ShareThis Page

Wells Fargo outlined shortcut for foreclosing on homeowners

| Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 12:01 a.m.

Wells Fargo produced an elaborate guide for how to produce missing documents to foreclose on homeowners, according to a lawsuit that has caught the attention of state and federal regulators.

The bank denies wrongdoing, but the allegations rekindle claims that lenders, including Wells Fargo, used forged and shoddy paperwork during the recession to quickly foreclose on struggling homeowners, a practice known as “robo-signing.” Those charges led to a $25 billion national mortgage settlement that was supposed to put an end to such abusive practices, but bankruptcy lawyer Linda Tirelli said nothing has changed.

In the course of defending a New York homeowner facing foreclosure, Tirelli said she found a 150-page manual instructing Wells Fargo lawyers how to process foreclosures when a key document, known as an endorsement, is missing. Lenders need endorsements to prove that they own the mortgage before they can foreclose on a homeowner.

The manual, reviewed by The Washington Post, outlines steps for obtaining the missing document once the bank has initiated foreclosure proceedings. It lays out what lawyers must do in the event of a lost affidavit or if there is no documentation showing the history of who owned the loan, paperwork the bank should have.

“This is a blueprint for fraud,” said Tirelli, who attached a copy of the manual as evidence in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in White Plains, N.Y. “The idea that this bank is instructing people how to produce these documents is appalling.”

Tirelli said she has long suspected Wells Fargo of manufacturing documents. A number of her cases involving the bank featured mortgage notes that were not endorsed by anyone, but when she brought it to Wells Fargo's attention, the bank would “magically” produce the document, Tirelli said. It happened so often to her and other consumer lawyers that they started to call paperwork “ta-da” documents, she said.

Officials at Wells Fargo would not comment on Tirelli's case in federal court but confirmed the existence of the manual. Company spokeswoman Vickee Adams said that the pages provided to Wells Fargo by The New York Post, which first reported the story, appear legitimate but that the bank has not “reviewed the complete document or every line of the section provided to confirm its authenticity entirely.”

Adams explained that the company updated the manual in the midst of the investigation that led to the national mortgage settlement to help its lawyers keep pace with changing laws, regulations and foreclosure procedures. What's more, the procedures laid out in the manual are legal, she said.

“What's so unfortunate here is the exaggeration on behalf of litigation,” Adams said. “There are a number of procedures in place and triple checking before a foreclosure is brought. This is a misrepresentation of facts.”

Banking lawyer Jeffrey Naimon at BuckleySandler, a financial services law firm in Washington, said the law allows lenders to endorse notes after filing for foreclosure. He said lenders can transfer ownership of a mortgage by filling out the endorsement or leaving a blank endorsement.

“All you have to do is have a note endorsed in blank. ... The reason why is because the note could be sold to a few more people,” he said. “The bearer of the note still has the right to enforce it.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.