WELLS FARGO ENGAGING IN FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH COLORADO RULE 120 HEARINGS; JEFF BARNES, ESQ. ADMITTED TO MORE NEW JERSEY CHANCERY COURTS; FDN ATTORNEY NETWORK EXPANDS TO REPRESENT FORECLOSURE/FLOOD VICTIMS IN TENNESSEE

April 8, 2010

We have previously advised Colorado borrowers of the importance of Colorado’s Rule 120 procedure, where the foreclosing party files a Motion asking the Court to schedule a foreclosure sale. We have also advised that if the borrower has a challenge to the foreclosure that it should be made in response to the Rule 120 Motion, which response should only be done through an attorney.

This week, we were informed that Wells Fargo is telling borrowers who have applied for a loan mod “not to worry” about the Rule 120 hearing and not to attend it, as they are in loan modification. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT. It is obvious that Wells Fargo is doing this to circumvent the borrower’s legal right to challenge a foreclosure, so that when the loan mod request is ultimately denied (which the overwhelming majority are), Wells Fargo can then foreclose on the date set by the Court at the Rule 120 hearing, where the borrower did not appear and did not file a challenge to the foreclosure request.

In New Jersey, Jeff Barnes, Esq. was admitted pro hac vice in two more Chancery courts over the objection of the foreclosure mills Zucker Goldberg and Fein Such. We view these “objections” to a borrower’s right to retain the counsel of their choosing to be in bad faith and asserted for no legitimate purpose in an effort by the foreclosure mill to attempt to (wrongfully) seek to control who represents the borrower or who the borrower can retain for legal assistance. Obviously the New Jersey courts, which have consistently overruled these “objections”, feel the same way, and have, by their rulings, ensured that the borrower, as the client, maintains the right to control who they wish to represent them in court.

FDN attorneys have also been recently retained by Tennessee borrowers who were victims of the flood who are now not only facing foreclosure of their damaged homes, but also litigation from the property insurers who have filed lawsuits (called “interpleaders”) asking the Court to determine who is owed the insurance proceeds: the borrower/flood victim or the foreclosing party. As the insurance company’s filings have raised issues as to securitization and possible violations of the Tennessee nonjudicial foreclosure laws, we will be litigating these issues inside of the insurance company’s interpleader action.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

Leave a Reply