Consumer complaint received 2016-08-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage engaged in multiple illegal acts against the Uniform Commercial Code and I have provided documented evidence supporting my allegations ( see my previous CFPB complaint # XXXX for entire background and supporting evidence ). 

1 ) I legally cashed and deposited an escrow refund check issued by Wells Fargo with my name on it. The check was NOT issued jointly since there was no " AND '' between the multiple payees ( myself and my ex-husband ) and my endorsement was fully supported by the Uniform Commercial Code ( see WF documents to XXXX for cancelled check ). 

2 ) Wells Fargo subsequently submitted a fraudulent " breach of warranty '' claim to my bank for the escrow refund check as " Not Endorsed as Drawn '' ( it was clearly " Endorsed as drawn '' according to the Uniform Commercial Code ). They provided a fraudulent " Affidavit of Forged Endorsement '' with the claim, which resulted in the illegal removal of {$4200.00} from my bank account on XXXX XXXX, 2016 ( see WF documents to XXXX attachment as evidence ). This was done even after an internal fraud investigation had been performed by Wells Fargo and the " Affidavit of Forged Endorsement '' signed by my ex-husband was confirmed to be false by Wells Fargo documents clearly stating " customer states that escrow refund was not cashed by either borrower '' ( see Wells Fargo Internal Documents attachment as evidence ). 

I was never notified that a " forgery claim '' action was taking place against me or the mortgage account, even though I am a co-mortgage holder on the account. Once aware, and after reminding Wells Fargo about the Uniform Commercial Code, it appeared as though Wells Fargo was interested in working with me to resolve the issue and fix their mistake of disregarding the Uniform Commercial Code ( see Fax Cover sheets I sent to WF ). However, it later became apparent that they had already closed the case, were wasting my time, and were now more concerned about continuing to cover up their own internal flaw of routinely not issuing escrow refund checks " jointly ''. 

The Wells Fargo response to my original CFPB complaint contained numerous reiterated false statements and, in addition to their conclusion " Based on our research, we 've determined your account was handled appropriately and no adjustments are needed. '' was absurd and made it apparent that Wells Fargo does not take this CFPB process ( or the Uniform Commercial Code ) seriously ( see WF response to my CFPB complaint and my detailed dispute attachment refuting their statements and providing clear support for their fraudulent activities and illegal disregard of the Uniform Commercial Code ). Their response also raised additional serious concerns : 1 ) Wells Fargo attempted to threaten me from using or forwarding internal documents about the closed " forgery claim '' ( that clearly support my allegations ) even though these documents were addressed directly to me and faxed upon my request ( see Wells Fargo faxed cover sheets to XXXX attachment and my detailed dispute attachment refuting this claim ). 

2 ) The Wells Fargo response now totally contradicts information that was provided to me, on a recorded line, XX/XX/2016. Wells Fargo now states that an escrow refund check was issued " jointly '' on XXXX XXXX, 2016 to my ex-husband. However, I was previously told, very clearly ( XX/XX/2016 ), that a " duplicate '' check, without an " and '' was issued to him XX/XX/2016. It appears that XXXX checks have been re-issued XX/XX/2016, however, there had never been any mention or reference to this " jointly '' issued check until XXXX 2016 and currently no mention of the " duplicate '' check, which is quite concerning ( see my detailed dispute attachment for additional information regarding the initial " duplicate '' check ).

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