Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart)

Citation:
--- F.3d ---- (5th Cir. 2011); Case No. 09-30832 (July 22, 2011)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) vacated the injunction entered by the bankruptcy court (391 B.R. 327), and affirmed by the district court (No. 08-3225, 2009 WL 2448054), because it “exceed[ed] the reach of the bankruptcy court in this case.” The bankruptcy court’s injunction required Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) to: (1) “audit every proof of claim it has filed in this District in any case pending on or filed after April 13, 2007”; (2) “‘provide a complete loan history on every account’ and to file that history with the appropriate court”; and (3) “amend…proofs of claim already on file to comply with the principles established in this case and [In re Jones, 366 B.R. 584 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2007)].” The Circuit Court found that: (1) Dorothy Chase Stewart (the “Debtor”) lacked standing to support the injunction as there was no “‘immediate threat that [that she would] again’ suffer similar injury in the future” and, therefore, no “case or controversy regarding prospective relief”; and (2) “the inherent power of the [bankruptcy] court to protect its jurisdiction and judgments and control its docket” did not otherwise demonstrate a need for the injunction. Hence, the bankruptcy court “lacked jurisdiction to order injunctive relief in this case.” In vacating the injunction, the Circuit Court noted that “[w]hile justification for the bankruptcy court’s frustration is plentiful, its injunction lacks jurisdictional legs.” Other issues raised by Wells Fargo on appeal that related to the bankruptcy court’s “legal rulings interpreting the mortgage agreement” were dismissed as moot; the parties reached settlement on those issues prior to oral argument.
Procedural context:
Appeal from the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana affirming the decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which issued an injunction requiring Wells Fargo, in any bankruptcy case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana since April 2007, to audit every proof of claim filed, provide and file a complete loan history for every account, and amend proofs of claim already filed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s ruling in a previous case. The Circuit Court vacated the injunction for lack of jurisdiction. Other issues on appeal were dismissed as moot.
Facts:
The Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2007. Wells Fargo held a mortgage on the Debtor’s home and filed a proof of claim for the outstanding amounts due. The Debtor sought a full accounting from Wells Fargo, which Wells Fargo would not immediately produce. Following “two…hearings and four months of research” by the bankruptcy court of the incomplete information and documentation provided by Wells Fargo, “the bankruptcy court was able to unravel Wells Fargo’s accounting.” Only then did Wells Fargo produce “a full reconciliation of [the Debtor’s] mortgage account,” which revealed that Wells Fargo’s proof of claim on file was “rife with errors…[that] caused Wells Fargo to overstate its claim by more than $10,000.” Relying in part on its findings in another case, which findings it incorporated by reference, the bankruptcy court “found that Wells Fargo’s mortgage claims exhibit systematic errors arising from its highly automated, computerized loan-administration system.” As proofs of claim must be treated prima facie valid pursuant to Section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3001(f) and “courts are unable to review or correct erroneous charges except on the rare occasion they are disputed by a debtor,” the bankruptcy court perceived Wells Fargo’s “systematic errors” to be “a threat to the integrity of the bankruptcy system” and issued an injunction. Wells Fargo appealed.
Judge(s):
Higginbotham, Clement, Owen

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3923 in the system

3801 Summarized

0 Being Processed