The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

$3.25 Million Verdict Against Wells Fargo For Reneging on Foreclosure Agreement

Posted on February 26, 2015 by Larry Bodine
Wells Fargo forecloses on home after promising to accept reinstatement check from owner.

Wells Fargo foreclosed ona  home after promising to accept a reinstatement check from the owner.

A Clinton County, Missouri, circuit court judge ordered a $3.25 million judgment against Wells Fargo and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) for foreclosing on a home after promising a reinstatement to the homeowner.

David and Crystal Holm of Holt, Missouri,  purchased their home in 1997, but during the 2008 mortgage crisis and after a storm damaged their property, they began missing payments on their mortgage. The couple began working with Wells Fargo and its legal counsel Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. to try to keep their home.

Ignored homeowners’ reinstatement check

After Wells Fargo promised to stop the foreclosure with a reinstatement agreement, the Holm’s gathered the $10,000 needed to bring their loan current and keep their home. Per the agreement, they faxed a copy and mailed the reinstatement check to the law firm Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C.

Wells Fargo received a fax copy of the check on August 15, 2008 but “deliberately ignored the reinstatement deal” and in an “egregious and deceitful manner” proceeded with the foreclosure sale of the Holm property to Freddie Mac on the very same day, according to the court opinion.

$3.25 Million Verdict Against Wells Fargo For Reneging on Foreclosure AgreementOne month following the foreclosure sale, Freddie Mac filed an unlawful detainer claim against the Holms, which has now been pending for the past six years causing “uncertainty, lost optimism, emotional distress, and paralysis” on the Holm family, said judge Brent Elliott in the opinion.

Fraudulent unendorsed note

The court ruled to quiet title for the plaintiffs because “’no title is conveyed through the sale’ when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with [a] foreclosure sale.” Neither Wells Fargo nor Freddie Mac had the authority to enforce the Holm’s unpaid promissory note because it was a promise to the original lender, Commercial Federal Mortgage Corp.

Although it was unclear whether Kozeny & McCubbin was acting as “Successor Trustees, attorneys for successor trustees, attorneys for Wells Fargo, or in some other capacity,” their correspondence verifying the validity of debt was incorrectly described and unendorsed, not providing any proof that it actually had the right to verify the debt or that it was owed to defendants.

The judge ruled that the foreclosure sale was wrongful and rendered the unlawful detainer pending against the Holms void.

During the same week of the Holms ruling, a New York judge reprimanded Wells Fargo for using similar forged endorsement documents to “create documentary evidence, after-the-fact, when enforcing its [right to foreclosure] claims, WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARY.” (Emphasis written by the judge).  (United States Bankruptcy Court of New York case In re: Cynthia Carrsow-Franklin  No. 10–20010 (RDD))

“Unfathomable” injury

The judge awarded compensatory damages of to the Holms against Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac for the difference between the $141,762 foreclosure sale price of the home and its current value of $52,000, according to the opinion.

David and Crystal Holm and their 12-year-old daughter lived with the “fear of losing [their] famil[y] home” for six years causing health issues and stress on their marriage, for which the judge ordered $200,000 in emotional distress damages.

Because of Wells Fargo’s “unfathomable,” “outrageous and reprehensible” actions of reneging on the agreement “from a position of superiority” by “expend[ing]…”incomprehensible, time and effort to avert reinstatement,” judge Elliot ordered nearly $3 million in punitive damages and further ordered all legal fees to be assessed against Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac.

The Holms were represented by National Trial Lawyer Gregory Leyh.

The Case Holm v Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., Circuit Court of Missouri case No. 08CN-CV00944.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Blog, Business Law, Consumer Protection

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.