Wells Fargo was also sanctioned in two other cases for similar behavior since the Partial Judgment was entered on April 13, 2007. See In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bankr. E.D.La. 2008); In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr. E.D.La. 2008). Wells Fargo has taken the position that every debtor in the district should be made to challenge, by separate suit, the proofs of claim or motions for relief from the automatic stay it files. It has steadfastly refused to audit its pleadings or proofs of claim for errors and has refused to voluntarily correct any errors that come to light except through threat of litigation.
At oral argument, counsel for Ms. Stewart represented that Wells Fargo's notice of appeal also challenged rulings in a second case, In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2008). Wells Fargo has since advised in its brief that it no longer seeks review of that case.
Wells Fargo's notice of appeal also challenged rulings in a second case. In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2008). Wells Fargo has since advised in its brief that it no longer seeks review of that case.
(See In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bankr.E.D.La.2008); In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr.E.D.La.2008)). In short, Wells Fargo has shown no inclination to change its conduct.
In both cases, the evidence revealed that Wells Fargo continued to improperly amortize loans by employing the same practices prohibited by Jones. (See In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2008); In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr. E.D.La. 2008)). In short, Wells Fargo has shown no inclination to change its conduct.
See, e.g., In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834, 837-38 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2009) (applying 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)); In re Thompson, 350 B.R. 842, 851 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2006) (same); MorEquity, Inc. v. Naeem, 118 F. Supp. 2d 885, 900 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (same); Cortez v. Keystone Bank, 2000 WL 536666 (E.D. Pa. May 3, 2000) (same).
In re Stewart, 391 BR 327 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2008). In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2008). --------
In re Stewart, 391 BR 327 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2008).In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2008). For the reasons assigned above, the Motion for Sanctions is granted as to liability of LPS. The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on sanctions to be imposed.
See In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bankr. E.D.La.2008); and In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr.E.D.La.2008). 1. A total of seven (7) days spent in the original trial, status conferences, and hearings before this Court; 2. Eighteen (18) post-trial, pre-remand motions or responsive pleadings filed by Wells Fargo, requiring nine (9) memorandums and nine (9) objections or responsive pleadings; 3.
391 B.R. 327 (Bankr. E.D.La. 2008). 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr. E.D.La. 2008). In Jones, this Court found that Wells Fargo failed to apply payments received from the Chapter 13 Trustee to prepetition arrearages. It also failed to apply payments made by the debtor to postpetition installments as required by the confirmed plan, Bankruptcy Code, state law, and orders of the Court.