Slashdot Mirror
Wells Fargo Bank Sues Itself
Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions, and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one. They have decided to sue themselves. Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure. As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo. It gets better. The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit. The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint, "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property. All other allegations of the complaint are denied." On the website The Consumer Warning Network, Angie Moreschi wrote: "We've apparently reached the perfect storm for complete and utter idiocy by some banks trying to foreclose on homes."
This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.
Under normal circumstances I'd say this is completely wacked...but in legal land I guess it's just business as usual.
Suing yourself is collusive litigation. We pay taxes to support the legal system and it is outrageous for a corporation to abuse the already overburdened judicial system resolving disputes that are not really disputes.
There must be more to this story, though. Maybe it's Wells Fargo Holding Co., Inc. versus Wells Fargo Partners, Inc. That would make sense.
I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders. Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
By my count, the bank is only the fifth stupidest here.
Let's count it down:
5) Wells Fargo
For getting itself in the position of having to sue itself
4) Florida State government
For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.
3) Al Lewis/Fox News
For writing/publishing this worthless article.
2) samzenpus
For posting this on slashdot.
1) Me
For commenting on this crap.
But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and pile scorn on the banks.
It'll take your mind off the fact that you're the real sucker.
You know, the joke was funny enough without you having to explain it.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they can't even deal with themselves.
It's not the size, it's the stupidity.
Everything I know about management I learned from the "telephone game" we played as kids, where you whisper a message around in a circle and find that after about three hops it gets completely mangled.
Stupid people ignore this phenomenon, and go through their lives acting as if telling someone something once is sufficient to get the message across. Stupid people run stupid organizations that radically under-communicate. Some people who are both stupid and evil use this to create private fiefdoms within organizations.
Smart people recognize this phenomena, and create organizations with multiple, redundant and simple lines of communication, and work to keep policies clear and concise so they are harder to mangle in the communications process.
Organizations run by stupid people are therefore extremely complex and hard to understand, whereas those run by smart people are generally simple. This leads stupid people--who are vastly in the majority--to think that organizations run by smart people aren't very capable, because they are too stupid to realize that capability comes with simplicity, not complexity.
Corporate America is hugely invested in the myth of complexity, and hires and trains managers accordingly. Attempts to simplify are fought at every turn. This creates the kind of environment where an organization can actively pursue and defend a lawsuit against itself, by itself, rather than carrying through the pro-forma motions required by law, because the people on both sides are too stupid to consider any other possibility.
And remember: this comes down to a couple of people. They are embedded within a large organization, but it is at the end of the day just them. It isn't like there are huge teams on this. An organization with clear lines of communication and responsibility would make it easy for the people in question to talk to each other, and the issue would be resolved. But that would be smart, and there is nothing smart about the people working for American banks these days.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Something's not adding up in your story. First of all, (and I'll probably get modded into oblivion for this) it sounds like you bought a house you either couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay for. You calmly claim that you "fell behind" 3 months, were allowed to enter an agreement with the bank to fix that problem, and still complain that in 2 years they wanted their money with interest....the nerve!! Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If your employer stopped paying your check for 3 months, wouldn't you want your money back ASAP and with some interest?
I also do not understand how you were able to repay the 3 month's worth of mortgage owed, but were unable to come up with the interest on the delinquent charges. How is it that in 2 years and 3 months, you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?
Then, to top it off, you claim that your home was foreclosed on, you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments, and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments. I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one. I realize that we're in a "down market" as they call it, but trying to tell me that your home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much.