Consumer complaint received 2019-02-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is being filed for the purposes of establishing a paper trail for litigation against Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo is in violation of the following : CA HBOR RESPA Title X Real Estate Procedures Unethical Business Practices At issue is a loss mitigation request that was under review with Wells Fargo. On XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo sent an email that was have a in writing stating that loss mitigation package was submitted for approval. 

CA HBOR clearly forbids dual tracking with a loss mitigation package is under review. Wells Fargo posted a notice of sale on the same day they stated they submitted the offer for approval.

We then notified Wells Fargo via a notice of error as required by RESPA of the violation and demanded the sale date be removed. Instead of Wells Fargo following RESPA guidelines and CA law, Wells Fargo waited to see if their short sale department would reopen a new short sale request. 

This was a violation of RESPA guidelines as the issue that was being addressed in the letter, the posting of the sale date, was being ignored. Instead Wells Fargo wanted to see if they could simply postpone the sale date instead of removing the sale date if they were to open another short sale request.

To make matters worse Wells Fargo communicated with 3rd party and attorney that they had reopened the short sale request and that request was under review. We have email stating that the 2nd short sale request was submitted for decision. On XX/XX/XXXX 3rd party contacted Wells Fargo to demand the sale date be removed ( which hadn't even been postponed ) as per the notice of error. The person assigned XXXX XXXX wasn't available but 3rd party as a representative read his notes. His notes clearly stated the the request to reopen the short sale had been denied. Then XXXX XXXX confirmed to the representative that the review was denied and foreclosure sale date would proceed when 3rd party asked for representative to confirm with XXXX directly. So basically Wells Fargo pretended to open a short sale request when in fact their own reentry department had never reopened the request. Completely unacceptable behavior by a company who has been fined for egregious violations which they continue to do. 

Wells Fargo continued their lies by sending an email on XX/XX/XXXX by sending an email that the current offer was rejected for being too low. Wells Fargo value was {$470000.00}, the buyer 's offer is {$460000.00}. There isn't a lender on earth that would deny an offer that close to a value. Additionally because the value was so close to offer buyer according to standard real estate practices should of had the opportunity to dispute the value, which Wells Fargo did not allow them to do.

Well Fargo has a proven history of violations and this type of behavior must end immediately. Wells Fargo must remove the illegally posted sale date and move forward with the offer in hand. 

Wells Fargo 's assertion that they did not violate dual tracking because borrower had previous work out attempts prior is false. The CA HBOR is explicitly clear. A sale date can not be posted while a work out is under review. There is nowhere in the law that states you can only have 1 or 2 reviews. More importantly the section of the law that stated previously a lender could deny a review of no material change had occurred from a previous review was removed from the law in XXXX. Therefore Wells Fargo by simply having a re entry team which looks to see if they will even reopen a review is in violation of CAHBOR as a review must be considered now. Wells Fargo could of set a sale date once there was NO REVIEW open instead they set the sale date WHILE there was a review and that is a dual tracking violation regardless of Wells Fargo 's guidelines which DO NOT SUPERSEDE state law.

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