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.

Banking
Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Anthony R. Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., et al.

Published: Nov. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Sep. 29, 2020 | Filing Date: Jun. 10, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-01162-KJM-CKD PS Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Carolyn K. Delaney

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

Michael Rapkine
(Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Anthony Flores obtained a loan of $153,750 from World Savings Bank secured with a mortgage on a property located in Paradise, California. World Savings later changed its name to Wachovia Mortgage and eventually was acquired by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. During the term of the loan, plaintiff began receiving mortgage statements from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage to which he paid. In November 2018, the property was destroyed due to a fire and plaintiff received insurance proceeds to which he then transferred to Wells Fargo to pay off the note and mortgage. Plaintiff sued Wells Fargo for the payments.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Wells Fargo was not the true beneficiary of the loan and that Wells Fargo fraudulently misrepresented that it was a beneficiary to the loan. Plaintiff contended that Wells Fargo improperly and illegally collected payments from plaintiff alleging that Wells Fargo were not entitled to the payments. In addition, plaintiff contended that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because Wells Fargo misstated the amount and legal status of the loan.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions.

Result

The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend because plaintiff's complaint was premised on an invalid securitization theory and incorrect interpretation of the FDCA.


#135951

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

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