Https Ecf.vaed.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=3227431-2--24001

HEATH J. THOMPSON, P,C Attorney at Law

3770 PROGRESS ROAD

NORFOLK, VA 23502

757-480-0060 (MAIN)

757-257-0088 (FACSIMILE)

April 8,2011

Hon. George E. Schaefer

Clerk of Circuit Court

100 St. Paul's Blvd.

Norfolk, VA 23510-2773

Re: Hinton v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al.

Dear Hon. George E. Schaefer:

\ ]•

;• p.

We are filing a Bill of Complaint and Preliminary Injunction for the above referenced case.

We hereby request sheriff service on the following defendants:

• State Corporation Commission

Service for:

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

PO Box 10335

Des Moines, IA 50306-0335

• Samuel I White, PC

as Substitute Trustee

R/A: William Adam White

5040 Corporate Woods Dr., Suite 120

Virginia Beach, VA 23462-4377

Also enclosed, please find stamped self-addressed envelopes for return receipts for service and filing.

We are also formally requesting an emergency hearing in front of the duty judge, for a preliminary injunction, for Monday April 11,2011, to prevent a foreclosure scheduled for

Tuesday, April 12,2011. We have been in contact with the substitute trustee, and have

faxed them a copy of the complaint and request for injunction but have not yet received a response about a good time for a hearing.

Case 2:11-cv-00240-RAJ -DEM Document 1-2 Filed 04/29/11 of 21 PageID# 7

COVER SHEET FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

CITY OF NORFOLK

Case No. an-(CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY)'

Circuit Court

pAVIDHINTON

PLAIMTIFF(S)

CLAUDETTE HINTON

V.///7 re: WELLS FARGO.BANK, N.A

DEFENDANT! S)

SAMUEL I,,.WHITEAP.C

I, the undersigned [ ] plaintiff [ ] defendant [x] attorney for [x] plaintiff [ ] defendant hereby notify the Clerk of Court that

I am filing the following civil action. (Please indicate by checking box that most closely identifies the claim being asserted or relief sought.)

[ ] Accounting

[ ] Administrative Appeal

[ ] Adoption

[ ] Adoption - Foreign

[ j Adult Protection [ ] Aid and Guidance

[ ] Annexation

[ ] Annulment

[ ] Appeal Decision of ABC Board

[ j Appeal Decision of Board of Zoning [ j Appeal Decision of Comp Board [ ] Appeal Decision of Employment

Commission

[ ] Appeal Decision of Local

Government

[ ] Appeal Decision of Marine Resources Commission

[ ] Appeal Decision of Voter

Registration

[ ] Appointment of Church Trustee,

Substitute Fiduciaries

f ] Approval of Right to be Eligible to

Vote

[ ] Asbestos Litigation

[ ] Attachment

[ ] Bond Forfeiture Appeal

[ j Child Abuse and Neglect -Unfounded Complaint

[ ] Civil Contempt

[ ] Claim Impleading Third Party

Defendant - Monetary Damages

[ ] Claim Impleading Third Party

Defendant - No Monetary Damages

[ ] Complaint - (Miscellaneous) [ ] Compromise Settlement [ J Condemnation

[ ] Confessed Judgment

[ ] Conservator of Peace

[ ) Construe Will [ ] Contract Action

[ j Contract Specific Performance [ j Correct/Erroneous State/Local Taxes [ 1 Counterclaim - Monetary Damages [ ] Counterclaim - No Monetary

Damages

[ ] Cross Claim

[ J Custody/Visitation/Support/ Equitable Distribution

[ ] Declarator)' Judgment

[ j Declare Death [ ] Delinquent Taxes [ ] Detinue

[ ] Divorce

[ ] Ejectment

[ j Encumber/Sell Real Estate [ ] Enforce Vendor's Lien [ ] Escheat [ ] Establish Boundaries

[ ] Expunge

[ j Forfeiture of U.S. Currency [ j Freedom of Information [ ] Garnishment [ ] General Tort Liability (other than

motor vehicle)

[ ] Grievance Procedures

[ ] Guardian/Conservator Appointment [ ] Impress/Declare a Trust [x] injunction

[ J Interdiction [ ] Interrogatory

[ ] Intentional Tort

f ] Judgment Lien-Bill to Enforce

[ ] Judicial Review

[ ] Landlord/Tenant

[ ] Law Enforcement Petition [ ] Mechanics Lien

[ ] Medica) Malpractice [ ] Motor Vehicle Tort

[ ] NameChange

[ ] Order to Sever

[ ] Partition

[ j Petition [ ] Product Liability

[ ] Quiet Title

[ ] Referendum Elections

f ] Reformation of Trust f j Reinstatement of Driving

Privileges

[ ] Reinstatement (General) [ j Removal [ j Separate Maintenance [ ] Standby Guardian/

Conservator

[ ] Termination of Mineral Rights

[ ] Unlawful Detainer

[ ] Vehicle Confiscation

[ I Will Contested

[ j Writ of Certiorari [ ] Writ of Habeas Corpus [ ] Writ of Mandamus [ j Writ of Prohibition [ ] Writ of Quo Warranto [ ] Wrongful Death

[ ] Other

[ ] Damages in the amount of $ Zi'5.9.9:P9. are claimed

April 8, 2011

DATE I 1 PLAINTIFF | ] DEFENDANT [.] ATTORNEY FOR (.] PLAINTIFF I ] DEFENDANT

PRINT NAME

37 ?P

ADDRESS/TELtPHONE NUMBER OF SIGNATOR

FORM CC-I4I6 (MASTER) PAGE ONE 10/10 * See reverse side for Civil Action Type Codes

- for Clerk's Office Use Onlv


VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CITY OF NORFOLK

David Hinton )

And Claudette Hinton )

140 Filbert St. )

Norfolk, VA 23505 ) COMPLAINT & EMERGENCY

) PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY Plaintiffs ) INJUNCTION

v. \

Serve Clerk of State Corporation Commission )

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. )

P.O. Box 10335 )

Des Moines, 1A 50306-0335 )

AND )

Samuel I. White, P.C. )

As Substitute Trustee )

R/A: William Adam White )

5040 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 120 )

Virginia Beach, VA 23462-4377 )

) Defendants )

Bill of Complaint &

Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:

Pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-622, Plaintiffs, David Hinton and Claudette Hinton, file this

Complaint and Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction, and state upon information and

belief as follows:

I. Background

1. Mortgage services like Defendant Wells Fargo provide sen-ices relating to the collection ot mortgage payments in return for a servicing fee. The securitization process (in which thousands of loans are pooled together into a trust and then bonds are issued to investors based on the combined expected payment streams of all the pooled loans) has led to the relatively new industry of loan servicing. Loan services are not paid on the performance of the loans but rather


make the majority of their money from monthly servicing fees and fees charged to borrowers in default.

2. In the wake of the current foreclosure crises, major mortgage servicers including Wells

Fargo announced that they would aid homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments

by modifying mortgages to lower monthly payments and interest rates. On February 18,2009,

the federal government announced its Making Homes Affordable ("MHA") initiative, which

provided guidelines and financial incentives for servicers to modify mortgages. Modifications

not only make the mortgage affordable for the homeowner, but also serve investors by

preserving their payment streams and reducing the likelihood of foreclosure which could often result in a significant loss for the investors.

3. Under the MHA's Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), homewoners must meet certain eligibility requirements and also prove that they can afford to pay a modified

monthly loan payment. Homeowners must provide their servicer with the relevant financial

documents as well as a hardship affidavit explaining the change in circumstances that led to their default, (or imminent default). If it is determined that a homeowner qualifies for HAMP, the

servicer will issue a 3-month Trial Period Plan in which the homeowner will make a modified

monthly payment for three months. If the homeowner makes all three payments on time, they will be granted a permanent loan modification.

4. Despite the MHA's intent to help 3 to 4 million eligible homeowners, as of June 2010, only 398,198 permanent loan modifications had been given according to the federal

government's "Making Home Affordable Program Servicer Performance Report through June

2010." This is despite the fact that the major servicers including Wells Fargo have affirmed before Congress their intention to help as many eligible homeowners avoid foreclosure as possible.

5. Despite their claims, the major servicers including Defendant Wells Fargo have engaged in a pattern of behavior in stark contrast to their claims of desiring to help homeowners. This behavior may be largely due to the fact that servicers have almost no financial incentives to modify loans but do have incentives to keep homeowners in default and foreclose. Rather than adequately allocating resources, properly training staff and working diligently to modify eligible loans, Defendant Wells Fargo often delays and obstructs the modification process for homeowners like Plaintiffs.

6. Servicers, unlike investors and homeowners, do not generally lose money on foreclosures and in fact they often make money on them. However, servicers do usually lose money on loan modifications.

"Robo-Signing, Chain of Title, Loss Mitigation, and Other Issues in Mortgage Servicing", Hearing Before the House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee n Housing and Community Opportunity. November 18 ?0l0

available athttp:/Vfinancialservices.house.gov/HearingsftearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1376 '" ' - See "Why Servicers Foreclose When They Should Modify and Other Puzzles of Servicers Behavior" National Consumer Law Center, Inc., October 2009.


7. The monthly fee servicers receive is based on the outstanding principals of their loans,

which gives servicers an incentive to increase the loan principal by adding delinquent amounts

and junk fees. These fees essentially reward servicers for getting borrowers into and keeping them in default.3

8. Servicers' largest expenses are the advances of principal and interest payments they must

pay to investors for loans that are in default. As with foreclosure, after a loan is modified, the

requirement to make these advances to investors stops. However, under the current rules,

servicers are delayed in recovering these advances when they do a modification. Conversely,

servicers lose no money from foreclosures because they recover all of their expenses and fees' once the loan is foreclosed upon even before the investors are paid.4

9. Furthermore, servicers lack the established infrastructure to cope with the number of loan

modifications currently being sought. According to the federal government's statistics, as of

June 2010, there were an estimated 3,125,198 loans eligible for loan modification. In order to

modify this number of loans, servicers would have to expend upfront overhead costs, including staffing and physical infrastructure as well as out-of-pocket expenses like property valuation and credit reports as well as financing costs. The reimbursement offered for loan modifications by MHA is simply not substantial enough to outweigh these other costs and induce servicers to change their existing business model. The current model of collecting their fees from the

proceeds of foreclosure before the investors are paid has been very profitable for servicers and they have little incentive to change despite the obvious disadvantages to investors and homeowners.3

10. Apart from their obvious financial incentives to not modify loans, servicers like

Defendant Wells Fargo are not equipped with the adequate staff to modify loans even if they had the genuine desire to do so. this lack of qualified staff has led to confusion, disorganization and the wrongful denial of permanent loan modifications to qualified homeowners like Plaintiff.

11. Even prior to the foreclosure crisis, servicers like Defendant Wells Fargo were not

providing adequate staffing in their loss mitigation departments. This was in part because it is cheaper to hire and train line-level collections employees than line-level loss mitigation staff. This has become an increasing problem as the number of mortgages in default has increased rapidly (and subsequently so has the number of homeowners seeking foreclosure alternatives) while loss mitigation staffs continued to be woefully understaffed and undertrained.6

12. This staffing deficit is a major problem for servicers and inevitably leads to negligence on the part of the servicers' employees who are not prepared to deal with homeowners and do not understand the HAMP. Consequently, employees often relay false or misleading information to homeowners that stalls and hampers the loan modification process to the benefit of the servicers. who prefer foreclosure from a financial perspective. '

3 Id. at vi.

Id. at vi-vii.

5 Id. at vii-viii. 6 W.at28.


II. Facts

13. That Plaintiff owns a tract of real estate located in Norfolk, Virginia, which has a physical

property address of 140 Filbert St., Norfolk. Virginia. The property is also described as

"LOTS 52 AND 53, IN BLOCK 7, ON THE PLAT OF THE TRACT OF F.A. HANCOCK

KNOWN AS BOLL1NGBROOKE, MADE BY GRAHAM AND RIDDLE CIVIL

ENGINEERS, AND RECORDED IN MAP BOOK #3, PAGE 45, EACH OF SAID LOTS

FRONTING 25 FEET ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF FIRST STREET NOW KNOWN

AS FILBERT STREET, AND RUNNING BACK 100 FEET, BETWEEN PARALLEL LINES. WITH IMPROVEMENTE THEREON."

14. On July 10, 2007, Plaintiff used the property in question to secure a mortgage loan of $235,200.00, which is serviced by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo").

15. In the fall of 2008, both Mr. Hinton and Mrs. Hinton were forced to change employment and

subsequently had a loss in income. Because of the loss of income, the Hintons were unable to make their current mortgage payment. After receiving documents from Wells Fargo

notifying them of the options available to them, the Browns contacted Wells Fargo to seek a modification of the loan.

16. Wells Fargo representatives communicated through mail and telephonically numerous times over the next two years with the Hintons. Each of these communications led the Hintons to believe that the Defendants were confused and/or negligent and were using this confusion against them. Each telephone conversation would be with a different representative and the representatives would often contradict the previous representative. For example, a number of representatives told the Hintons that they qualified for a modification and that they were going to get the modification package in the mail shortly. Only a few days later, another representative told them that they did not qualify for any modification and'that they had to make a full reinstatement on the loan to avoid foreclosure. They also received documents indicating that the Defendants were going to foreclose on the home and then received documentation indicating that they should simply send in some additional documents to qualify for a modification. Therefore, the Defendants' communications to the Plaintiffs led the Plaintiffs to believe that the Defendants did not know what was going on with the loan or with their home and this caused great frustration and anxiety.

17. Defendant Wells Fargo is a lender and servicer who actively participates in the government's Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") and other loan modification options, and advertises its participation on its website at:

https://www. wellsfargo.com/homeassist/loanmodification

18. According to the HAMP, Supplemental Directive 10-02 Issued by the Dept. of Treasurery which is available on the Making Homes Affordable website as cited by Defendant Wells Fargo, and can be found all over the internet if a person googles "HAMP foreclosure", a


lender will not initiate foreclosure actions while reviewing a party for HAMP modification

program. It further states that they will stop any foreclosure proceeding until the party

• has been evaluated for the program,

• has been determined to be ineligible.

• has received a denial in writing from the lender,

• and is allowed a 30 day response period if denied (the servicer cannot conduct a

foreclosure sale within 30 calendar days after the date of a Non-Approval Notice).

19. Furthermore, again according to HAMP regulations generally available on the internet,

borrowers are to be considered for alternative foreclosure prevention options if they are

denied the HAMP modification. Only in the event that the Home Affordable Modification or

alternative foreclosure prevention options fail, the foreclosure action may be resumed.

20. The misleading and contradictory information provided by the Defendants caused the

Plaintiffs to not know what was going on with their property. In fact, even when they

received notice from the Substitute Trustee of a foreclosure scheduled for April 12, 2011,

they did not know if this was truly scheduled for a foreclosure or not.

21. On January 27, 2011, Plaintiffs hired the law office of Heath J. Thompson, P.C. ("HJT") to

represent them in foreclosure avoidance and obtaining a loan modification.

22. Based on the Hintons" gross monthly income, the loan balance, and the monthly payments

and interest rate, HJT determined Plaintiffs are eligible for a HAMP loan modification.

23. On February 2, 2011, HJT faxed the completed modification packet to Wells Fargo at the fax

number given.

24. On February 28, HJT spoke with Wells Fargo representative "Yolanda" who stated that no

modification packet was ever received and that the file was in active foreclosure. HJT resent

in the complete modification packet.

25. On March 2, 2011, Defendant representative "Monica" stated that a request for additional

documents had been sent out overnight and that the file was still in active foreclosure with no

foreclosure date.

26. On March 4, 2011. Defendant representative "Nicole" stated that the file was not in review

for a HAMP modification and that it had been removed from such review in January because

of insufficient documents. HJT formally requested that the file be rereviewed for

modification since all documents had been sent in now at least twice by HJT. HJT again, for

the third time, sent in the complete modification packet.

27. In late March, Plaintiffs received notification that their home was to be foreclosed upon on

April 12,2011.

28. On March 29, 2011, HJT spoke with defendant representative "Cindy" who stated that HJT

should formally call for a postponement of the foreclosure sale inside of 10 days before the


date scheduled for foreclosure. She also stated that the "postponement should be accepted

because they are in review for a modification." She also requested three other additional

documents and for a correction on one submitted document.

29. On March 30 and 31, 2011, HJT faxed the additional and corrected documents to Wells

Fargo.

30. On April 4, 2011, HJT spoke with representative "Candice" and formally requested

postponement of the foreclosure. She submitted the formal request for postponement and

asked HJT to call back on Wednesday, April 6.2011 to check the status.

31. On April 6, 2011, HJT called back and spoke with representatives "Kayla" and "Zen" who

both confirmed receipt of the modification packet, stated that the file was currently under

review for modification and confirmed that a request for postponement of the foreclosure had

been sent.

32. Therefore, as it stands now, the Plaintiffs are under review for a loan modification but their

home is still scheduled for a foreclosure on Tuesday April 12, 2011, in violation of the

contract between the Defendants and the Hintons.

Plaintiff Alleges:

III. Defendant Wells Fargo Breached Its Contract To Modify Plaintiffs' First Mortgage.

Incorporating Paragraphs 1-32:

33. Defendant Wells Fargo and Plaintiffs mutually and voluntarily agreed to modify Plaintiffs'

existing first mortgage ("the Note").

34. Defendant Wells Fargo solicited Plaintiffs to apply for a HAMP loan modification as a first

choice in foreclosure avoidance alternatives; according to Defendant Wells Fargo's

solicitations, Wells Fargo would process Plaintiffs' application in accordance with the

HAMP program.

35. Defendant Wells Fargo's active solicitation constitutes an irrevocable offer to Plaintiffs that

if they filled out the appropriate application and submitted the proper paperwork, they would

be properly and timely reviewed for a modification, or other foreclosure options.

36. Once Plaintiffs submitted the required modification application and requested documents in

accordance with Defendant Wells Fargo's offer, and Defendant Wells Fargo accepted and

began working on the review of that paperwork, a contract to modify the Note was

established.

37. Defendant Wells Fargo induced Plaintiffs through Defendant Wells Fargo's representations

to rely in good faith on their mutual agreement to modify the loan and thereby forgo any

other foreclosure avoidance options such as a short sale, deed-in-lieu, in-house modification,


repayment plan, forbearance, or even attempting to sell the house on their own, and resulting

in irreparable harm to Plaintiff, including the foreclosure of their home and damage to their

credit scores.

38. Giving up the opportunity to seek other foreclosure avoidance options serves as adequate

consideration on behalf of Plaintiffs in exchange for Defendant Wells Fargo to modify the

Note and forbear the foreclosure while the modification was under review, for an entire year.

39. As a part of the contract. Parties mutually agreed that Defendant Wells Fargo would forbear

foreclosure on Plaintiffs' home while the modification application was under review, and that

if Plaintiffs satisfied the condition precedent of qualifying for a loan modification pursuant to

the HAMP guidelines, then the loan modification would be granted.

40. If Plaintiffs did not qualify for a loan modification pursuant to HAMP guidelines, then

Defendant Wells Fargo would forbear foreclosure on Plaintiffs' home while Plaintiffs were

reviewed for other foreclosure alternatives.

41. Another pan of the contract is that Plaintiffs would have 30 days to appeal any negative

decision concerning their application for a modification.

42. Defendant Wells Fargo has breached its contract by:

a. Not informing Plaintiffs or their agents of the outcome of the HAMP review until

after a new foreclosure sale date had been scheduled, and within less than 30 days

from that sale date, eliminating time for Plaintiffs to appeal or apply for other

foreclosure alternatives

b. Not reviewing Plaintiffs for any other foreclosure alternatives

c. Not forbearing foreclosure proceedings until Plaintiffs has been reviewed for

other the HAMP modification or other foreclosure alternatives.

43. As a result of this breach, Plaintiffs are now responsible for attorney and foreclosure fees

that, had Defendant Wells Fargo performed the terms of the contract, they would not

otherwise owe.

44. Further, Plaintiffs have suffered severe damage to their credit scores, and are needlessly-

losing their home in foreclosure.


IV. Defendant Wells Fargo Negligently Processed Plaintiffs' Modification Application

Causing Severe Harm to Plaintiff.

Incorporating Paragraphs : 1 -32:

45. A tort duty of due care arises from contractual dealings with professionals, such as the

dealings between a borrower and a bank.

46. When a bank has agreed to process an application for a loan, it owes its customer a duty of

due care in the processing and determination of that application. By analogy, banks owe the

same duty to borrowers when they offer to modify a borrower's mortgage.

47. As such. Defendant Wells Fargo owed a tort duty of care to Plaintiffs in handling Plaintiffs'

loan modification. By offering a new contractual service, loan modification, Defendant Wells

Fargo voluntarily undertook a new duty of due care owed to Plaintiff, outside the previous

relationship between Servicers and Borrowers.

48. The duty of due care in processing a loan modification application would reasonably include

timely and accurate processing of the modification application, keeping in contact with

borrowers and their agents during the modification process, and notifying Plaintiffs if they

were no longer in modification review, or if they were denied for a HAMP modification.

49. Defendant Wells Fargo breached this duty with their contradictory and misleading

communications with the Plaintiffs since the fall of 2008 and with their failure to review the

Plaintiffs for a loan modification.

50. Based upon Wells Fargo's duty owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs detrimentally relied on

Defendant Wells Fargo to process their application correctly and in a timely manner, and

Defendant Wells Fargo's negligence has eliminated any time or opportunity Plaintiffs had to

pursue other any other potential foreclosure avoidance options, such as a short sale, deed-in-

lieu, in-house modification, repayment plan, forbearance, or even attempting to sell the house

on their own.

51. Further, by not being transparent in their review of the loan modification application, and not

working with Plaintiffs and their agents, Defendant Wells Fargo has extended the time

Plaintiffs have been in modification review, forcing them further into debt due to late fees

and attorney fees.

52. As a result of Defendant Wells Fargo's negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable

damage, namely the foreclosure of their home and severe damage to their credit scores.


V. Defendant Wells Fargo Should Be Estopped From Claiming There Was No Contract.

Incorporating Paragraphs 1-32:

53. Defendant Wells Fargo promised Plaintiffs they would review them for a HAMP loan

modification.

54. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Wells Fargo's promise to their detriment by

foregoing the opportunity to pursue other foreclosure avoidance options and now they have no

time to pursue such options as their foreclosure is scheduled for April 12, 2011. Plaintiffs now

face foreclosure and damage to their credit score as a result of relying on Defendant's promise.

55. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Wells Fargo that Plaintiff would rely on

Defendant's promise to review their application and documents for a loan modification.

Defendant Wells Fargo knew that Plaintiff would be foregoing other options in reliance that the

review would be done with due care and in a timely manner. Defendant Wells Fargo also was

aware that by not granting the modification or by negligently handling the loan, harm would

result, specifically foreclosure and damage to Plaintiffs' credit scores.

56. Defendant Wells Fargo should be estopped from claiming there was no contract to review

Plaintiffs for a HAMP loan modification because Plaintiffs relied on Defendants' promise to

Plaintiffs' detriment.

VI. Defendant Wells Fargo's Actions are in Violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection

Act:

57. Defendant Wells Fargo advertises that it follows the HAMP guidelines and that it will

review homeowners for loan modifications according to certain requirements.

58. Despite these claims. Defendant Wells Fargo has engaged in behavior that demonstrates

it does not intend to provide these services as advertised. Furthermore, Defendant Wells Fargo

uses false and misleading advertising that entices homeowners into applying for loan

modifications Defendant Wells Fargo does not intend to approve (even if the homeowner is

qualified) which typically results in a windfall of late fees for Defendant Wells Fargo.

59. Defendant Wells Fargo has relayed false and misleading information to Plaintiffs.

Defendant Weils Fargo has represented to that Plaintiffs would be reviewed for a loan

modification pursuant to the advertised terms when in reality, Defendant Wells Fargo has not abided by those terms.

60. These deceptive and fraudulent business practices are a violation of Virginia Code §59.1-

200, which prohibits the advertising of services with the intent not to provide them as advertised

as well as the use of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction.


61. Defendant Wells Fargo advertises a service that it has no intent to actually provide

according to the advertised terms. Defendant Wells Fargo has not forborn Plaintiffs' foreclosure

as promised so that Plaintiff can be reviewed for a modification and has not granted Plaintiffs a

Trial Period Plan as promised if they met the eligibility requirements, with they have.

62. These actions have damaged Plaintiffs in that they have robbed them of any time to

pursue any other foreclosure avoidance options and they have resulted in a windfall of late fees

to Defendant Wells Fargo that have accrued in the time Wells Fargo was supposedly reviewing

Plaintiffs for a loan modification.

63. Defendant Wells Fargo's actions are also a threat to public policy, as many homeowners

whose loans are services by Wells Fargo are in a similar position as Plaintiffs and have sought

similar assistance. Homeowners who are wrongfully denied a loan modification are left in a

worse position.

VI. Defendant Substitute Trustee Breached the Contract to Modify Plaintiffs' First

Mortgage

Incorporating Paragraphs : 1-32:

64. Defendant Substitute Trustee, as appointed agents for Defendant Wells Fargo. are bound by

the same contractual terms as Defendant Wells Fargo concerning foreclosure on the property

in question.

65. Defendant Substitute Trustee breached the contract established between Defendant Wells

Fargo and Plaintiffs by following through with foreclosure proceedings without first

receiving certification from Defendant Wells Fargo that foreclosure was proper.

VII. Preliminary Injunction

Incorporating Paragraphs: 1-32:

66. A preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo until the complaint can be reviewed and the matter adjudicated.

67. Defendant Wells Fargo has blatantly mishandled Plaintiffs' loan to the detriment of Plaintiffs

and has breached its contract to modify Plaintiffs' loan. Based on the facts as set out, there is

a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this case, when this complaint is reviewed.

68. There is no other adequate legal remedy available to Plaintiff, besides an injunction, to stop the foreclosure sale of their home.

69. An injunction is feasible, practicable, and an effective way to vindicate the Plaintiff.


70. Without an injunction, Plaintiffs will lose their home in a foreclosure sale and suffer serious

detriment to their credit score. This hardship substantially outweighs Defendants' hardship

of advertising costs for the foreclosure sale.

71. The actions taken by Defendants Wells Fargo and Substitute Trustee are in violation of

public policy, undermine government efforts to improve the economy during the current

fiscal crisis, and directly results in harm to the public good. Granting the injunction would

therefore not adversely affect the public interest.

WHEREFORE, your Plaintiffs prays that the Court ENJOrN and RESTRAIN Defendants

and each of them, their servants, agents, employees or other parties acting on their behalf from

instituting foreclosure proceedings on the instant property. Plaintiffs further ask the court to

ORDER Defendant Wells Fargo to specifically perform Plaintiffs' loan modification, or in the

alternative, to properly process Plaintiffs' loan modification application. Further, Plaintiffs

requests compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Wells Fargo in the amount of

SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($74,500.00.)

Date: 4/06/2011

David Hinton and Claudette Hinton

By: _

Of Counsel

Heath J. Thompson VSB# 66748

Christian R. Gunderson VSB# 80013

Counsel for Plaintiff

Heath J. Thompson, P.C.

3770 Progress Road, Ste 3

Norfolk, VA 23502

757-480-0060 (o)

757-257-0088 (f)

[email protected]


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY a copy of the foregoing Bill of Complaint and Petition for Preliminary

Injunction was sent by U.S. Mail to the following listed individuals on this the 8th Day of April,

2011.

• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• P.O. Box 10335

Des Moines, IA 50306-0335

AND

• Samuel I. White, PC

R/A: William Adam White

5040 Corporate Woods Dr.. Suite 120

Virginia Beach, VA 23462-4377

Christian R. Gunderson VSB# 80013

Counsel for Plaintiff

Heath J. Thompson, P.C.

3770 Progress Road, Ste 3

Norfolk, VA 23502

757-480-0060 (o)

757-257-0088 (f)

[email protected]


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

OFFICIAL RECEIPT

NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT

CIVIL

DATE: 04/08/11 TIME: 16:12:15 ACCOUNT: 710CL11002898-00

CASHIER: KNC REG: NU30 FILING: INJ TYPE: FULL PAYMENT

CASE COMMENTS: HINTON, DAVID V. WELLS FARGO BANK NA

ACCT OF: HINTON, DAVID RECD: HEATH THOMPSON PC

CHECK: $98.00 2952

DESCRIPTION 1: INJUNCTION + SERVICE

2: PLAINTIFF: HINTON, DAVID

3: NO HEARING SCHEDULED

RECEIPT: 11000016547

CLERK OF COURT: GEORGE E. SCHAEFER



NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT

Civil Division

100 ST. PAUL'S BOULEVARD

NORFOLK VA 23510

(757) 664-4387

Proof of Service Virginia:

In the NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT

Served by: STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

Style of case: HINTON, DAVID vs WELLS FARGO BANK NA

Case number: 710CL11002898-00

Service number: 001

Service filed: April 08, 2011

Judge:

Service on: CLERK OF SCC

WELLS FARGO BANK PO BOX 10335

DES MONIES IA 50306

Attorney: GUNDERSON, CHRISTIAN R

757-480-0060

Instructions:

Returns shall be made hereon, showing service of Summons issued Monday, April 11,2011 with a copy of the

Complaint filed Friday, April 08,2011 attached.

Hearing date :

Service issued: Monday, April 11,2011

For Sheriff Use Only


ip COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA SOP-19.1 STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

(07/10) SERVICE OF PROCESS, NOTICE, ORDER OR DEMAND ON THE CLERK OF THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

AS STATUTORY AGENT

1. The service being made relates to the following proceeding:

Stvle of Proceeding: CW^U.w-W>w o. UpeVla Q>^^,B~J<»^A,-oiyic a —Ea! (e.g. name of the plaintiff vs. name of the defendant, or in the matter of... etc.)

Case/File/Matter No. ___

Proceeding Pending in C^K (jurisdiction) (Name of Court or Tribunal)

Court's Mailing Address: too M ■ Pa~ W

2. Service is being made on the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission pursuant to Virginia

Code §§ 12.1-19.1 and (mark the appropriate box):

D 13 1-637 B □ 13.1-920 E □ 38.2-801 D 50-73.135 G D 131-758 F □ 13 1-928 B □ 38.2-809 D 50-73.139 A 3 B 13 1-766 B □ 13.1-931 E □ 38.2-1216 □ 50-73.140

□ 13 1-767 E □ 13.1-1018 B D 50-73.7 B

D 13 1-769 E D 13.1-1056 A 3 □ 50-73.58 A 3

□ 13.1-836 B □ 13.1-1057 E □ 50-73.59 E

D Other Va. Code Section or statutory authority (Specify): __

3. Pursuant to the foregoing legal authority, the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission is being

served as statutory agent of UqcAVs (name of business entity)

The mailing address of the defendant (business entity) being served (one address per form) is

S (number/street. P.O. Box. Rural Route, etc.) (city or town) (state) (zip code)

4. Send the Commission's receipt for the payment of the fee for service on the Clerk to:

Name:

Attn:

O4 Address: ^ (number/street. P.O. Box. Rural Routo. etc.) (city or town) (state) (zip code)

Telephone No: *? S7 - W ?Q -OQG O (optional)

AN ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY OF THIS FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED

ALONG WITH TWO COPIES OF THE PAPERS TO BE SERVED

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED



STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

VIRGINIA, in the

CIRCUIT COURT

of the

CITY OF NORFOLK

100 ST PAUL'S BLVD

NORFOLK, VA 23510

r s t

DAVID HINTON • l> i 1 ;

vs Case/File/Matter Number: CL11 2898 r: .--->

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A..ETAL X ^ "7

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that a copy of the process, notice, order or demand in the above-styled matter

served upon the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission pursuant to § 12.1-19.1 of the Code

of Virginia as statutory agent was mailed on April 19, 2011 by First Class mail to the following:

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

PO BOX 10335

DES MOINES, IA 50306-0335

Dated: April 19, 2011 Joel H. Peck

Clerk of the Commission

Enclosures

SERVOP

CIS0317

11-04-18-1605



.-■>

NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT'; ^

Civil Division ' ' '^r. 100 ST. PAUL'S BOULEVARD N':v£ft

NORFOLK VA 23510 *f$A (757) 664-4387 ° \

Virginia:

In the NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT

Proof of Service

2]

r*

m

a Case

Service number: 002

Service filed: April 08, 201

Judge: Served by: NORFOLK CITY

Style of case:HINTON, DAVID vs WELLS FARGO BANKNA

Service on: SAMUEL I WHITE PC Attorney: GUNDERSON, CHRISTIAN R

R/A WILLIAM ADAM WHITE 757-480-0060

Q 5040 CORPORATE WOODS DRIVE

0 SUITE 120

VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23462

Instructions:

Returns shall be made hereon, showing sen'ice of Summons issued Monday, April 11,2011 with a copy of the

Complaint filed Friday, April 08, 2011 attached.

Hearing date :

Service issued: Monday, April 11, 2011

For Sheriff Use Only


VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Fourth Judicial Circuit

Plaintiff

v- Docket Number:

I v Defendant S.

ORDER

This action is before the Court today for y p n ^

i • ' \f ***!/* , proper notice ha^iiig-Luen given tu all

Now the Court ^wm^s jILjr £u^ fu o^fe. Qtoc*»J.^ 3oJ*u

<rf

RED this M "^ day of^/p^'l 20^/ ^t IT IS SO ORDERED this M ̂ day of

Judge

(11/07)


VIRGINIA:

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Fourth Judicial Circuit

H , t-k Plaintiff

V. Docket Number:

A. Defendants.

x. u

This action is before the Court today for

ORDER

, ^wp»^flticft4iavinB been given tn nil

■parties^

JL'i ; P.

Now the Court:

fr

gir

IT IS SO ORDERED this H-fk day of J*&^

/ *<e I—T^ »

■ 20^// 7 //VWr^TZ,


Https Ecf.vaed.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=3227431-2--24001

Documents

Transcript of Https Ecf.vaed.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=3227431-2--24001