Tag Archives: Wells Fargo

Is Banks’ $200 Billion Payout from RMBS Lawsuits Enough?

Posted on by

S&P issued a brief, The Largest U.S. Banks Should Be Able To Withstand The Ramifications Of Legal Issues, that quantifies the exposure that big banks have from litigation arising from the Subprime Crisis:

Since 2009, the largest U.S. banks (Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo) together have paid or set aside more than $45 billion for mortgage representation and warranty (rep and warranty) issues and have incurred roughly $50 billion in combined legal expenses .  . . This does not include another roughly $30 billion of expenses and mortgage payment relief to consumers to settle mortgage servicing issues. We estimate that the largest banks may need to pay out an additional $55 billion to $105 billion to settle mortgage-related issues, some of which is already accounted for in these reserves. (2)

S&P believes “that the largest banks have, in aggregate, about a $155 billion buffer, which includes a capital cushion, representation and warranty reserves, and our estimate of legal reserves, to absorb losses from a range of additional mortgage-related and other legal exposures.” (2) As far as their ratings go, S&P has already incorporated “heightened legal issues into our ratings, and we currently don’t expect legal settlements to result in negative rating actions for U.S. banks.” (2) But it warns, “an immediate and unexpected significant legal expense could result in the weakening of a bank’s business model through the loss of key clients and employees, as well as the weakening of its capital position.” (2) S&P also acknowledges that there are some not yet quantifiable risks out there, such as DoJ’s FIRREA suits.

As the endgame of the financial crisis begins to take shape and financial institutions are held accountable for their actions, one is left wondering about a group who is left relatively unscathed: financial institution employees who received mega bonuses for involving these banks in these bad deals. As we think about the inevitable next crisis, we should ask if there is a way to hold those individuals accountable too.

Reiss on Government’s Role in Housing Finance

Posted on by

The Urban Land Institute New York Blog posted Housing Finance Leaders Gather to Discuss the Future of Freddie and Fannie about a recent panel on the housing finance market. It begins,

Housing finance industry leaders came together last week to debate the future role of government-sponsored lending giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both entities were placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) during the financial crisis from which they have yet to emerge.

Panelists included David Brickman, Head of Multifamily for Freddie Mac, Robert Bostrom, Co-Chair of the Financial Compliance and Regulatory Practice at Greenberg Traurig, Mike McRoberts, Managing Director at Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, David Reiss, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, and Alan H. Weiner, Group Head at Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital.

The debate centered around the proper role for the mortgage giants and to what extent government-backed entities should intervene in capital markets.

A market failure or liquidity crisis is the only reasonable basis for government intervention in the housing market, according to Reiss. “However, it is not possible for the government to create liquidity only in moments of crisis, so there is a need to have a permanent platform that is capable of originating liquidity at all times,” said Brickman. Fannie Mae, which was created during the Great Depression and Freddie Mac, which was created during the Savings and Loan crisis, were both responses to past market failures.

Reiss on Future of Frannie at Urban Land Institute

Posted on by

I will be on an Urban Land Institute panel on November 21st, The Future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The panel

will seek to shed some more light on the road ahead for the GSEs and their impact on commercial real estate lending and residential mortgage securitization. Specifically, the panel will address questions such as:

• What will the GSEs’ roles be in the multi-family and single-family markets in the future?

• Will the GSEs remain in conservatorship? If not, what level of government support, if any, will they receive going forward?

The event will feature individuals speaking on behalf of the lending, investment, academic, and GSE communities.

The moderator is Katharine Briggs, a Managing Director at BlackRock. She is a member of BlackRock’s Financial Markets Advisory Group within BlackRock Solutions. Ms. Briggs is a member of the Commercial Real Estate Advisory Team within BlackRock Solutions’ Financial Market Advisory Group. Mrs. Briggs specializes in US and European commercial real estate and related analytics. Ms. Briggs was formerly the Vice President of Corporate Finance with Summit Properties, a multifamily developer and publicly traded REIT owning 60 communities valued at over $2 billion. At Summit, she was responsible for all capital markets activities, investor relations, financial forecasting and tax planning.

The other panelists are:

Robert E. Bostrom, Co-Chair of the Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice at Greenberg Traurig. His legal career spans more than 30 years, where he has worked and advised at the highest levels of leadership in the banking sector, in private legal practice and inside a government sponsored enterprise (GSE). As general counsel of Freddie Mac, Bob played a pivotal role during the financial crisis and recovery directing Freddie Mac’s legal strategy through the conservatorship, investigations, enforcement actions and litigation. Bob has advised clients on financial institutions regulation, examination, compliance and supervision matters. He is experienced helping clients navigate the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, especially the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

David Brickman, the Senior Vice President, Multifamily,, at Freddie Mac.  He was named senior vice president of Multifamily in June 2011. As head of Multifamily, Mr.
Brickman is responsible for customer relations, product development, marketing, sales, loan purchase, asset management, capital markets, and securitization for the company’s multifamily business, which includes the flow mortgage, structured and affordable mortgage, CMBS and low-income housing tax credit portfolios. The total multifamily portfolio was $180 billion as of March 31, 2013. He is a member of the company’s senior operating committee and reports directly to CEO Don Layton.

Mike McRoberts, a Managing Director at Prudential Mortgage Capital Company.  He is responsible for growing and enhancing Prudential’s leadership position in multifamily lending as head of the company’s market rate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolio teams and agency production team. Prior to joining Prudential, Mike was a vice president and national head of sales and production for Freddie Mac, where he was responsible for the agency’s conventional multifamily business, structured transactions and senior’s housing teams, the national Freddie Mac Program Plus network and Freddie’s four regional production offices. Earlier, he was
national head of underwriting and credit and managing director of Freddie Mac’s southeast region.

Joanne Schehl, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at Fannie Mae. She is Fannie Mae’s Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for the Multifamily
Mortgage Business. She reports to the Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel – Multifamily Mortgage Business. Ms. Schehl leads the team responsible for providing legal support for multifamily infrastructure and operations, lender relationships, operational risk, and regulatory compliance. Ms. Schehl was previously a partner at Arent Fox PLLC, where she was a member of the real estate and finance groups, and served on the firm’s executive committee and as its professional development counsel, founded and led the firm’s strategic technology initiative, and was a leader in the firm’s diversity efforts.

Alan H. Wiener, Group Head, Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital, at Wells Fargo & Company. He is the group head of Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital, based in New York. Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital specializes in government-sponsored enterprise (GSEs) financing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs and Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured financing. Alan’s career has focused on housing and community development in both the public and private
sectors. Prior to joining Wachovia, he was the chairman of American Property Financing Inc., which Wachovia acquired in 2006. Before that, he was executive vice president with Integrated Resources, Inc.

$2.7 Million Punitive Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

Many argue (see here, for instance) that wrongful foreclosures aren’t such a big deal. A recent case, Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 2011-05295 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Aug. 27, 2013)  highlights just how bad it can be for the homeowner who has to defend against one.

Dollens, the borrower, died in a workplace accident but had purchased a mortgage accidental death insurance policy through Wells Fargo, the lender (although the policy was actually underwritten by Minnesota Life Insurance Company). Notwithstanding the existence of the policy, Wells Fargo kept trying to foreclose, even five months after the insurance proceeds paid off the mortgage.  Some lowlights:

  • “Apparently, ignoring its ability to to make a death benefit claim is typical of how Wells Fargo deals with such situations. . . . This is a systemic failure on the part of Wells Fargo.” (4)
  • “There is no doubt that Wells Fargo’s conduct was intended to take advantage of a lack  of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of decedent’s family members, and tended to or did deceive.” (5)
  • “Wells Fargo charged the Estate for lawn care of the property” even though the “property did not have a lawn.” (6)

The court found that the”evidence of Wells Fargo’s misconduct is staggering.” (6) The court also found that “Wells Fargo used its computer-driven systems as an excuse for its ‘mistakes.’ However, the evidence established that this misconduct was systematic and not the result of an isolated error.. . . The evidence in this case established that the type of conduct exhibited by Wells Fargo in this case has happened repeatedly across the country.” (7) As a result of these findings, the Court awarded over $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Mary McCarthy famously said that “[b]ureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.” We generally think of this in terms of government actors, but it applies just as well to large financial institutions that implement “computer-driven systems” that seemingly cannot be overwritten by a human being who might exercise common sense and common decency.

Given that this type of problem seems to affect all of the major loan servicers, I must reiterate, thank goodness for the CFPB.

 

[HT April Charney]

A Welling of Judicial Discontent

Posted on by

Reuters ran a story that provides the next chapter to my post, Federal Judge Declares War on Wells Fargo.  The Reuters story is Massachusetts Judge Challenges Wells Fargo, Sparks Legal Fight (behind a paywall) and it reads in part:

A legal battle is heating up over an unusual challenge by a Massachusetts federal judge to banking giant Wells Fargo to waive what the judge called a technical defense in a mortgage lawsuit and to argue its case at trial.

Calling the judge’s order “unauthorized and unprecedented,” Wells Fargo has asked a federal appeals court to overturn it before it sparks “copycat” demands across the country.

It seems to me that Wells Fargo is right to be concerned about “copycat” demands across the country.  My sense from reading many of the upstream and downstream cases that I blog about is that many judges have internalized the populist critique of financial institutions that has crystallized during the financial crisis. This came about, no doubt, in large part because of the relentless headlines about actionable and non-actionable misconduct by these institutions.

That being said, judges must apply the law impartially, so the First Circuit’s review of this case, Henning v. Wachovia Mortgage, F.S.B., n/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 11-11428 (Sept. 17, 2013), will be of particular interest. The transcript of yesterday’s District Court hearing on a motion to stay the Henning case during the pendency of the appeal can be found here. Judge Young makes clear that he is not budging on the requirement that Wells Fargo produce a corporate resolution, although that order is stayed until the First Circuit decides the appeal.

Federal Judge Declares War on Wells Fargo

Posted on by

Never saw this before:

And so, Wells Fargo wins on a technicality.  The Court never addresses the merits of this case and expresses no opinion thereon. Still, it is appropriate to point out that, were Henning to prove his case on the merits, the conduct of Wells Fargo would be shown to be nothing short of outrageous.  On the other hand, perhaps if Wells Fargo addressed the merits, its conduct would be vindicated by fair-minded American jurors.  A quick visit to Wells Fargo’s website confirms that it vigorously promotes itself as consumer friendly, Loans and Programs, page within Home Lending, wellsfargo.com, https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/loan-programs/ (last visited September 17, 2013); a far cry from the hard-nosed win-at-any-cost stance it has adopted here.

The technical (and now obsolete) preemption defense upon which Wells Fargo relies is an affirmative defense which can be waived.  See, e.g., Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, 203 F.3d 90, 97 (1st Cir. 2000).  The disconnect between Wells Fargo’s publicly advertised face and its actual litigation conduct here could not be more extreme.  These facts lead this Court to inquire whether Wells Fargo wishes to address Henning’s claims on the merits.  After all, it may be that Wells Fargo has done nothing wrong.

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Wells Fargo, within 30 days of the date of this order, shall submit a corporate resolution bearing the signature of its president and a majority of its board of directors that it stands behind the conduct of its skilled attorneys and wishes to avail itself of the technical preemption defense to defeat Henning’s claim.

Should it do so, judgment will enter for Wells Fargo. If no such resolution is filed, the Court will deem the preemption defense waived and both Wells Fargo and Henning will have the opportunity to address the merits (i.e., what really happened) at a trial before an American jury. (36-37)

So ends District Judge Young’s (D. Mass.) opinion in Henning v. Wachovia Mortgage, F.S.B., n/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 11-11428 (Sept. 17, 2013). Henning brought suit against his lender, which sought to have it dismissed, arguing in large part that the state law claims are preempted by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Act.

Judge Young does not make clear the basis for his authority to require such a resolution from Wells Fargo. I am guessing that we will see a motion for reconsideration pretty soon.

[HT April Charney]

Laches Upends Priority of Mortgagee in Utah

Posted on by

Professor Wilson Freyermuth posted this summary of the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion, Insight Assets, Inc. v. Farias, ___ P.3d ___, 2013 WL 3990783 (August 6, 2013), to the DIRT listserv:

Synposis:   Although vendor purchase money mortgagee may generally have a superior claim to priority over a third-party purchase money mortgagee under the Restatement, vendor purchase money mortgagee was barred from asserting that priority by the doctrine of laches.

Facts:  In 2004, the Phalens sold land in Ogden, Utah to the Boecks for $88,000.  The Boecks financed the purchase with a $70,300 institutional mortgage loan from First Franklin Financial Corp. (First Franklin) and $17,600 in seller purchase money mortgage financing from the Phalens.  At closing, the Boecks executed deeds of trust to First Franklin and the Phelans.  After closing, the title company recorded the two deeds of trust together, but with First Franklin’s deed of trust being recorded first.  First Franklin later assigned its mortgage to Wells Fargo.

After closing, the Boecks defaulted to both Bank and to Sellers.  In June 2005, Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property and acquired the property by a trustee’s deed.  The Phelans did not attempt to foreclose on the property.  Wells Fargo sold the property, which ultimately passed by intervening conveyances to Farias.

In 2009, the Phelans assigned their interest under their deed of trust to Insight Assets (“Insight”), who executed a substitution of trustee, recorded a notice of default, and instituted foreclosure proceedings.  Farias sought summary judgment, claiming that he had held free and clear title as a bona fide purchaser.  The district court entered judgment for Farias, and Insight appealed.

On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, Insight argued that as a matter of law, the Phelans’ seller deed of trust was entitled to priority over First Franklin’s deed of trust under Restatement (Third) of Property — Mortgages § 7.2(c) (“A purchase money mortgage given to a vendor of real estate, in the absence of a contrary intent of the parties to it and subject to the operation of the recording acts, has priority over a purchase money mortgage on that real estate given to a person who is not its vendor.”).  By contrast, Farias made three arguments:  (1) that First Franklin did not know of the Phelans’ seller purchase money mortgage and thus the Restatement rule should not apply; (2) that even if First Franklin did know of the seller purchase money mortgage, that knowledge was irrelevant because Farias was a bona fide purchaser who took free and clear of the mortgage; and (3) that Insight’s claims was otherwise barred by the doctrine of laches.

Analysis:  The Supreme Court of Utah rejected Farias’s bona fide purchase argument, noting (correctly and obviously) that the recording act cannot protect Farias against a prior properly-recorded mortgage.  The Court also noted that while the Restatement rule generally gives a vendor purchase money mortgage priority over a third-party purchase money mortgage, that rule was subject to a caveat — “where only one of the parties has notice of the other,” the recording acts should govern and award priority to the party lacking notice.

Insight argued that its vendor purchase money mortgage should still prevail, because (a) First Franklin had actual knowledge of the Phelans’ seller purchase money mortgage and (b) the title company’s knowledge of the Phelans’ seller purchase money mortgage was imputed to First Franklin.  The court did not reach this argument, however, concluding that Insight’s priority claim was barred under the equitable doctrine of laches. Although Insight did file its notice of default within the applicable six-year statute of limitations, the court stated that this did not preclude the possible application of laches.  The court concluded that application of laches was appropriate due to the Phelans’ lack of diligence and Farias’s resulting injury.  The court noted that during the five years between the Boecks’ default and the Phelans’ assignment to Insight, the Phelans “took no action to clarify or assert their rights to the property.” The court held that this was inaction unreasonable because the Restatement rule involves a “multi-factor balancing test under which priority is determined by ‘the circumstances of the given case, the equities, and the effect of the recording act.’” Thus, in the court’s view, the Phelans “could not have rationally assumed that their interest had priority” without having brought an action to establish that priority.  By failing to bring such a claim during the Wells Fargo foreclosure proceedings, the Phelans “risked forfeiting their security interest entirely.”

The court also concluded that Farias would be injured if Insight’s untimely claim was allowed to proceed, noting that Farias had negotiated the price for his home without considering the $17,600 debt owed to Insight and that when Farias purchased the home years after the Phelans’ default, “it was reasonable for him to infer from [their] inaction that their security interest had been extinguished” by the Wells Fargo foreclosure.  The court also noted that the passage of time had harmed Farias by making it difficult to gather evidence in his defense, as First Franklin was now out of business (making it difficult for Farias to locate records or former employees who might have information relevant to the question of First Franklin’s knowledge).

Comment:  This is the second 2013 periodic development involving a case where the title company recorded a third-party purchase money mortgage prior to a vendor purchase money mortgage.  In the earlier case, Insight LLC v. Gunter, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected the Restatement rule and held that the third-party mortgage had priority under the recording act.  As noted in the critique of Gunter, https://dirt.umkc.edu/February%202013/InsightLLCvGunter.pdf, that decision wrongly opened the door for purchase money lenders to structure closings in a fashion likely to disadvantage the unsuspecting purchase money seller, particularly where the purchase money lender knew of the purchase money seller and could have easily required a subordination agreement as a condition of making the purchase money loan.  Gratifyingly, the Utah court rejected the reasoning of Gunter, noting that the Restatement rule is the appropriate starting principle for vendor vs. third party lender purchase money priority disputes.

The Utah court’s judgment regarding the application of laches is harder to evaluate without the ability to review the factual record in greater detail.  On the one hand, the court is correct to note that because the Restatement rule is subject to the application of the recording act if the third party mortgagee lacks notice of the vendor mortgagee (or vice-versa), then the Phelans couldn’t be certain of their priority over First Franklin without a court decree.  On the other hand, Farias’s actions also seem similarly unreasonable.  Because the Phelans’ mortgage was recorded (and could have been entitled to priority over the First Franklin mortgage), Farias also couldn’t have been certain he was getting clear title without a court decree.  It’s not obvious where the equities lie here.