Class Action against Wells Fargo Bank Over Allegations it Used Federal Funds to Enrich Itself Rather Than Help Struggling Homeowners Modify Their Mortgages

Wells Fargo Bank is facing a civil lawsuit over allegations it used federal funds to enrich itself rather than help struggling homeowners modify their mortgages.

Shea Hecht filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Gross Polowy Orlans, alleging the bank delayed applications and extended trial modification periods “in order maximize its own revenue and fees” while “defrauding homeowners.”

Under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), banks received federal funding in order to help struggling homeowners modify their mortgages and allow them to keep their homes. The lawsuit says Wells Fargo accepted about $25 billion through the program and was required to participate in HAMP because it receives federal funding through the Trouble Asset Relief Program.

Hecht alleges Wells Fargo used the program to “enrich itself” and assessed prohibited and hidden fees on the loans of homeowners who had received permanent modifications through the program.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those in similar situations against Wells Fargo. Hecht said damages will exceed $5 million and is also asking for court costs.

 Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
SHEA HECHT, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,
v.

WELLS FARGO, N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO
HOME MORTGAGE, GROSS POLOWY
ORLANS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10

Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x

Plaintiff Shea Hecht, individually and as a representative and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, by his attorneys, alleges the following upon information and belief:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. As a result of the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic downturn, millions of
Americans lost jobs, suffered reductions in income and fell behind on their mortgage
payments. To stem the tide of the resulting wave of foreclosures, President Obama
introduced the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP” or “the program”) in
February of 2009.
2. The purpose of HAMP was to modify mortgages for struggling homeowners to make them
affordable. Banks that received federal funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program
(“TARP”) are contractually obligated to participate in HAMP. Under HAMP, banks are
required to offer loan modifications to eligible borrowers to prevent foreclosures and to
allow them to keep their homes.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 1
2

3. As a condition of receiving $25 billion in bailout funds under the TARP, Wells Fargo,
N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (hereinafter “Wells Fargo” or “the
bank”), agreed to provide mortgage modifications to struggling homeowners pursuant to
HAMP.
4. Instead of providing relief to homeowners consistent with the purpose for which HAMP
was created, Wells Fargo has used the program to enrich itself by intentionally delaying
the processing of HAMP applications and extending trial modification periods in order to
maximize its own revenue and fees at the expense of and by defrauding homeowners.
Wells Fargo has also assessed hidden and prohibited fees onto the loans of homeowners
who received permanent modifications despite the bank’s representations to the contrary.
5. Plaintiff Shea Hecht (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Wells Fargo, Gross Polowy
Orlans, LLC (hereinafter “Gross Polowy Orlans” or “the law firm”) and various John
Does, (collectively “Defendants”) on behalf of himself and a class consisting of all
homeowners throughout the state of New York whose home loans were serviced and
modified by Wells Fargo under the HAMP program (the “Class Members”) at any time
during the applicable statute of limitations period (the “Class Period”).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Home Affordable Modification Program
6. Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201,
et seq., on October 3, 2008 and amended it with the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, on February 17, 2009 (together, the “Act”).
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 2
3

7. The purpose of the Act was to grant the Secretary of the Treasury authority to restore
liquidity and stability to the financial system and to ensure that such authority is used in a
manner that “protects home values” and “preserves homeownership.” 12 U.S.C. § 5201.
8. The Act granted the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to establish the Troubled Asset
Relief Program, or TARP. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5211, et seq. Under TARP, the Secretary may
purchase or make commitments to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. Id.
Congress allocated up to $700 billion to the Treasury for TARP. 12 U.S.C. § 5225.
9. The Act further mandates, with regard to any assets acquired by the Secretary of the
Treasury that are backed by residential real estate, that the Secretary “shall implement a
plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners” and use the Secretary’s authority
over servicers to encourage them to take advantage of programs to “minimize
foreclosures.” 12 U.S.C. § 5219. The Act grants authority to the Secretary of the Treasury
to use credit enhancement and loan guarantees to “facilitate loan modifications to prevent
avoidable foreclosures.” Id.
10. On February 18, 2009, pursuant to their authority under the Act, the Treasury Secretary
and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency created the Making Home
Affordable (“MHA”) initiative to help at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by
restructuring their mortgages.
11. The Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, is the portion of the MHA
initiative that provides mandatory directives for implementation. HAMP creates a uniform
loan modification protocol and provides financial incentives for participating servicers to
modify loans.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 3
4

12. Because Wells Fargo accepted $25 billion in bailout funds it is and was at all times
throughout the Class Period required to participate in HAMP for all loans on which it
functions as a loan “servicer.” Michael J. Heid, who was at the time of signing the Co-
President of Wells Fargo, executed a Servicer Participating Agreement (“SPA”) with the
federal government on April 13, 2009; thereby binding Wells Fargo to comply with
HAMP procedures. On March 16, 2010, Michael J. Heid, as Executive Vice President of
Wells Fargo, signed an Amended and Restated SPA.
13. These SPAs obligate Wells Fargo to comply with HAMP procedures. The SPAs explicitly
incorporate all guidelines and procedures, as well as any Supplemental Directives, which
include all directives, bulletins, letters, supplemental documentation, instructions and other
communications issued by the Treasury, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac regarding HAMP.
Each of these documents is incorporated by reference herein.
14. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have issued a number of HAMP Handbooks for mortgage
loans that are not owed or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the “Handbook(s)”).
The Handbooks are a consolidated resource for programmatic guidance related to HAMP
and are incorporated by reference herein. They set out the HAMP-related activities Wells
Fargo must perform for first lien mortgage loans that originated on or before January 1,
2009.
The HAMP Application Process
15. Wells Fargo is obligated to pre-screen for HAMP eligibility all first lien mortgages where
two or more payments are due and unpaid. Wells Fargo is obligated to solicit for HAMP
any borrowers who pass the pre-screen.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 4
5

16. In its written solicitations for HAMP Wells Fargo represents that payment help is available
for the homeowner. In its telephone solicitations, which are scripted and were made
uniformly to Plaintiff and the Class Members, Wells Fargo represents that it offers HAMP
modification programs to help homeowners stay in their homes, and that the program can
include forgiving debt, restructuring payments and lowering the loan’s interest rate.
17. Wells Fargo’s HAMP application packet, or “Starter Kit,” includes conspicuous
representations that identify its modification program as a “HAMP” program. Based on
these representations, a reasonable applicant would believe that Wells Fargo administers its
HAMP modification program pursuant to the HAMP rules by which it is legally bound.
18. The Starter Kit also includes multiple, explicit representations that there are no fees
associated with the program, such as “NO FEES. There are no fees under the Home
Affordable Modification Program.”
19. The Starter Kit includes numerous representations indicating Wells Fargo’s intention to
“help” the homeowner, such as “[w]e’re here to help you through the process. You can
count on us to work with you through every step of the process” and “HELPING YOU
STAY IN YOUR HOME.” Wells Fargo also makes specific representations about the
“help” that it will provide, including, inter alia, that “[i]f you meet the eligibility criteria,
you will be offered a Trial Period Plan.”
20. Wells Fargo also represents in the Starter Kit that “it may take up to 30 days for us to
review your documents[,]” and that “[w]e will process your request as quickly as
possible.”
21. Contrary to these representations, Wells Fargo intentionally delays the HAMP application
process for the purpose of increasing the fees, costs, penalties and interest that accrue on
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 5
6

the loan in order to increase the bank’s revenues. As a pretext for the delay, Wells Fargo
repeatedly instructs homeowners to submit documents and information that they have
already submitted to the bank, and documents and information that are not relevant to the
decision-making process.
The Trial Period Plan and Permanent Modification
22. The next step in the HAMP process is the Trial Period Plan (the “TPP”). The TPP consists
of a specified three or four month period during which the homeowner is required to make
monthly mortgage payments in an amount meant to approximate the homeowner’s post-
HAMP modification mortgage payment.
23. Wells Fargo’s TPP Agreement includes multiple, conspicuous representations that the
homeowner will not be charged any fees for receiving a HAMP modification, including,
but not limited to “[y]ou will not be charged any fees for this Trial Period Plan or a
modification.”
24. Wells Fargo’s TPP Agreement includes conspicuous representations that identify its
modification program as a “HAMP” program. The TPP Agreement also includes
representations about Wells Fargo’s interest in keeping the homeowner in his or her home.
25. The TPP Agreement provides that the homeowner must make three or four trial period
payments on the dates specified therein. Pursuant to the TPP Agreement, Wells Fargo has
the right to require the homeowner to work with a credit counselor. The TPP Agreement
also requires the homeowner to establish an escrow account into which he or she must
make the required escrow payments, and to submit documents and make certain
representations about his or her circumstances.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 6
7

26. The TPP Agreement further provides that after the homeowner makes each of the trial
period payments specified therein, he or she will be granted a permanent modification on
the defined Modification Effective Date.
27. The HAMP Handbooks do not require the HAMP modification agreement to be notarized.
28. Despite the fact that Plaintiff and Class Members fully performed their duties under their
TPP Agreements, they were not granted permanent modifications after making all of the
required trial period payments on the Modification Effective Date.
29. Instead, Wells Fargo intentionally delayed granting permanent modifications to Plaintiff
and Class Members. Wells Fargo had a financial incentive to extend the duration of the
trial period. Throughout the trial period, fees, interest and penalties continue to accrue
which are capitalized onto the balance of the loan when the permanent modification is
granted. As a pretext for the delay, Wells Fargo requests documents that have already
been submitted and documents and information that are not relevant to the homeowner’s
qualifications for a HAMP modification.
30. Furthermore, although the Starter Kit, TPP Agreement and modification agreement include
multiple, conspicuous representations that there are “[n]o fees or other charges for this
modification,” Wells Fargo actually charges each homeowner thousands of dollars for the
HAMP modification.
31. The HAMP Handbooks in effect throughout the Class Period expressly provide that certain
fees are considered modification fees and may not be passed on to the homeowner:
fees associated with modification of the mortgage, such as modification
agreement recording fees and title fees generally are not covered by the security
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 7
8

agreement and may not be capitalized.1 Recording fees and title fees generally
are considered administrative costs and may be reimbursable by the investor
through the ordinary course of business, such as applicable investor contracts2
. . . . Servicers may not charge the borrower to cover the administrative processing
costs incurred in connection with HAMP. 3 The servicer pays and will not be
reimbursed for any actual out-of-pocket expenses, including, but not limited to,
any required notary fees, recordation fees, title costs, property valuation fees,
credit report fees, or other allowable and documented expenses.4
32. The modification fees charged to homeowners include, but are not limited to, recording
fees, title fees and property valuation fees. Since these fees are, in violation of the HAMP
rules, capitalized onto the balance of the homeowner’s loan, the homeowner ends up
paying interest on the modification fees as well.
33. While Wells Fargo’s Starter Kit, TPP and other HAMP program documents explicitly and
conspicuously represent that there are no fees for a HAMP modification, Wells Fargo
intentionally buries its sole disclosure about these fees under pages of HAMP modification
documents. All but one of these fees is identified only in a single footnote to a line item
called “Recoverable Expenses.” Wells Fargo does not even disclose the amount it charged
individually for each of these fees. Furthermore, the footnote states explicitly that there are
additional fees included in the line item “Recoverable Expenses” that are not identified.

1 Making Home Affordable Program Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, Versions 1.0-4.4 at Chapter II,
Section 6.3.1, ADMINISTRATIVE WEBSITE FOR SERVICERS, HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM,
https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/programs/guidance.jsp (last visited April 19, 2015).
2 Id.
3 Id. at Chapter II, Section 9.3.3.
4 Id.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 8
9

As such, Plaintiff reserves the right to add to his allegations regarding the modification
fees assessed by Wells Fargo following discovery.
Foreclosure
34. The HAMP Handbooks in effect throughout the Class Period prohibited Wells Fargo from
referring loans to foreclosure unless the homeowner had been evaluated for HAMP and
determined to be ineligible for the program, failed to comply with his or her TPP
Agreement, or the bank’s efforts to solicit the homeowner for the program had failed.5
35. Wells Fargo referred to foreclosure homeowners who had applied for a HAMP
modification and submitted all of the required documents and information without first
finding them to be ineligible for the program. Wells Fargo also referred to foreclosure
homeowners who had been granted TPPs and fully performed in accordance with their
TPP Agreements. As a result, homeowners were charged substantial foreclosure fees.
36. The law firm Gross Polowy Orlans6 filed and prosecuted foreclosure actions against
homeowners on Wells Fargo’s behalf. In its letters to homeowners, Gross Polowy Orlans
represented that “[t]he law firm of Gross Polowy Orlans, LLC and the attorneys whom it
employs are debt collectors who are attempting to collect a debt . . . .” Similarly, the
Starter Kit and TPP Agreements sent to homeowners, including those sent to Plaintiff,

5 Id. at Chapter II, Section 3.1.
6 Gross Polowy Orlans was started by two former practice leaders at the Steven J. Baum law firm (the “Baum
firm”), which closed down in 2012 following negative publicity over its allegedly unlawful foreclosure practices and
unscrupulous behavior, including, for example, robo-signing. Prior to closing down the firm entered into multi-
million dollar settlements with the New York Attorney General and the Manhattan U.S. Attorney over the firm’s
allegedly unlawful foreclosure practices. The New York Attorney General’s investigation found that the firm had
routinely brought foreclosure proceedings without taking the appropriate steps to verify the accuracy of the
allegations or the banks’ right to foreclose. The New York Attorney General also found that the Baum firm
repeatedly caused delay in the scheduling of mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences. Numerous Gross
Polowy Orlans attorneys and staff members joined the law firm immediately after leaving the Baum firm.

Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 9
10

included representations that “this communication is an attempt to collect a debt” and that
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applied.
37. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) § 3408 requires Wells Fargo to attend
or send attorneys on its behalf to mandatory settlement conferences with homeowners
against whom it has filed a foreclosure action. CPLR § 3408 requires Wells Fargo to
negotiate in good faith with the homeowner to determine whether a modification could
allow the homeowner to remain in his or her home. Wells Fargo was represented at the
settlement conferences by Gross Polowy Orlans.
38. Homeowners who attended all mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences, negotiated in
good faith, and complied fully with HAMP program requirements had their HAMP
modifications delayed by Defendants. Defendants repeatedly requested documents that
had already been submitted, and requested documents and information that were not
relevant to the process. Wells Fargo also sent attorneys to appear at the settlement
conferences without granting them settlement authority. As a result, additional interest,
fees and costs were assessed to the homeowners.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
39. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Plaintiff is a citizen of the state
of New York. Wells Fargo is a mortgage lender headquartered in San Francisco,
California, and does business nationwide. Upon information and belief, the aggregate
amount in controversy is in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
40. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is an action arising under
the laws of the United States.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 10
11

41. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Wells Fargo because the bank conducts and
transacts business in the state of New York.
42. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Gross Polowy Orlans because the law firm is
headquartered in the state of New York and conducts and transacts business throughout the
state.
43. Venue is proper because many Class Members reside in the Eastern District of New York
and Wells Fargo and Gross Polowy Orlans have, at all relevant times, been doing business
in the Eastern District of New York.
THE PARTIES
44. Plaintiff Shea Hecht is a resident of Poughkeepsie, New York.
45. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota and acts and operates as a mortgage lender with a principal place of business in San
Francisco, California.
46. Gross Polowy Orlans is and at all times relevant hereto was a debt collection and
foreclosure law firm headquartered in Amherst, New York; doing business throughout the
state of New York.
47. The members of the proposed class are all homeowners throughout the state of New York
whose home loans were serviced and modified by Wells Fargo under the HAMP program
throughout the Class Period.
48. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said
Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff alleges that each of said fictitious
Defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts hereinafter set forth. Plaintiff will
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 11
12

amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants, as
well as the manner in which each fictitious Defendant is responsible, when these facts are
ascertained.
AGENCY ALLEGATIONS
49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein
mentioned each of the Defendants was an agent, servant, employee, and/or joint venture of
each of the remaining Defendants, and was at all times acting within the course and scope
of such agency, service, employment, and/or joint venture, and each Defendant has
ratified, approved, and authorized the acts of each of the remaining Defendants with full
knowledge of said facts.
50. Each of the Defendants aided and abetted, encouraged, rendered substantial assistance to
the other Defendants in making the misrepresentations, engaged in the deceptive practices,
acted in bad faith, and committed all violations of law alleged herein. In taking action, as
alleged herein, to aid and abet and substantially assist the commissions of these wrongful
acts and other wrongdoings complained of, each of the Defendants acted with an
awareness of his/her/its primary wrongdoing and realized that his/her/its conduct would
substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and
wrongdoing.
51. There is a unity of interest between Defendants, and each acts as the alter ego of the other.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERIENCE WITH WELLS FARGO
52. Plaintiff Shea Hecht’s experience with Wells Fargo exemplifies the foregoing problems.
53. In 2005, Plaintiff purchased and moved into a house located in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 12
13

54. As a result of the financial crisis and the recession, Plaintiff’s employer struggled to meet
its payroll obligations. Plaintiff’s small business struggled as well. As a result, Plaintiff
suffered a reduction in income. Consequently, Plaintiff could not pay his mortgage
without a modification and fell behind on his payments.
55. Plaintiff received a phone call from an employee from Wells Fargo, who was the servicer
at the time for Plaintiff’s first lien home mortgage loan. The employee stated that Wells
Fargo offers HAMP modification programs to help homeowners stay in their homes, and
that the programs include forgiving debt, restructuring payments and reducing the loan’s
interest rate.
56. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff received a HAMP application packet, or Starter Kit, from Wells
Fargo.
57. Wells Fargo represented in the Starter Kit that “it may take up to 30 days for us to review
your documents[,]” and that “[w]e will process your request as quickly as possible.”
58. The Starter Kit documents also included conspicuous representations that “[t]here are no
fees under the Home Affordable Modification Program.”
59. Additionally, the Starter Kit documents identified Wells Fargo’s modification program as a
HAMP program and included representations indicating Wells Fargo’s intention to help
Plaintiff. Wells Fargo also represented in its Starter Kit that “[i]f you meet the eligibility
criteria, you will be offered a Trial Period Plan.”
60. Plaintiff read each of the aforementioned representations and in reliance thereon, timely
submitted all the requested documents in the manner requested by Wells Fargo.
61. Even though Plaintiff qualified for and was entitled to a HAMP modification, Wells Fargo
did not get back to Plaintiff within 30 days with a decision about his HAMP application.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 13
14

Instead, Wells Fargo repeatedly requested documents and information that Plaintiff had
already submitted, and documents and information that were not relevant to Plaintiff’s
qualifications for a HAMP Application. As a result of these delays, Plaintiff incurred
additional interest, fees, penalties, and costs, which is what Wells Fargo had intended.
62. Plaintiff continued to fully comply with Wells Fargo’s instructions regarding his HAMP
application. As a result, Plaintiff did not pursue other opportunities to save his home, or
otherwise minimize the financial harm he was suffering due to his inability to make his
mortgage payments without a modification.
63. Months went by and, as Wells Fargo continued to request documents and represent that
Plaintiff was being considered for a HAMP modification, Plaintiff received, to his surprise,
a debt collection letter and notice indicating that Wells Fargo had filed a foreclosure action
against him. The debt collection letter was sent by Gross Polowy Orlans and included a
representation that “[t]he law firm of Gross Polowy Orlans, LLC and the attorneys whom it
employs are debt collectors who are attempting to collect a debt . . . .”
64. The foreclosure action against Plaintiff had also been filed by Gross Polowy Orlans. Gross
Polowy Orlans appeared for Wells Fargo at the mandatory settlement conferences.
65. Plaintiff attended all mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences, negotiated in good
faith, and complied fully with the HAMP program requirements. Regardless, Defendants
intentionally delayed processing his HAMP application and granting him a HAMP
modification. Defendants requested documents that Plaintiff had already submitted to
them, and documents and information that were not relevant to the process. Gross Polowy
Orlans attorneys also appeared at the settlement conferences without the authority to
dispose of the action. As a result, Plaintiff accrued interest, costs, penalties and fees.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 14
15

66. On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff was offered a TPP and received a TPP Agreement. The
TPP Agreement included multiple, conspicuous representations that Plaintiff would not be
charged a fee for his HAMP modification, including, but not limited to, “[y]ou will not be
charged any fees for this Trial Period Plan or a modification.” On January 29, 2014,
Plaintiff accepted the TPP Agreement. Pursuant to the TPP Agreement, Plaintiff was
obligated to make three trial payments of $2,076.69 with the first payment of $2,076.69
due on February 1, 2014, the second payment of $2,076.69 due on March 1, 2014, and the
third payment of $2,076.69 due on April 1, 2014.
67. Pursuant to the TPP Agreement Plaintiff was required to work with a credit counselor to
create a household budget to reduce his debt, to establish an escrow account and to pay
required escrows into that account, and to submit documents and make representations
about his personal circumstances.
68. The TPP Agreement provided that “[o]nce you make all of your trial period payments on
time, we will send you a modification agreement detailing the terms of the modified loan.”
69. The TPP Agreement further provided that if Plaintiff complied his loan would
automatically be modified on the Modification Effective Date, which was defined in the
TPP Agreement as May 1, 2014.
70. Although Plaintiff fully performed each of his obligations pursuant to the TPP Agreement,
his loan was not modified after he had made the final trial period payment on the
Modification Effective Date.
71. Instead, Defendants purposefully delayed the length of the trial period in order to increase
fees, interest, and penalties on the loan. As a pretext for the delay, Defendants demanded
that Plaintiff resubmit documents that had already been submitted. As a result, Plaintiff
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 15
16

paid more in interest, penalties and fees and the balance of his loan was higher when he
received a permanent modification.
72. Furthermore, contrary to Defendants’ multiple, conspicuous representations that Plaintiff
would not be charged any fees for his modification, Plaintiff was charged title fees,
recording fees, broker’s price opinion/appraisal fees, and other unspecified fees for his
HAMP modification. These fees were capitalized onto the balance of Plaintiff’s loan and
as a result he has paid interest on these fees.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
73. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks certification of
the following class (“the Class”):
All homeowners throughout the state of New York whose home loans were serviced and
modified by Wells Fargo under the HAMP program during the Class Period.

74. This putative class action meets the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
75. All members of the Class have been subject to and affected by the same conduct.
Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct with respect to all HAMP
modifications.
76. All members of the Class have been subject to and affected by Defendants’ intentional
delays in processing HAMP applications and granting permanent modifications and have
been assessed fees for their HAMP modifications and have suffered economic harm as a
result.
77. The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a),
satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy because:
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 16
17

78. Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of Class Members. The precise number of
members of the Class and their identities are ascertainable from the business records of
Defendants.
79. Common Questions of Fact and Law: The questions of law and fact common to the Class
Members which predominate over any questions which may affect individual Class
Members include, but are not limited to:
a) Whether Defendants are responsible for the conduct alleged herein which
was uniformly directed at Plaintiff and all members of the Class;
b) Whether Defendants’ misconduct set forth in this complaint demonstrates
that Defendants have engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business
practices with respect to their representations regarding Defendants’
HAMP modification program;
c) Whether Defendants’ false and misleading statements concerning their
HAMP modification practices and concealment of material facts regarding
their HAMP modification practices were likely to deceive reasonable
consumers;
d) Whether Defendants failed to act in good faith regarding Plaintiff’s and
Class Members’ HAMP modifications;
e) Whether Defendants provided Plaintiff and members of the Class with the
required information concerning their HAMP modifications.
f) Whether Defendants charged Plaintiff and Class Members fees for their
HAMP modifications;
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 17
18

g) Whether Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
h) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to injunctive
relief; and
i) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to money
damages under the same causes of action as the other members of the
Class.
80. Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of
the Class as the claims arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants and the relief
sought is common. Every member of the Class applied for and received a HAMP
modification and paid additional interest, fees, and costs because of Defendants’
intentional delays and misrepresentations. Each member of the class paid fees for their
HAMP modifications. Each of the Class Members have the same or substantially similar
claims to Plaintiff’s for relief against these practices.
81. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests do not
conflict with the interests of the members of the Class he seeks to represent; he has
retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and they
intend to vigorously prosecute this action. The interests of the members of the Class will
be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel. Defendants have acted in a
manner generally applicable to the Class, making relief appropriate with respect to Plaintiff
and the members of the Class. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members
of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications.
82. The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)
because a class action is superior. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), common issues of law and
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 18
19

fact predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the Class.
The issues of the Class fully predominate over any individual issue because Defendants
have acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class, so that final injunctive relief is
appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. In addition, this class action is superior to
other methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because, inter alia:
83. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy because:
a) The joinder of numerous individual members of the Class is impracticable,
cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or litigation
resources;
b) The individual claims of the members of the Class may be relatively
modest compared with the expense of litigating the claim, thereby making
it impracticable, unduly burdensome, expensive, if not totally impossible,
to justify individual actions;
c) When Defendants’ liability has been adjudicated, all claims of the
members of the Class can be determined by the Court and administered
efficiently in a manner far less burdensome and expensive than if it were
attempted through filing, discovery, and trial of all individual cases;
d) This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and
appropriate adjudication and administration of claims of the members of
the Class;
e) Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of
this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action;
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 19
20

f) This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among members of
the Class; and
g) The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class
action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation.
INJUNCTIVE CLASS RELIEF
84. Rules 23(b) (1), (2), and (3) contemplate a class action for purposes of seeking class-wide
injunctive relief. Since Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the
Class, injunctive relief on a Class-wide basis is a viable and suitable solution to remedy
their continuing misconduct.
85. The injunctive Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under
Rule 23(a), satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy because:
86. Numerosity: Individual joinder of the members of the injunctive Class would be wholly
impracticable. Plaintiff believes that Class Members number in the thousands. The
precise number and identities of the Class Members are ascertainable from Defendants’
business records.
87. Commonality: Questions of law and fact are common to members of the Class.
Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class. Thus, all members of
the Class have a common cause against Defendants to stop their misleading conduct
through an injunction. Since the issues presented by this injunctive Class deal exclusively
with Defendants’ misconduct, resolution of these questions would be necessarily common
to the Class. Moreover, there are common questions of law and fact inherent in the
resolution of an injunctive Class, including, inter alia:
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 20
21

a. Resolution of the issues presented in the 23(b)(3) Class;
b. Whether members of the Class will continue to suffer harm by virtue of
Defendants’ misrepresentations and deceptive and unlawful practices; and
c. Whether, on equitable grounds, Defendants should be prevented from
continuing to make misrepresentations and to engage in deceptive and
unlawful practices.
88. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the injunctive Class because his
claims arise from the same course of conduct. Plaintiff is a typical representative of the
Class because, like all members of the injunctive Class, he paid additional interest, fees
and costs as a result of Defendants’ intentional delays in processing his HAMP application
and in granting him a permanent modification, and paid fees for his HAMP modification.
89. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
injunctive Class. His claims are common to all members of the injunctive Class and he has
a strong interest in vindicating his rights. In addition, Plaintiff and the Class are
represented by counsel who is competent and experienced in consumer protection,
complex litigation and class action litigation.
90. The injunctive Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under
Rule 23(b)(2) because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the members of the
Class on grounds generally applicable to the entire injunctive Class. Certification under
Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate because Defendants have acted or refused to act in a manner
that applies generally to the injunctive Class. Any final injunctive relief or declaratory
relief would benefit the entire injunctive Class as Defendants would be prevented from
continuing their misleading, deceptive and unlawful practices.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 21 of 38 PageID #: 21
22

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
92. New York General Business Law Section 349 (“GBL § 349”) declares unlawful
“[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the
furnishing of any service in this state . . . .”
93. GBL § 349(h) directs that “any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of
[GBL § 349] may bring an action in his own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice
. . . .”
94. The conduct of Wells Fargo alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful” deceptive acts
and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the Class Members seek
monetary damages and the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
Wells Fargo, enjoining them from making misrepresentations regarding HAMP
applications and the HAMP modification process, from misrepresenting that they do not
charge fees for HAMP modifications, from misrepresenting that they follow HAMP
guidelines, and from intentionally extending the duration of the HAMP application process
and trial period in order to increase interest, fees, penalties or other costs of HAMP
applicants’ loans.
95. There is no adequate remedy at law.
96. Wells Fargo misleadingly, inaccurately and deceptively represented to Plaintiff and Class
Members that a HAMP modification could help them and could involve forgiving debt,
restructuring payments, and lowering their interest rates and that after their HAMP
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 22 of 38 PageID #: 22
23

application documents were submitted it would take up to 30 days for Wells Fargo to
review their documents and that their request would be processed as quickly as possible.
Wells Fargo made these misrepresentations with the intention of delaying the process
beyond 30 days in order to cause Plaintiff and Class Members to accrue interest, penalties
and fees and to increase their loan balances.
97. Wells Fargo misleadingly, inaccurately and deceptively misrepresented to Plaintiff and
Class Members that they would receive a permanent modification after they had
successfully made the final trial payment specified in their TPP Agreements on the defined
Modification Effective Date. Wells Fargo made each of these misrepresentations with the
intention of delaying the process beyond the period of time represented in order to cause
Plaintiff and Class Members to accrue interest, penalties and fees and to increase their loan
balances.
98. Wells Fargo misleadingly, inaccurately and deceptively misrepresented to Plaintiff and
Class Members that they would not be charged any fees for a HAMP modification. Wells
Fargo made each of these misrepresentations with the intention of charging Plaintiff and
Class Members fees for their HAMP modifications.
99. Wells Fargo misleadingly, inaccurately and deceptively misrepresented to Plaintiff and
Class Members that the bank administers its modification program pursuant to the HAMP
rules. Wells Fargo made each of these misrepresentations with the intention of violating
the HAMP rules for the purpose of assessing extra fees, interest and other costs onto the
loans of Plaintiff and Class Members.
100. Contrary to what Wells Fargo represented to Plaintiff and Class Members, the bank did not
process their HAMP applications within 30 days or as quickly as possible and did not grant
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 23 of 38 PageID #: 23
24

them permanent modifications on the Modification Effective Date after they had fully
complied with their TPP Agreements and timely made the final trial payment specified
therein.
101. Instead, Wells Fargo intentionally delayed the process in order to increase the interest,
fees, penalties and other costs incurred by Plaintiff and Class Members and to increase the
balance of their loans and to prevent them from pursuing other options that would have
been less costly to them.
102. As a pretext for the delays, Wells Fargo, inter alia, repeatedly demanded that Plaintiff and
Class Members submit documents that had already been submitted, and submit documents
and information that were not necessary or relevant to Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
qualifications for a HAMP modification.
103. Furthermore, contrary to Wells Fargo’s representations, the bank charged Plaintiff and
Class Members fees for their HAMP modifications.
104. Wells Fargo also, contrary to its representations, failed to comply with HAMP rules.
105. Wells Fargo’s improper consumer-oriented conduct caused interest, fees and penalties to
accrue on Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ loans and caused them to lose out on less
expensive options for saving their homes or otherwise minimizing the financial harm they
suffered from their inability to make their mortgage payments.
106. The delay also caused Plaintiff and Class Members to fall behind on their mortgages for a
longer period of time, and to have negative information about them reported to the credit
bureaus for a longer period of time. As a result, they had more difficulty obtaining credit,
and any credit they were able to obtain was more expensive than it would have been
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 24 of 38 PageID #: 24
25

otherwise. The increase in the balance of Plaintiff and Class Members’ loans also caused
them to pay more for taxes and insurance.
107. Wells Fargo made its untrue and/or misleading statements and misrepresentations and
engaged in deceptive acts and practices willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for
the truth.
108. Wells Fargo’ misrepresentations induced the Plaintiff and Class Members to apply for
HAMP modifications, enter into TPP Agreements, make payments, forego other less
expensive alternatives for saving their homes or to forego other opportunities to minimize
the financial harm sustained from their inability to make mortgage payments without a
modification, to spend time gathering information and submitting documents to Wells
Fargo, to pay fees for their HAMP modifications, to pay additional interest, fees, penalties,
costs, taxes and insurance premiums, and to pay more for their loans.
109. Wells Fargo’s deceptive and misleading practices constitute deceptive acts and practices in
the conduct of its business in violation of New York General Business Law § 349(a) and
Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged thereby.
110. As a result of Wells Fargo’s recurring, “unlawful,” deceptive acts and practices, Plaintiff
and Class Members are entitled to monetary, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Wells Fargo’s unlawful
conduct, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 25 of 38 PageID #: 25
26

112. Plaintiff and Class Members entered into TPP Agreements with Wells Fargo which were
valid, binding and enforceable agreements to permanently modify Plaintiff and Class
Members’ mortgages after they had made the final trial payments specified in their TPP
Agreements on the defined Modification Effective Date.
113. The TPP Agreements expressly evidenced the intent of Plaintiff and Class Members and
Wells Fargo to be bound by the terms agreed upon on the date they entered into the TPP
Agreements.
114. The TPP Agreements reflect the material and essential terms of Plaintiff’s and Class
Members’ agreements with Wells Fargo.
115. Plaintiff and Class Members timely performed all of their obligations under the TPP
Agreements with Wells Fargo as embodied in the TPP Agreements. Pursuant to the TPP
Agreements, Wells Fargo was obligated to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with
permanent mortgage modifications after they had made the final payment specified by their
TPP Agreements on the defined Modification Effect Date. The TPP Agreements also
required Wells Fargo to grant Plaintiff and Class Members permanent HAMP
modifications without charging them any modification fees. Wells Fargo materially
breached its obligations under the TPP Agreements by delaying the date on which Plaintiff
and Class Members were granted permanent modifications, and by charging them fees for
their HAMP modifications.
116. As a result of Wells Fargo’s breach of the TPP Agreements, Plaintiff and Class Members
incurred additional interest, fees and penalties, suffered damage to their credit ratings,
impaired their ability to obtain credit, increased the cost of any credit available to them and
paid more for insurance and taxes. Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 26 of 38 PageID #: 26
27

to suffer reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages resulting from such breaches,
including payment of increased interest, longer loan payoff times, higher principal
balances, deterrence from seeking other remedies to address their default and/or
unaffordable mortgage payments, and other damages for breach of contract.
117. Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged by Wells Fargo’s breach of the TPP
Agreements in an amount to be proven at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)
118. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
119. In its TPP Agreements that it signed and sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, Wells Fargo
intentionally misrepresented that if Plaintiff and Class Members made the trial period
payments specified therein and fully performed under their TPP Agreements, they would
be granted permanent HAMP modifications after making the final specified trial period
payment on the defined Modification Effective Date. Wells Fargo also represented to
Plaintiff and Class Members that they would not be charged any fees for receiving a
HAMP modification.
120. Wells Fargo knew these representations were false at the time it sent the TPP Agreements
to Plaintiff and Class Members. Wells Fargo made these misrepresentations to Plaintiff
and Class Members with the intention of assessing additional and undisclosed costs, fees,
penalties and interest on their loans. To achieve that end Wells Fargo planned to
purposefully delay the process of granting permanent HAMP modifications to
homeowners, including to Plaintiff and Class Members. Wells Fargo intended to place the
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 27 of 38 PageID #: 27
28

blame for the delays on Plaintiff and Class Members by misrepresenting that they had not
submitted all of the required documents or properly completed their HAMP paperwork.
121. Through this scheme devised by Wells Fargo, the bank intended to profit from its receipt
of government bailout funds while merely feigning compliance with the HAMP rules.
Wells Fargo further intended to use its feigned compliance with the HAMP rules and
misrepresentations in the Starter Kit and TPP Agreement to induce homeowners, including
Plaintiff and Class Members, into entering into and performing under TPP Agreements
with Wells Fargo.
122. Wells Fargo knew that throughout the HAMP application process and trial period, interest,
fees and costs would accumulate and would be capitalized onto the balance of Plaintiff’s
and Class Members’ loans once they were granted permanent HAMP modifications. By
misrepresenting the duration of the trial period, Wells Fargo misrepresented the amount of
costs, fees and penalties that would be charged to Plaintiff and Class Members.
123. Wells Fargo also intended to profit by charging HAMP modification fees to Plaintiff and
Class Members despite its multiple conspicuous representations to the contrary. This
intention is evidenced in part by Wells Fargo’s multiple, conspicuous representations that
it does not charge any fees for a HAMP modification in the Starter Kit and TPP
Agreement, and its identification of the HAMP modification fees in a footnote on a HAMP
modification document that is sent to Plaintiff and Class Members as one document in a
stack of many.
124. By representing that a HAMP modification would cost less for Plaintiff and Class
Members than Wells Fargo actually planned, the bank intended to induce them into
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 28 of 38 PageID #: 28
29

entering into TPP Agreements and permanent HAMP modification agreements instead of
pursuing other less expensive options.
125. These representations were material because they caused Plaintiff and Class Members to
pay substantially more for their loans (including costs, fees and penalties), and to pay more
for associated taxes and insurance. Wells Fargo also reported Plaintiff and Class Members
as delinquent for a longer period of time, which impaired their access to credit and made
any credit they could access more expensive.
126. These misrepresentations induced Plaintiff and Class Members into applying for a HAMP
modification and into entering into and performing under the TPP Agreements.
127. Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied on the representations Wells Fargo made
about their permanent HAMP modifications in their TPP Agreements and in the Starter
Kit. Wells Fargo was legally obligated to comply with the terms of its TPP Agreements.
Wells Fargo also had a legal duty to comply with the rules of the HAMP program.
128. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance on these false representations actually and
proximately caused them to suffer damages in that they paid extra interest, fees, costs and
penalties, the balance of their loans increased, their associated tax liabilities and insurance
premiums increased, they made TPP payments using money that could have been used to
pursue other avenues of relief, lost time, suffered damage to their credit scores, and lost the
opportunity to pursue other avenues for saving their homes and/or credit.
129. Plaintiff and Class Members seek actual damages caused by Wells Fargo’s false
misrepresentations, punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees in an amount to
be determined at trial, and an order compelling Wells Fargo to cease its practice of
intentionally causing delays in order to increase the fees, interest and costs that it can
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 29 of 38 PageID #: 29
30

charge to homeowners, and to cease making misrepresentations to homeowners regarding
the fees it charges for HAMP modifications.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

130. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
131. Wells Fargo is a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) because the loan was in
default or alleged to be in default at the time it was transferred to them for servicing.
132. Gross Polowy Orlans is a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The Act applies
to law firms, including when they engage in litigation activity, and Gross Polowy Orlans
regularly engages in debt collection activity.
133. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f provides that “[a] debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of
the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of
any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal
obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt
or permitted by law . . . .”
134. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides that “[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without
limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of
this section: . . . (4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will
result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment,
or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 30 of 38 PageID #: 30
31

collector or creditor intends to take such action[;] (5) The threat to take any action that
cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken[;] . . . . (10) The use of any false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain
information concerning a consumer.”
135. The foregoing acts and omissions of Wells Fargo and Gross Polowy Orlans constitute
numerous and multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)
including, but not limited to, provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.
136. Wells Fargo and Gross Polowy Orlans used unfair and unconscionable means to collect
and attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by collecting and attempting
to collect HAMP modification fees from Plaintiff and Class Members. Wells Fargo
represented in the Starter Kit and TPP Agreements that Plaintiff and Class Members would
not be charged any fees for receiving a HAMP modification. The HAMP modification
fees were also forbidden by the HAMP rules.
137. Wells Fargo and Gross Polowy Orlans used false, deceptive, and misleading
representations in connection with a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e when they
threatened and initiated foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff and Class Members.
Pursuant to the HAMP rules, Wells Fargo was forbidden from initiating foreclosure
proceedings against HAMP applicants who had not been determined to be ineligible for the
program or had not failed to perform under a TPP Agreement. Plaintiff and Class
Members were eligible for the HAMP program, had fully complied and were entitled to a
HAMP modification.
138. Wells Fargo and Gross Polowy Orlans used unfair and unconscionable means to collect
and attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by intentionally delaying the
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 31 of 38 PageID #: 31
32

HAMP application and modification process in order to increase the fees, interest, costs
and penalties charged to Plaintiff and Class Members, and also violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e
by making false representations in order to collect these increased fees, interest, costs and
penalties.
139. Plaintiff and Class Members have been and continue to be damaged by the Defendants’
violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Plaintiff and Class Members incurred legal costs
and fees, interest, penalties and other costs as a result of Defendants’ violations of 15
U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
140. As a result of each and every one of Defendants’ violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.,
Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)
141. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
142. Wells Fargo unambiguously promised to Plaintiff and Class Members that if they applied
for a HAMP modification and submitted their documents that Wells Fargo would review
them within 30 days and process their request for a HAMP modification as quickly as
possible.
143. Wells Fargo’s promise was intended to induce Plaintiff and Class Members into relying on
it so they would make payments and/or refrain from pursuing other options for saving their
homes or minimizing the financial harm caused by their inability to make their mortgage
payments without a modification.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 32 of 38 PageID #: 32
33

144. Plaintiff and Class Members indeed relied on Wells Fargo’s promises by submitting
HAMP applications, submitting the requested documents, fully complying with Wells
Fargo’s repeated requests for documents and information and otherwise fully complying
throughout the HAMP application process, making payments and/or refraining from
pursuing other options for saving their homes or otherwise minimizing the harm caused by
their inability to make their mortgage payments without a modification.
145. Given Wells Fargo’s representations Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance was
reasonable.
146. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance was to their detriment. Plaintiff and Class
Members incurred interest, penalties and fees as Wells Fargo delayed, made payments
and/or lost out on other opportunities to save their homes and/or remedy their inability to
make their mortgage payments without a modification, and suffered extended damage to
their credit scores which impaired their ability to access credit and increased the cost of
any credit they were able to obtain.
147. As a result of Wells Fargo’s behavior Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to damages,
interest, costs and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined at trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)
148. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
149. Wells Fargo unambiguously promised to Plaintiff and Class Members that if they accepted
the bank’s offer to enter into a TPP Agreement and fully performed all of the terms therein,
Wells Fargo would grant them a permanent modification after the final trial payment
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 33 of 38 PageID #: 33
34

specified therein had been made on the defined Modification Effective Date and that they
would not be charged any fees for their HAMP modifications.
150. Wells Fargo’s promise was intended to induce Plaintiff and Class Members into relying on
it to get them to make payments, perform their obligations under the TPP Agreements, and
to refrain from pursuing other options for saving their homes or otherwise minimizing the
financial harm caused by their inability to make their mortgage payments without a
modification.
151. Plaintiff and Class Members indeed relied on Wells Fargo’s promise by making payments,
fully complying with the terms of their TPP Agreements, and by refraining from pursuing
other options for saving their homes or otherwise minimizing the financial harm caused by
their inability to make their mortgage payments without a modification.
152. Given Wells Fargo’s representations, Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance was
reasonable.
153. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance was to their detriment. Plaintiff and Class
Members incurred interest, penalties, fees and costs as a result of Wells Fargo’s intentional
delays and intentional assessment of HAMP modification fees onto their loans. Plaintiff
and Class Members must also pay more in taxes and for insurance premiums as a result of
the increase in their loan balances. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered
extended damage to their credit scores which impaired their ability to access credit and
increased the cost of any credit they are able to obtain. Plaintiff and Class Members also
lost out on other less expensive options for saving their homes and/or otherwise
minimizing the financial harm caused by their inability to make their mortgage payments
without a HAMP modification.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 34 of 38 PageID #: 34
35

154. As a result of Well Fargo’s behavior, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to damages,
interest, costs and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined at trial.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CPLR. § 3408(f)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)
155. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
156. CPLR § 3408(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
[i]n any residential foreclosure action involving a home loan . . . in which the
[homeowner] is a resident of the property subject to foreclosure . . . the court shall
hold a mandatory settlement conference within sixty days after the date when
proof of service upon such [homeowner] is filed with the county clerk for the
purpose of holding settlement discussions pertaining to the relative rights and
obligations of the parties under the mortgage loan documents, including, but not
limited to . . . help[ing] the [homeowner] avoid losing his or her home, and
evaluating the potential for a resolution in which payment schedules or amounts
may be modified or other workout options may be agreed to[.]
157. CPLR § 3408(f) requires that “[b]oth the [lender] and [the homeowner] shall negotiate in
good faith.”
158. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith
pursuant to CPLR § 3408(f).
159. Defendants in bad faith and for the purpose of increasing the interest, fees, penalties and
other costs assessed on Plaintiff and Class Members’ loans, intentionally failed to consider
and evaluate Plaintiff and Class Members’ HAMP applications, delayed and/or failed to
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 35 of 38 PageID #: 35
36

reach or inform Plaintiff and Class Members of their decision regarding their HAMP
applications, made incorrect and false calculations, prolonged trial periods, repeatedly
demanded documents and information that had already been submitted and/or that was
unnecessary and irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ qualifications for a
HAMP modification, sent Plaintiff and Class Members conflicting and contradictory
communications and failed to timely attend all settlement conferences.
160. Furthermore, Wells Fargo sent their counsel, Gross Polowy Orlans, to settlement
conferences without authorization to dispose of the foreclosure case.
161. Defendants acted willfully and wantonly and with a design to defraud and to seek an
unconscionable advantage.
162. As a result of Defendants’ intentional failure to negotiate in good faith, Plaintiff and Class
Members were assessed additional interest, penalties, fees and other costs that were added
to the balance of their loans.
163. As a result of Defendants’ bad faith behavior Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
monetary and punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all
moneys obtained by means of Defendants’ bad faith behavior, interest, and attorneys’ fees
and costs.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)

164. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
165. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all Class Members, brings a common law claim for
unjust enrichment.
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 36 of 38 PageID #: 36
37

166. Because of Defendants’ misrepresentations and deceptive and unlawful practices Plaintiff
and Class Members accrued interest, fees, penalties and other costs.
167. Defendants’ unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint allowed Defendants to
knowingly realize substantial revenues to the detriment or impoverishment of Plaintiff and
Class Members and to Defendants’ benefit and enrichment. Defendants have thereby
violated the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
168. Plaintiff and Class Members conferred significant financial benefits and paid substantial
compensation to Defendants as a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and deceptive
and unlawful practices.
169. Under New York’s common law principles of unjust enrichment, it is inequitable for
Defendants to retain the benefits conferred by Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
overpayments.
170. Plaintiff and Class Members seek disgorgement of all profits resulting from such
overpayments and establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class
Members may seek restitution.
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, prays for judgment as follows:
(a) Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as the
representative of the Class under Rule 23 of the FRCP;
(b) Entering preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Wells Fargo, directing
Wells Fargo to correct its practices and comply with GBL § 349;
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 37 of 38 PageID #: 37
Case 1:15-cv-02338-DLI-RER Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 38 of 38 PageID #: 38

Download PDF
Email
Report

Note close

Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.

We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.

Please choose one of the above to proceed!

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.