Consumer complaint received 2023-08-13
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: IL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: VA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
During a foreclose proceeding in XXXX XXXX Kansas against a servicemember ( me ) and his spouse ( Spouse was on deed but not the VA backed mortgage ), the judge ordered an attorney to represent the XXXX XXXX servicemember and his spouse. The attorney told the servicemember and his spouse that he was being provided by the Veterans Administration ( VA ) to represent the VA 's interest in the case and told us he could not give us an legal advice as he wasn't actually representing us. He then entered his appearance as the servicemember 's attorney. The attorney told us that what would be happening is an In Rem Judgement which is against the house and not the borrower and it is basically the same as a Deed in lue of foreclosure and it wouldn't affect our credit or VA backed guaranteed loan benefits because there would not be a judgement against us.. Wells Fargo ( lender ), was granted an In Rem only foreclosure judgement that I was not notified about. Lender claimed amount owed including all fees charged to mortgage, collections, court costs, and cost of attorneys was a little over {$300000.00}. The initial judgement acknowledged the entire amount claimed by lender. The lender received an order giving permission to sell house. Lender supposedly sold the house in a questionable sheriff 's sale that I was not notified of. The sale itself is questionable as the lender sold it to themselves for half of what they claimed was owed which was also half the market value at the time. The lender submitted the sales information to the judge and he approved the sale without notifying my attorney or me. The lender filed a document agreeing to the sheriff 's sale satisfying the entire debt and judgement making it so the balance will be {$0.00}. The court then entered The final order stating that the sale is In Rem Only and the foreclosure is entered against the home only and not against the borrower and the sale satisfies the entire amount owed by me leaving a {$0.00} balance to be paid. The lender then contacted the VA and filed a claim against the servicemember 's VA backed mortgage, claiming that the servicemember still owed them around {$150000.00} and supplied the initial judgement that allowed the house to be sold and the sheriff 's notice of sale that was on the lender 's Attorney 's letterhead, not actually from the Sheriff 's department. The lender did not provide the VA with the final order of the court stating the sale is as agreed to by the lender 's own submitted motion to confirm sheriff 's sale, to be in Rem Only against the house and not the borrower and, also as agreed to in lender 's same motion, completely satisfies the judgement and borrower now owes {$0.00}. The VA gave the lender {$61000.00} that I am required to pay back. I did dispute this with VA when I found out about it less than 2 years ago. The person reviewing all the court documents asked me what right a judge has to determine how much money the borrower still owes on a mortgage after a foreclosure. He had absolutely no idea how courts work. He thinks that only a federal judge can issue a judgement and orders when it involves a VA backed mortgage since VA is a federal government organization. The lender was not entitled to any money beyond the amount of the sale and, against court orders, submitted to and got paid for a non-existent debt by the VA creating a debt owed by the borrower on a mortgage that the lender actually suggested and agreed to and the presiding judge ordered that no remaining borrower debt existed and was not allowed. The judgement states that it is a default judgement against the borrower 's spouse even though that is not allowed by the SCRA and both the borrower and spouse were living in XXXX, Illinois and didn't have the ability to attend the hearings and didn't even know the dates and times for anything involving the case. 

The lender also reported on the borrower 's credit reports that it was a foreclosure again the borrower even though it was not and the foreclosure specifically states it is not against the borrower.

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