero

    Just like the commercial

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    A. LEISTAD, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:33am

    WELLS FARGO LAW SUIT

    THE REASON IS PROBABLY THIS: THE FIRST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD IN THE SECONDARY MARKET AND UNDER THE AGREEMENT WELLS FARGO IS REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE LOAN. SO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE FIRST MORTGAGE IS REPRESENTING THE PURCHASER OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE. I PRESUME IT CAN NOT REPRESENT WELLS FARGO ON THE SECOND MORTGAGE.

    THE SECOND MORTGAGE IS HELD SOLELY BY WELLS FARGO, SO THE ATTORNEY IS REPRESENTING ONLY WELLS FARGO.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:40am

    I suspect they're just covering their backsides. In order to get around the whole "down payment" anachronism people take out a second mortgage to pay the down payment on their first mortgage. Bank didn't used to do this, and so the foreclosure laws don't reflect it. Hopefully banks will stop doing this, but who knows.

    The problem here isn't that the bank is suing itself, but rather that one bank gave two loans at the same time to someone. If banks want to give out mortgages to people for 100% of the sale price then they should just do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:40am

    NOW I UNDERSTAND

    IT WAS ALL SO COMPLEX UNTIL SOMEONE EXPLAINED IT CLEARLY IN MY OWN LANGUAGE

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tony, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 8:47am

    Bailout Money

    Also, isn't Wells Fargo one of the banks which did not take any bailout money by thier own choice?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:35am

    Right Wing To The eXtreme

    Shouldn't we have a right wing extremist come in here and tell us how the government is all messed up, and that's why we shouldn't trust gov't, shouldn't have national health care, etc.

    You know; because big business operates so much more efficiently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ryan, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:46am

      Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

      Right, because government has nothing to do with setting the laws that resulted in this travesty in the first place. But if Wells Fargo is really just that dumb a business, it will quickly fail and be replaced by more competent businesses anyway.

      Except that...well crap, it looks like the government gave them $25 billion to continue to waste on this sort of stuff.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        A. L. Flanagan, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

        Problem with that is, they could be incompetent at one part of their business and make up for it in another. Just as a hypothetical they might, oh, I don't know, buy out every competitor they have. But in this case I suspect it's not Wells Fargo that's frakked up, it's the legal system. Unless you're a lawyer, in which case this is just great.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      John Doe, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:47am

      Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

      So you think that our leaders, who can't run a government properly and that is their area of expertise, can run our businesses properly when that isn't their area expertise?

      More left wing ill-logic.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Big Time, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

        The reason that the Big Government is inefficient is not that its the Government, its that its big. Big Business is just as inefficient as Big Government. It has simply to do with the complexity of an organization and the associated bureaucracy that comes along with it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          John Doe, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 10:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

          Thanks for adding to my point. A government that can't run the public sector properly cannot be trusted with the private sector. And since the government is to big to run itself, getting bigger in order to take on the public sector isn't going to work either.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            pba, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 2:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

            Sure they can. All they need is a little more money and little more control and everything will be efficient.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ryan, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 10:46am

          Re: Re: Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

          Along with the fact that is often not accountable(being able to make the rules and often having a self-imposed monopoly) and is subsidized by the taxpayers, which eliminates profit incentives for the most part. Subsidies also ensure that government programs never have to fail and so may continue along as resource drains for as long as they are politically correct.

          No doubt big businesses are many times going to be more inefficient than small ones, although there are also advantages(see: Wal-Mart). But the biggest thing is that a business has to convince customers to give it their money; it can't just tax them upon threat of jail. If it can't become efficient enough to make a profit, it will fail. Either way, taxpayers don't take the hit--unless the government decides to give it several billion dollars to prevent the very thing that is so important in a free market.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Derek Kerton (profile), Jul 14th, 2009 @ 9:33am

        Re: Re: Right Wing To The eXtreme

        No, I think they are equally competent / incompetent.

        Each gets some things done right, and gets some fudged-up.

        But the talk-radio hosts who purport that one group always screws up and the other group is heaven-sent are wrong. "Big government" has its downsides, but so does "big business".

        Here's big business' move for today:
        http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/07/credit-card-act-companies-tricks-traps-increa se-interest-rate-balance-transfer-fee-fixed-variable-simmon.html

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:46am

    Lawyer Double Speak

    The party of the first part shall not be held liable by the party of the second part. I forget, which party am I? Did someone say PARTY?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 9:48am

    Hang the lawyers already. All of them; not just these.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    cseiter (profile), Jul 13th, 2009 @ 12:21pm

    Case Dismissed?

    Perfect ending: head lawyer from firm 1 for case is Mr. Smith, and head lawyer from firm 2 for case is Mrs. Smith. The case gets thrown out because the lawyers are sleeping with each other and might have bias.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Slashdot Reader, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 12:42pm

    Good Explanation on Slashdot

    Basically, Florida law requires the primary lien holder to sue all other lien holders to foreclose. (Yes, it still doesn't make sense to have to sue yourself, but at least you know who is crazy.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 4:41pm

    Is the National Association Realtors Code of Ethics Bogus?


    Home owners may want to know if the National Association of Realtors stands behind their Golden Rule. The question arises because of a landmark case in Texas which began in the late 1990’s involving the Houston address 7255 Sims, Garden Villas.

    Ameriquest Mortgage Company, now out of business, surveyed, appraised and took as collateral 29,241 square feet out of customer, Darlene L. Hosea’s 48,842 sq.ft. homestead tract. The remaining 19,601 sq.ft. is still owned by Hosea.

    Further, the papers signed by Hosea at that time clearly states in definition that an urban homestead shall not exceed one acre of land. Hosea’s homestead exceeds one acre. Shouldn’t the contract void if the prerequisites, rules or requirements were not followed?

    Fast forward 10 years. The Property is foreclosed and up for sale with a Multiple Listing Service # 5359712. Hosea also takes issue with the listing because the real estate broker, David Denenberg retains a copy of Ameriquest’s survey but is not honest with potential customers or buyers about the foreclosed land. This is a violation of the realtors Golden Rule. There is a lien created on the property which bears tax account number 0600020000044.

    Adopted in 1913 The Real Estate Code sets high standards for realtors, agent and brokers of real estate. The Code and its’ Articles are based on honesty and integrity in all real estate transactions. It employs social responsibility to those in the industry who have vowed to be stewards of our land.

    How do you measure standards in the real estate industry? The Code states that the Articles spell out what the agent must and must not do. Consumer protection is among the highest ethical principles. Maybe it is time for the Board of Directors to review the Standards of Practice in this case or perhaps the Delegate Body or, Legislators may even take a look by stepping up to the base and helping Hosea and like customers.

    The answers to the above questions can be found in Principle, The Code and its’ Articles. For now, Hosea seeks to sell her 19,601 sq.ft. of the soured mortgage related asset and move on with her life after the consequences of defending herself five years from bullies in an industry riddled with improprieties.

    Whoopie

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jason, Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 7:07am

      Re:

      Inserting the words and phrases: like, as, such, thus, in the same way, similarly, etc. might help us all to understand how your comment is related to the topic at hand.

      Probably not, though.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CleverName, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 4:52pm

    happens all the time

    that must mean it is ok then

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 4:55pm

    Is the National Association Realtors Code of Ethics Bogus?


    Home owners may want to know if the National Association of Realtors stands behind their Golden Rule. The question arises because of a landmark case in Texas which began in the late 1990’s involving the Houston address 7255 Sims, Garden Villas.

    Ameriquest Mortgage Company, now out of business, surveyed, appraised and took as collateral 29,241 square feet out of customer, Darlene L. Hosea’s 48,842 sq.ft. homestead tract. The remaining 19,601 sq.ft. is still owned by Hosea.

    Further, the papers signed by Hosea at that time clearly states in definition that an urban homestead shall not exceed one acre of land. Hosea’s homestead exceeds one acre. Shouldn’t the contract void if the prerequisites, rules or requirements were not followed?

    Fast forward 10 years. The Property is foreclosed and up for sale with a Multiple Listing Service # 5359712. Hosea also takes issue with the listing because the real estate broker, David Denenberg retains a copy of Ameriquest’s survey but is not honest with potential customers or buyers about the foreclosed land. This is a violation of the realtors Golden Rule. There is a lien created on the property which bears tax account number 0600020000044.

    Adopted in 1913 The Real Estate Code sets high standards for realtors, agent and brokers of real estate. The Code and its’ Articles are based on honesty and integrity in all real estate transactions. It employs social responsibility to those in the industry who have vowed to be stewards of our land.

    How do you measure standards in the real estate industry? The Code states that the Articles spell out what the agent must and must not do. Consumer protection is among the highest ethical principles. Maybe it is time for the Board of Directors to review the Standards of Practice in this case or perhaps the Delegate Body or, Legislators may even take a look by stepping up to the base and helping Hosea and like customers.

    The answers to the above questions can be found in Principle, The Code and its’ Articles. For now, Hosea seeks to sell her 19,601 sq.ft. of the soured mortgage related asset and move on with her life after the consequences of defending herself five years from bullies in an industry riddled with improprieties.

    Whoopie

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 13th, 2009 @ 5:06pm

    Is the National Association Realtors Code of Ethics Bogus?


    Home owners may want to know if the National Association of Realtors stands behind their Golden Rule. The question arises because of a landmark case in Texas which began in the late 1990’s involving the Houston address 7255 Sims, Garden Villas.

    Ameriquest Mortgage Company, now out of business, surveyed, appraised and took as collateral 29,241 square feet out of customer, Darlene L. Hosea’s 48,842 sq.ft. homestead tract. The remaining 19,601 sq.ft. is still owned by Hosea.

    Further, the papers signed by Hosea at that time clearly states in definition that an urban homestead shall not exceed one acre of land. Hosea’s homestead exceeds one acre. Shouldn’t the contract void if the prerequisites, rules or requirements were not followed?

    Fast forward 10 years. The Property is foreclosed and up for sale with a Multiple Listing Service # 5359712. Hosea also takes issue with the listing because the real estate broker, David Denenberg retains a copy of Ameriquest’s survey but is not honest with potential customers or buyers about the foreclosed land. This is a violation of the realtors Golden Rule. There is a lien created on the property which bears tax account number 0600020000044.

    Adopted in 1913 The Real Estate Code sets high standards for realtors, agent and brokers of real estate. The Code and its’ Articles are based on honesty and integrity in all real estate transactions. It employs social responsibility to those in the industry who have vowed to be stewards of our land.

    How do you measure standards in the real estate industry? The Code states that the Articles spell out what the agent must and must not do. Consumer protection is among the highest ethical principles. Maybe it is time for the Board of Directors to review the Standards of Practice in this case or perhaps the Delegate Body or, Legislators may even take a look by stepping up to the base and helping Hosea and like customers.

    The answers to the above questions can be found in Principle, The Code and its’ Articles. For now, Hosea seeks to sell her 19,601 sq.ft. of the soured mortgage related asset and move on with her life after the consequences of defending herself five years from bullies in an industry riddled with improprieties.

    Whoopie

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mark, Jul 14th, 2009 @ 12:52pm

    I don't know that it happens all the time, but Wells Fargo is doing it this way because more than likely the attorney's malpractice carrier won't permit them to represent both claims and quite possibly the local bar will not permit it.

    The second mtg is in all liklihood worthless (I've not seen second in line get money very often) but the bank owes a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to protect that second mortgage and a fiduciary duty to pursue the first fully that is in theory a conflict. In rural states, with less malpractice action, calmer judges, a less active bar association and more common sense, one firm handles the whole thing asserting its client holds two interests, admits the first mortage is paramount and asks the judge to be a judge and sort out priority.

    Letter of the law, Wells is doing it right and if they were certain no one is looking over their shoulder they could do it the easy way, but that ain't happening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    doewnskitty, Jul 14th, 2009 @ 11:04pm

    For some reason, the idea of playing Andrew WK's "Party Hard" seems rather appropriate for this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    victor, Jul 16th, 2009 @ 7:58am

    something to see here

    Your home is your Alamo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This