Consumer complaint received 2017-06-09
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other type of mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX asset management company, XXXX XXXX XXXX, marketed a foreclosed asset for sale. The property address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX also known as XXXX XXXX in public record. XXXX XXXX County Florida property control number XXXX. The listing identification is XXXX. The property was being offered in the first 15 days for owner occupants to make offers. All offers were to be submitted with an personally signed affidavit signed by the buyer and buyers representative that the purchaser intends to occupy the property as their primary residence and this is not a second home or an investor property. There is also a place on the Offer Cover Sheet asking if the property is for owner occupant or investor. Attached is the complete set of documents that were required to submit an offer. There were two offers on the property. The winning bidder however is an investor who did not intend on occupying the property but did sign the Owner Occupancy Affidavit. The property closed on XX/XX/XXXX. I was the other bidder and the XXXX XXXX XXXX representing myself in the transaction. Late afternoon on XXXX XXXX XXXX the same property was listed for rental by the Buyer 's agent. The listing identification is XXXX. I contacted the agent who listing the property for sale asked her if the other bidder did sign the Owner Occupancy Affidavit and also to report the property had been listed on the multiple listing service for rent the previous evening. She was just as shocked as I was because she stated she was very clear with the Buyer 's agent that this property is only available to owner occupants and that second home purchasers or investors are not eligible to bid. I then contacted the Buyer 's agent asked if she was the one who sold the property to the owner who now has it listed publicly for rent since the MLS had not been updated yet. She confirmed she was the agent. I asked if he had also signed the Owner Occupancy Affidavit. She then got nervous and stated that he is planning a XXXX Exchange for the property. I reminded her that this property was offered to owner occupants and that investors were disqualified from the bidding process at that point in the process. He signed an Affidavit under penalty of law that it was for owner occupancy and not a second home or investment. The conversation ended until I later received an email from the other agent in which she was forwarding a statement from the buyer that he " always '' intended to move in. ( email also attached ). ( also for a property to be listed on the MLS the listing broker must also have a signed agreement from the owner to list the property ) Further, in conversations I had with a member of the condo association Board of Directors and Property Manager I was informed that this buyer made it very clear to them that he intended the property to be a rental property. In his signed application to the association he checked " For rental to others '' in the Intended Use section. The application gets submitted to the condo associations usually within a few weeks of a bilateral contract - so it was submitted early in the closing process. I called Wells Fargo Fraud department immediately the following Monday morning. I told the Fraud Call Center Representative what happened. All he could do was take a message and forward to the appropriate asset manager. I never received a return call. Wednesday morning I called the Title Agent who closed the file. She did call the property manager and called me back the following day. She told me that she made the asset manager aware of the situation but is uncertain if they will do anything since the title was already sent for recording and because of the effort to investigate the deal and what is required to unwind the transaction. This is blatant fraud. The processes or lack of appropriate processes and oversight of transactions at Wells Fargo allowed this to happen and will continue allowing such fraud to continue unless it is addressed. In the case where there is an association and simply requesting the association submit the signed application to the bank could effortlessly have close this gap. To this date, the condo still sits vacant.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation