Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adams v. Wells Fargo Bank

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

November 20, 2018

CHRISTINE M. ADAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is an action concerning a possible foreclosure on the property of plaintiff Christine M. Adams. The amended complaint asserts two claims under Massachusetts law against the mortgage holder, defendant Wells Fargo Bank.

         I. Factual Background

         The facts appear as alleged in the proposed amended complaint, except as otherwise indicated.[1]

         In November 2007, Christine Adams entered into a “pick-a-payment” mortgage loan with World Savings Bank. In return, World Savings Bank was granted a mortgage on Adams's property located at 136 Oak Hill Avenue in Seekonk, Massachusetts. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Wells Fargo Bank is the successor, through merger with Wachovia Corporation, to World Savings Bank.

         In December 2010, Wells Fargo reached a settlement agreement with a class of Wachovia borrowers who had entered into “pick-a-payment” mortgages. See In re Wachovia Corp. “Pick-a-Payment” Mortgage Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, No. 09-CV-2015-JF (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010). Adams was a class member whose claim was covered by the settlement agreement. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 5). The settlement agreement divided the class of borrowers itself into three “classes” (A, B, and C), each of which was entitled to a different type of recovery. (Opp. to Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., Ex. A at 30-31). The settlement agreement also provided that Wells Fargo would make “loan modifications available” for Class B and Class C borrowers between December 18, 2010, and June 30, 2013. (Opp. to Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., Ex. A at 35).

         At some point-the pleadings do not indicate when-Adams defaulted on her loan. According to Wells Fargo, Adams has attempted to delay foreclosure in a variety of ways, including the filing of eight different bankruptcy petitions. (Mem. in Supp. at 2 & n.2).

         According to Adams, following her default, “in and around 2015, ” she sought a mortgage modification from Wells Fargo. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 9).

         Adams contends that on December 3, 2015, a Wells Fargo representative e-mailed her and told her that a “short sale offer of $375, 000” had been approved for her property. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 10; Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 45). Later that month, Wells Fargo sent her a letter titled “Mortgage Modification Options” that, among other things, allowed her to “check” a “box” to “request a loan modification.” (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 10; Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 44).

         Adams contends that the two communications from Wells Fargo left her “unclear” as to her obligations, but that she tried to go forward with the short sale. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11). A letter apparently sent to Adams on December 3 stated that the short sale had to close before January 15, 2016. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 11; Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 46-49). At some point, Wells Fargo extended the approval date for the short sale until March. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 11). Adams scheduled a closing for January 19, 2016, but (according to her) it could not go forward because Wells Fargo had made a typographical error in its letter granting the extension. (Id.). Adams requested new approval letters from Wells Fargo, but the bank allegedly “withheld” sending them. (Id.).

         In April 2016, Wells Fargo sent Adams a letter indicating that “the short sale process could not be completed” because the deadline of March 2016 had passed. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 12). Adams alleges that as a consequence the buyer of her property “lost funding and no short sale could be completed.” (Id.).

         Adams alleges that on May 15, 2017, Wells Fargo advised her that she had various options to “keep her home, ” including “a loan modification, ” and various options to “leave her home, ” including a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure. (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 14; Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 5-8).

         Adams apparently responded with a “request for mortgage assistance.” (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 15; Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 9). On June 22, 2017, Wells Fargo informed her that the bank would not be “moving forward with a review of [her] mortgage for assistance” in light of her “mortgage history, [] recent information you provided [to] us, and the current circumstances surrounding your mortgage.” (Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 9).

         On June 28, 2017, Adams received a notice from Wells Fargo “to assist [her] in competing a short sale.” (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 16).

         On July 21, 2017, Wells Fargo sent her another letter stating that she should contact the bank “for short sale assistance when you receive a purchase contract to sell your home.” (Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 17). It also stated that she would need to sign a “purchase contract” before the bank would “work with [her] to complete a short sale again.” (Response to Mot. for More Definite Statement, Ex. A at 11).

         At some later point, Adams received a letter from Wells Fargo's counsel indicating that a foreclosure sale on her property would take place on September 21, 2017.[2] However, Adams contends that she was also sent a different notice that identified the foreclosure sale as scheduled for September 20, 2017.

         On September 12, 2017, Wells Fargo sent a letter stating that “your concerns were previously addressed by us, and we didn't find you had enclosed any new information or significantly different details which would change our response.” (Proposed Am. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.