This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Failure to Convert an Adjustable Rate Mortgage

Sheldon Soule and Shauna Soule v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

Published: Aug. 13, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 12, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 13-2-04965-0 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Snohomish Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joshua B. Trumbull

Ben Wells


Defendant

Neal S. Robb
(Keesal, Young & Logan)

Melanie L. Ronen
(Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LL)

Valerie I. Holder


Experts

Plaintiff

John D. Campbell
(technical)

George Pressley
(technical)

Peter Brous
(technical)

Defendant

Eric Knowles
(technical)

Julie Greenfield
(technical)

Patrick Lamb
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiffs Sheldon Soule and Shauna Soule filed suit against Wells Fargo Bank NA, in connection with the foreclosure of their home.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that Wells Fargo violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts that led to failure to convert an adjustable rate mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. Plaintiffs claimed the deceptive acts included the loss of their home through foreclosure, the lost opportunity to purchase a home in Lake Stevens, and the time spent trying to comply with Wells Fargo's instructions. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for wrongful foreclosure, consumer protection act, and false and deceptive communications.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied engaging in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices that caused plaintiffs any injury.

Damages

At the conclusion of the trial, plaintiffs sought $1.1 million in damages.

Result

Defense verdict. The jury found that there was no violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 17, 2013.

Deliberation

two days

Length

11 days


#108445

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390