From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Jones v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. (In re Jones)
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
2012 WL 1155715 (2012)
Michael Jones (plaintiff) filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. Wells Fargo (defendant) held a mortgage secured by Jones’s residence and filed a proof of claim for the account. During the chapter 13 plan, Jones sought to refinance his mortgage. Wells Fargo provided a payoff amount that Jones believed was too high, but Wells Fargo refused to provide a clear accounting of the loan. Jones brought an action in bankruptcy court to obtain a correct accounting. The court found that Wells Fargo had made substantial errors in its accounting of the loan, charged Jones unreasonable fees and costs, failed to apply payments properly, and willfully violated the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. Wells Fargo was ordered to repay Jones for overpayments that he had been charged and paid. Rather than imposing punitive damages, the bankruptcy court ordered Wells Fargo to institute correct accounting procedures. Jones appealed the denial of punitive damages to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Shortly after, Wells Fargo was before this court again in an almost identical case, In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bank. E.D. La. 2008). In Stewart the court determined that Wells Fargo had not complied with the order in the Jones case, but rather had continued with the same egregious pattern of incorrect accounting, overcharging, and failing to apply payments properly. The court in Stewart ordered Wells Fargo to audit and provide a complete loan history for every proof of claim in all current cases, amend those proofs of claim as needed, and provide a correct accounting for all closed cases. Wells Fargo appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit ruled on Stewart prior to hearing Jones’s appeal and held that the lower court’s ordered accounting procedures were an improper exercise of authority. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order. Both cases were remanded for reconsideration of monetary sanctions.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Magner, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.