Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wells Fargo Bank Sues Itself

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the so-crazy-it-just-might-work dept.

Businesses 445

Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions, and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one. They have decided to sue themselves. Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure. As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo. It gets better. The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit. The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint, "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property. All other allegations of the complaint are denied." On the website The Consumer Warning Network, Angie Moreschi wrote: "We've apparently reached the perfect storm for complete and utter idiocy by some banks trying to foreclose on homes."

cancel ×

445 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh, dear Atheismo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679429)

It's not satire... I weep for humanity

Re:Oh, dear Atheismo (2)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679479)

This is right up there with that politician who wanted to sue God.

Re:Oh, dear Atheismo (2)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679763)

no, that was actually funny and made a political statement.

This is just sad.

I hearby mod myself down! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679779)

This recursive post is totally off-topic!!

You can Do that? (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679433)

I'll See Me In court!!!

Not if I see me first! (5, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679465)

Just for this story we should be able to mod ourselves :)

Re:Not if I see me first! (1, Redundant)

ScoLgo (458010) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679579)

Yeah, but I would have to mod myself redundant.

Dammit.

Re:Not if I see me first! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679899)

Here is a great big **WHOOSH** to whomever modded this redundant.

Re:Not if I see me first! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679759)

What, like Kevin Warwick?

Re:Not if I see me first! (5, Funny)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679835)

Yeah, but you'd immediately have to metamoderate your moderation down, so it works out in the end.

Re:You can Do that? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679719)

I heard they have lavatories with mirrors. Help yourself.

Re:You can Do that? (2, Funny)

tmosley (996283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679991)

And when I can't pay up, I'll just ask the government for another bailout to pay the attorney fees and damages!

When a bailed out bank sues itself, we lose.

Latest news (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679457)

Sales of mattress have started picking up again.

Re:Latest news (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679653)

If companies can be this screwed up and turn a quarterly profit what will ultimately pick up is sales of barrels and suspenders. (unless you mean the mattresses should be put under Wall Street windows rather than used to hold your money.).

Re:Latest news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679881)

I hope so. I just bought 2000 shares of Sealy.

seriously?! (4, Insightful)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679469)

This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.

In all actual seriousness... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679557)

I need to ditch my fucking bank. No seriously, my money is with these loons.

Not only act of idiocy (5, Interesting)

Coldeagle (624205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679471)

I'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo, and I'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage. Honestly, I'm getting messages from the company that's servicing the property that the seller wants the deal closed as soon as possible, and that I need to pressure the lender! I mean honestly, this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they can't even deal with themselves. Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!

Re:Not only act of idiocy (4, Informative)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679537)

If you think that is bad, I pray that you never have to deal with Verizon at a corporate level. So many divisions, and each one is run like its own company and is completely separated from the others. It's pathetic.

Congrats on the purchase, btw! :)

Re:Not only act of idiocy (4, Informative)

autocracy (192714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679959)

That separation is government mandated anti-monopoly work stemming way back from Ma Bell time. The lender thing might be related to SEC rules. The lawsuit is just retarded. I hope the judge fines the plaintiff for wasting his time...

Re:Not only act of idiocy (2, Interesting)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680113)

It also has a lot to do with the merging of two companies to create Verizon in the first place, and GTE, at least, was already like that from buying up multiple companies in the past. When Verizon was formed, the division of GTE I worked for was sold to another company, and THAT company, also having spent a lot of time buying companies, was also that way.

The company I work for now is similar, with the specific group I work for having been part of a different company a few years ago. However, they seem to handle it a little better than either of the previous companies did.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (4, Funny)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680119)

I hope the judge fines the plaintiff and the defendant for wasting his time.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (3, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679569)

Too big to not fail?

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679597)

Yeah I don't know what's going on at Well Fargo. I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount. That's the first time I've ever received anything like that on any car loan I've taken out.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (2, Informative)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679679)

Probably because in the past you've promptly notified your lender that you have insurance.

I got a similar note from my lender (a local credit union) on my car loan 4ish years ago. They're just covering their bases and making sure you have the insurance mandated in the loan agreement - if you don't they charge you out the ass for theirs.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680235)

Actually, it depends on the lender. I spent a number of years paying too much for my car insurance because I paid for the level of insurance they wanted me to have in order not to have the insurance they would buy for me. I switched insurers when I moved and forgot to tell them (and got a better rate), and by the time I found out they had already started charging me, $50 a month. I could've saved myself almost $200/month on my insurance policy if I had just asked what they were going to charge for the insurance.

Of course, it should be noted that insurance only covers them for the value of the loan, so you still have to carry whatever insurance you feel secure carrying, but you shouldn't just carry whatever they want you to unless it really is cheaper than their insurance.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (2, Informative)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680231)

I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount.

It's somewhere in the fine print of your loan agreement: as the secured creditor, the bank wants to be sure they are the first beneficiary of any payment from your insurance company if the vehicle is totaled.

I'm not sure why it's the first time you've seen it: it's always been a requirement for vehicles that I financed.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679627)

The seller wants you to close as soon as possible because they know if they lose this sale, they will be waiting a long time and getting a lot less for the house.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679793)

I'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo, and I'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage. ... Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!

It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.
The truth is that they are made up of numerous units, branches, fiefdoms, etc etc etc.
It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679967)

It's prefectly believable and easy enough to understand - but it damn sure doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (5, Funny)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680009)

It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.

In fact, they're the exact opposite of a monolithic entity.

The monolith made our monkey ancestors more intelligent. Corporations are making us more stupidity again =(

Re:Not only act of idiocy (2, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680197)

even if you understand that, the fact that this nonsense ends up in court means there's no one in a management position prepared to actually make decisions.

Ok, different divisions have different objectives, but it's the job of the CEO to manage the company as a whole. This should all be resolved in conference room 101 internally

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680219)

It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.

No it doesn't, its still one company. There should already be a procedure in place to handle these kinds of conflicts. The fact that there isn't just shows we should have let this bank fail, because clearly they don't know what the fuck they're doing.

Re:Not only act of idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679897)

Coldeagle, as someone who placed an offer on a house in November but did not get possession of a Wells Fargo house until February, sit back and relax (and my mortgage company was ready to go 14 days after the offer) -- I got a $60,000 discount on a 2 year old house!

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680011)

I certainly wouldn't, but my alternate personality thinks you're nuts!

Re:Not only act of idiocy (1, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680055)

Don't use Wells Fargo.

I had a investment property, and the loan was sold to Wells Fargo. Several years ago I fell behind three months, so we reached an agreement and I started paying monthly again but that 3 months was always over my head. Well 2 years later the they wanted the 3 months + interest. I paid them the 3 months but didn't have the payment for the interest and continued making monthly payments. 6 months later they again wanted the interest. Told them I didn't have it so they foreclosed, but first they surprised me with a check equaling a year's worth of payments. I was told it was because they misappropriated my payments.

Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year's worth of payments. It's been on the market for nearly a year now.

Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they're selling the house for. I'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me, but it's been vandalized since and much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.

I don't think anyone at Wells Fargo knows what's going on. As a tax payer I'm disappointed that my $$$ went to a bank that wastes money.

crazy? (4, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679481)

Under normal circumstances I'd say this is completely wacked...but in legal land I guess it's just business as usual.

Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (5, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679487)

Suing yourself is collusive litigation. We pay taxes to support the legal system and it is outrageous for a corporation to abuse the already overburdened judicial system resolving disputes that are not really disputes.

There must be more to this story, though. Maybe it's Wells Fargo Holding Co., Inc. versus Wells Fargo Partners, Inc. That would make sense.

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679605)

Per TFA, apparently not - it's the same corporate entities on both sides.

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (4, Informative)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679621)

From the article: ...court documents clearly label "Wells Fargo Bank NA" as the plaintiff and "Wells Fargo Bank NA" as a defendant.

Aren't they supposed to spontaneously self-destruct when this happens?

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (4, Insightful)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679745)

I'm surprised the Judge hasn't called in both attorneys and chewed them out. They clearly deserve it.

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (5, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680071)

The judge is probably a Monty Python fan, and he's going to let the whole trial go through.

Then, at the end, he's going to say:

"I'm ruling against Wells Fargo, and in favour of Wells Fargo."

Then, promptly get up from the bench, and return to his chamber, all the while laughing at the sound of lawyer's heads exploding in the courtroom.

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680243)

> Aren't they supposed to spontaneously self-destruct when this happens?

Oh, if only.

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (2, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679741)

It's even worse that that--taxpayer money was given to Wells Fargo as part of the bailout, so in essence they are paying lawyers on both sides with public money and wasting public money by litigating against itself. I don't think there's any more to the story, except perhaps that the sudden discovery that every employee in their legal department has simultaneously and collectively found a way to shove their cranium into their rectum should have been equally as newsworthy, if not publishable in a scientific journal.

Re:Suing yourself is collusive litigation. (2, Insightful)

sargon666777 (555498) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679957)

Thats true, but they should have to pay court costs and so forth which should help absorb some of the impact to the tax payers. The really amazing part is the two law firms that are going to make a decent amount suing each other while representing the same client.

Okay, I'm officially impressed. (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679499)

How do I get a job there?

Re:Okay, I'm officially impressed. (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680155)

For a good start, graduate law school with a 2.00 GPA.

It's a wash. (5, Funny)

Queltor (45517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679507)

Wells Fargo better make sure the loser reimburses the winner's legal expenses!

Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (3, Funny)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679553)

why not increase the strangeness and have Wells Fargo hire Jack Thompson to represent one of the sides?

...

...

Oh, right.

Re:Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679641)

Why not hire him for both sides and let him have the experience of actually winning a case?

Re:Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28680227)

He'd be the only one who could pull off making the case even more strange by causing both sides to lose.

Re:Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (-1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679659)

Wait, Jack Thompson? Isn't he that dude on 24?

Re:Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679855)

No, but now I have the mental image of Jack Bauer beating the crap out of Jack Thompson.

That really made my day...

Re:Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (1)

autocracy (192714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680005)

You didn't stop to think of the following decade where we'd have to hear that Bauer played too much GTA?

Re:Since the lawsuit was filed in Florida ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28680101)

You're hiding a murder simulator between those ears?

Too many lawyers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679577)

I must come to the inescapable concludsion that there are too many lawyers in the U.S.

Re:Too many lawyers (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680105)

Yeah...maybe it's a bailout project to make work for all the unemployed lawyers.....

Coke did this (4, Funny)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679583)

I remember a similar case when Coke sued Coke Zero. It was all over TV a couple years ago.

Re:Coke did this (3, Informative)

deanoaz (843940) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679735)

Except that was a humorous Coke Zero ad campaign about how utterly stupid it would be if Coke sued itself. Wells Fargo is actually doing it.

Re:Coke did this (4, Insightful)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679885)

You know, the joke was funny enough without you having to explain it.

Re:Coke did this (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28680181)

Except that was a humorous Coke Zero ad campaign about how utterly stupid it would be if Coke sued itself. Wells Fargo is actually doing it.

You know, the joke was funny enough without you having to explain it.

Some of us don't have a TV you insensitive clod!

Re:Coke did this (1, Insightful)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679915)

Woosh!

Re:Coke did this (1)

legallyillegal (889865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679901)

Does the word Marketing mean anything to you?

Why Hire Another Lawyer? (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679587)

They could save a crap ton of money if they used the same guy to both prosecute and defend the case!

As a customer of Wells Fargo... (1)

Banichi (1255242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679589)

...trying to get a loan modification so I can keep my house, I must say that this fits with the general level of inanity I've observed from these yahoos.

Oblig. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679591)

Step 1: Sue self.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!!

Feedback loops... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679593)

Did anyone really think the banking industry was immune to one of prime forces of human nature?

There just doesn't seem to be an end to the stupidity that plagues the money farm....

To quote a simpler solution, "Jump You Fuckers!"

Schrodinger's Bank (5, Funny)

XiX36 (715429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679601)

They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome. Cool! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea. . .

I spent 5 minutes (1)

Blixinator (1585261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679607)

Trying to figure out what an Idle article was doing in YRO.

Florida requires it?! (5, Insightful)

bidule (173941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679635)

I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders. Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.

Re:Florida requires it?! (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679725)

Thanks for RTFA. I find that most of the time stories about "How incredibly stupid is this?" are often leaving out some crucial fact.

Re:Florida requires it?! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679943)

Even with that crucial fact it's still incredibly stupid.

Re:Florida requires it?! (1)

Manfre (631065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679955)

Regardless of facts being left out, the company is still suing itself, which is arguably stupid.

Re:Florida requires it?! (2, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680117)

Regardless of facts being left out, the company is still suing itself, which is demonstrably stupid.

Re:Florida requires it?! (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680015)

Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.

Which would be fine except that, as defendants, they are denying their own (plaintiff's) claims. That's the idiocy part.

Re:Florida requires it?! (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680041)

No, they have to INFORM all lienholders.

Just be glad I'm not Wells Fargo, or this would have counted as notice.

Are they pessimists or optimists? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679637)

That's an important question: Whether it's a win-win scenario or a lose-lose scenario for them depends on it.

On a serious note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679645)

If this is the clinical view banks take when foreclosing against themselves what hope is there for the common man.

And the winner is... (3, Insightful)

freejung (624389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679747)

The lawyers!

It actually makes a perverse kind of sense though. Banks can effectively lend money to themselves, so they should be able to sue themselves too!

Lewis Black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679749)

Hmmm... do we have a replacement for the Starbucks across from the Starbucks?

Eh (5, Informative)

BSDevil (301159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679755)

It's actually more common than you'd think. The meat of the story is really this line:

As holder of the first, Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is itself.

Wells Fargo (holder of the senior mortgage) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property. In the process of doing so, it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I'm going to buy some property, I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged. What will likely happen, however, is that junior Wells Fargo will settle with senior Wells Fargo, after doing some filings to show that it's done it's due dilligence in trying to protect it's fiduciary interest in the property.

Re:Eh (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679841)

That actually makes sense.

Re:Eh (3, Informative)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680067)

It's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at, it's the legal system that's so borked it requires a company to sue itself. Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense?

Re:Eh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680209)

It's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at, it's the legal system that's so borked it requires a company to sue itself. Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense?

If you want civilization to collapse, sure. Burn all those books and when a bank forecloses on you, they don't file a legal action but send a bunch of guys with baseball bats to throw you out of your house.

Re:Eh (2, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680077)

Except the defense is DISPUTING the claims of the plaintiff. If it was just for bookkeeping purposes, wouldn't the defense nod their heads, and rubber stamp a settlement?

Stupidity countdown (5, Insightful)

bperkins (12056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679813)

By my count, the bank is only the fifth stupidest here.
Let's count it down:

5) Wells Fargo

For getting itself in the position of having to sue itself

4) Florida State government

For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.

3) Al Lewis/Fox News

For writing/publishing this worthless article.

2) samzenpus

For posting this on slashdot.

1) Me

For commenting on this crap.

But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and pile scorn on the banks.

It'll take your mind off the fact that you're the real sucker.

Re:Stupidity countdown (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680007)

How is this a worthless article if it points out the stupidity of certain laws?

The Wells Fargo paradox (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679825)

replaces the Barbers paradox

Get in line (3, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679833)

Seems like a clear case of "heads, we win, tails, you lose". This lawsuit ensures that one part of wells fargo gets the proceeds of any auction or resale, and what's left over after satisfying the original note (yeah right)/ will still go to the other part of wells fargo. Maybe the 80% note is subordinate to the 20% note?

Crazy like a fox (4, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679861)

From another article on the same subject http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=48933.0 [doomers.us]

Attorney McKillop explains that to avoid suing itself a lender would typically release the lien against the property after the foreclosure goes through. By suing itself, the company avoids the step of having to file that additional paperwork. That, in effect, speeds up the time it takes to sell the property after foreclosing.

(McKillop represents the real defendant, the homeowner).

Seems like this is just a procedural trick to get the second lien dismissed during the original foreclosure case. Apparently Wells Fargo thinks it's worth paying an extra lawyer rather than having to wait for the voluntary release of the lien to go through. Pretty silly, but it is _Florida_ law at issue, after all...

Too big (1)

georgenh16 (1531259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679867)

Any organization that gets too big is a breeding ground for such stupidity and infighting.

Why we can't seem to learn that lesson and apply it to the government like our founding fathers did... this always saddens me.

Win-Win! (1)

georgenh16 (1531259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679893)

If they lose, the government will bail them out!

If anyone knows about sueing themselves it's (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679919)

FoxNews [guardian.co.uk]

Follow the (Insurance) Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28679949)

You need to follow the money. I suspect they are following the legal steps to cover their a$$es. Then, should they fail to recover the 2nd liens, they can invoke their in$urance policies and recover their lo$$es from the insurance carriers.
Back in the late 90's I couldn't sell my house and went thru bankruptcy (we needed to leave the area). The bank wouldn't negotiate a short sale. If they did, they would have taken a loss, but because we passed thru bankruptcy, they could recover the full balance of our mortgage from the insurance company. The PMI that cost me several thou$and at closing paid out many times over for the bank.

Who own's first? (1)

sparhawktn (818225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28679951)

Bud: Fargo owns first mortgage
Bud: Fargo owns second mortgage
Bud: I don't know owns third mortgage
Lou: That's what I want to know who to sue first
Bud: Fargo!
Lou: Fargo owns second?
Bud: Fargo owns first.
Lou: I don't know
Bud: Third base!


*Apologizes to Bud Abbot and Lou Costello

Re:Who own's first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28680177)

I thought you were referring to Bud Selig and Lou Piniella.

I'm glad (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680037)

that I am not the flack who will have to explain this to investors.

Tax deductable? (1)

piemcfly (1232770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680053)

This seems like a great way of laundering money...

1 - Sue yourself over some bullshit
2 - Pay outlandish fees to lawyer who's in on the deal (on both sides, of course, can't wait for him to object to himself in court)
3 - Make court battle drag on with continuously unearthed 'new evidence'
4 - Keep paying outlandish fees
5 - Settle case with yourself (including ridiculous settlement fee)
6 - Profit!


Or do even better: sue yourself over an issue that allows for tax deduction.
There are probably some details I'm overlooking here, but with some legal loopholery I'm sure this can work.

Yeah... (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28680207)

This is exactly why I don't bank with Wells Fargo anymore. Even the simplest tasks seemed to take them forever to fix. Apparently I should have asked them to sue themselves to fix day-to-day problems.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>