Consumer complaint received 2025-12-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . has engaged in a systemic pattern of disregarding state law and federal bankruptcy requirements when processing legal orders against business accounts. Specifically, Wells Fargo seized approximately {$32000.00} from an active XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debtor-in-possession ( DIP ) account based on an undomesticated New York judgment, without providing advance notice as required by Texas law, and without verifying compliance with the Bankruptcy Code 's automatic stay and plan confirmation order. 
The bank 's own policy documents and counsel admissions demonstrate that Wells Fargo knowingly operates under a practice of willful disregard for state domestication/notice requirements and federal bankruptcy protections, choosing to act on legal process " regardless of how and where it is served '' and taking " no stance '' on whether such process is legally valid. 
This conduct has caused severe financial harm to the business, resulting in : Inability to make court-ordered plan payments due XX/XX/year> Lapse of general liability insurance Cascade of consequential business defaults Threat of plan failure and forced liquidation DETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE Background : DIP Account Status and Bankruptcy Protections XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is operating as a confirmed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the Bankruptcy Code in the Southern District of Texas ( Case XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The business has a confirmed plan and is in active performance of all obligations. 
The seized account is clearly labeled as a " DIP Account '' and is account property of the bankruptcy estate, protected by : 1. 11 U.S.C. 362 The automatic stay, which prohibits creditors from enforcing judgments against estate property 2. 11 U.S.C. 1141 ( d ) ( 1 ) The plan confirmation order, which permanently injuncts claims not discharged by the plan 3. The Confirmation Order issued by the bankruptcy court, which injected all creditors from pursuing claims outside the plan framework The Undomesticated New York Judgment The underlying garnishment was based on a New York state court judgment entered in XXXX XXXX ( a default judgment obtained without proper service or notice to the debtor ). This judgment was never domesticated in Texas before Wells Fargo acted on it. 
Texas law requires : Under Texas Civil Procedure XXXX XXXXXXXX, foreign judgments must be domesticated ( filed and recognized ) in Texas before a creditor can use local remedies like garnishment Under Texas Finance Code 59.004, banks processing garnishments must verify that the legal process is properly issued and, under garnishment law, that the debtor has received notice Wells Fargo disregarded both requirements. 
Wells Fargo 's Systemic Policy of Willful Disregard Wells Fargo 's own documents reveal a deliberate policy choice to avoid due diligence on legal process : 1. Deposit Account Agreement Page 39 ( " Blanket Authorization '' ) The agreement states : " We may accept and act on any legal process we believe to be valid regardless of how and where it is served, including if process is served in locations, states, or jurisdictions other than where the account was opened or where the account, property, or records are located. '' This language reserves Wells Fargo 's discretion to act on legal process without regard to state domestication or procedural requirements. The phrase " we believe to be valid '' creates a subjective standard that shifts the bank 's incentive away from actually verifying validity. 
2. No Notice Policy The same agreement states : " We may, but are not required to, provide notice of legal process relating to your accounts. '' Combined with the blanket authorization, this creates a policy incentive for Wells Fargo to act on legal process first and avoid notice to the account holder, thereby preventing the debtor from raising defenses before funds are seized. 
3. Counsel Admission of " No Stance '' ( XX/XX/year> Email ) In written correspondence, Wells Fargo 's legal counsel explicitly stated that the bank : " takes no stance on the propriety of the judgment or garnishment '' and " simply complies with the New York restraint. '' This admission confirms that Wells Fargo made a conscious choice NOT to evaluate whether the judgment was properly domesticated or whether the garnishment was legally valid under Texas law. Instead, the bank chose mechanical compliance with an out-of-state order, despite holding clear knowledge that : The account is labeled a DIP account The debtor is in active bankruptcy The judgment was never domesticated in Texas State law and federal law both require verification before seizure How This Conduct Violates Consumer Protection Standards 1. Willful Stay Violation ( 11 U.S.C. 362 ) o The account is estate property protected by the automatic stay o Wells Fargo 's seizure, made with knowledge of the bankruptcy filing, violates the stay o This is not a case of mistaken identity or error ; the bank had explicit notice and chose to act anyway 2. Failure to Verify Legal Process Validity ( Texas Finance Code 59.004 & 63.001 et seq. ) o Texas garnishment law requires the bank to verify that garnishment is properly issued and that debtor notice requirements are met o Wells Fargo 's policy of taking " no stance '' on the legal validity of out-of-state process violates this standard o The bank 's own counsel admission proves this was a policy choice, not an error 3. Violation of State Domestication Requirements ( Texas C.P.C. 35.003 ) o Foreign judgments can not be enforced in Texas through garnishment until domesticated o Wells Fargo acted on a non-domesticated judgment, making the seizure improper under state law o This was not an isolated mistake ; the pattern documents show this is how Wells Fargo systematically processes out-of-state legal process 4. Deceptive Financial Practices ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. & Texas DTPA ) o The blanket authorization language ( page 39 ) is drafted to disguise the bank 's policy of avoiding due diligence on legal process o Consumers reasonably expect that banks will comply with state domestication requirements and provide notice before seizing accounts o Wells Fargo 's policy is designed to shift all risk to the consumer while reserving the bank 's right to act on invalid legal process Financial and Consequential Harm The seizure of {$32000.00} on XX/XX/year>, created an immediate cascade of harm : Plan Payment Default : The plan required a {$9500.00} payment due XX/XX/year>. Without these funds, the payment can not be made, creating a plan default Insurance Lapse : The business can not pay its general liability and auto insurance premiums, causing coverage to lapse Operational Defaults : Without working capital, the business can not pay staff, buy materials, or meet commitments to customers Liquidation Risk : The combination of plan default and operational collapse puts the entire business and XXXX XXXX plan at imminent risk of conversion to XXXX XXXX XXXX The total economic damage is at minimum the {$32000.00} plus consequential damages for business disruption, lost revenue, and the threat of plan failure. 
Prior Regulatory Complaints and Pattern Evidence This is not an isolated incident. Wells Fargo has a documented pattern of : Seizing DIP and other estate accounts based on inadequate legal process verification Operating under policies that deliberately avoid due diligence on out-of-state garnishments Taking " no stance '' on legal validity while acting mechanically on creditor demands Using blanket contractual language to shield themselves from liability WHAT I'M REQUESTING 1. Investigation by CFPB into Wells Fargo 's systemic policy regarding verification of legal process, particularly : o The " blanket authorization '' language on page 39 of the Deposit Account Agreement o Wells Fargo 's practice of taking " no stance '' on legal process validity o Compliance with state domestication requirements before enforcing out-of-state judgments o Whether the " no notice '' policy violates consumer protection standards 2. Immediate escalation to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), which regulates Wells Fargo, regarding this pattern of conduct 3. Public disclosure of this complaint ( per CFPB public database procedures ) so other affected consumers and debtors can see the pattern and consider their own complaints 4. Request for Wells Fargo response specifically addressing : o Why the bank acted on an undomesticated New York judgment against a Texas DIP account o How the " no stance '' policy complies with Texas garnishment law and federal bankruptcy requirements o Whether similar seizures have occurred and how frequently SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attached to this complaint : 1. Bankruptcy Case Confirmation Order ( proves DIP status and automatic stay protection ) 2. Wells Fargo Deposit Account Agreement, page 39 ( proves blanket authorization policy ) 3. XX/XX/year> Email from Wells Fargo Counsel ( proves " no stance '' admission ) 4. Bank statements showing seizure on XX/XX/year> XXXX. Evidence of plan payment default and insurance lapse ( consequences of seizure ) DECLARATION I certify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the Managing Member of A XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and have direct knowledge of the account, the seizure, and Wells Fargo 's conduct. 
Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX Managing Member, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> NOTES FOR REGULATORY FILING Reference prior CFPB case : Case # XXXX ( CFPB complaint closed XX/XX/year> with inadequate company response ) Cross-reference : This new complaint reflects the same Wells Fargo policy of willful disregard that was inadequately addressed in the prior case Request for pattern analysis : Ask CFPB to review both complaints together as evidence of systemic conduct Public record request : Explicitly request public disclosure so the complaint is searchable by other Wells Fargo customers

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