Wells Fargo Student Loan Consolidation

The use of small claims court against a secondary lender is still very much a simple issue. They were successful in killing her Sallie Mae loan without first seeking confirmation that she wanted the loan at the interest rate and amount stated. The fact that NOTHING was forwarded to her says this is a fraudulent... truth in lending... loan meant to capture new business with no meeting of the minds.

The question of whether the $70K loan value could negate the use of small claims is moot. What she would sue for is the increase in rate over time since they have now killed her SM loan. That amount could easily reach big numbers over 15 years, but for now, let's just say that given the circumstances, the court can order them to give her a replacement loan for the rate she was informed she could get in the first place. In no way can a loan company kill a government loan without first getting a VALID agreement on the loan.

This could easily end up as a class action suit against Wells Fargo. THAT is why I said she should go to the state Attorney General. She needs her own lawyer, but from what she says, she HAS covered her bases for proof. I'd bet the attorney general WILL be an asset to negotiations to replace the fraudulent loan with a reasonably priced replacement loan... or that they will have to reinstate the Sallie Mae loan.

So... go have a talk with the right folks. We don't need to give you anything more. You know where to go and what you must do.

Small claims limitations are usually no more than $7,500.

It is up to $15K now in some states, Grace.

With President Obama's new impetus to have attorneys general file fraud charges against those who commit financial frauds against the public, Wells Fargo might have bitten off more than they will find palatable.

Some, sure. Tennessee is actually 25K.

Even so, it doesn't come close to the 70K the poster mentioned.

I will repeat, poster is not going after a judgement on his outstanding balance, he is going after a judgement to pay the INTEREST on that balance... until they fix the fraud problem by getting a loan Poster can agree to or reinstating the Sallie Mae loan through negotiations with the Feds... but Wells Fargo better watch out. If this gets to the feds attention, it is likely to be the first suit brought against a bank defrauding a customer on a loan.

The poster cannot bring suit 1. for am amount he does not know ( since there is no way of knowing how long to loan will remain with WF or 2. without a finding of wrongdoing on WF's part.

You cannot sue for an amount that has not been determined by a party who it has not been determined has done any wrong.

That is what the judge is for. Are you now going to say that the judge won't make that call in small claims court? Are you recommending it be taken to civil court?

Basically the poster should be taking this issue to the Attorney General of that state with a very simple written statement a copies of all the documentation. It is fraud and that is what they are there for. It is my contention that the AG will assist the complaintant in negotiating a settlement that will be satisfactory. I see it as a means to ending Poster's part in what may become a lengthy fraud trial against WF.

Why do you keep changing the subject and trying to invalidate advice that is straight and reasonable?

Changing the subject?? I addressed comments YOU made.

A JUDGE cannot award her interest she overpaid because of their error UNTIL it has been RULED that they MADE an error. And no, a judge cannot rule on that unless he addresses the 70K in its entirety.

So, the answer to your question is no--a judge cannot award her damages ( interest ) unless a court with the proper jurisdiction decides WF was in the wrong.

I never addressed the attorney general comments---I believe that is a prudent thing to do. But, sue for interest? She has to PROVE FIRST they had no right to take this action in the first place---and that has not been determined.

AND when it IS determined, she is entitled to much more than back interest overpayments.

And you incorrectly distinguish between small claims and civil court by asking" Do you mean she should go to civil court?"

SMALL CLAIMS IS civil court.

If you are asking if she should attempt to remand the case to a higher court the answer is yes. In my state that would be general sessions---as it is in the majority of states.

And no, the attorney general is NOT an arbitrator to negotiate civil cases. They prosecute CRIMINAL cases. United States Attorney General Office - US District Attorney Office

Amazing someone that doesn't know the role of attorney general, and who doesn't even know that a prosecutor doesn't attend civil court cases is doling out "legal advice".

*eyeroll*

The poster needs to get the Sallie Mae loan back. Since Wells Fargo committed fraud in moving the loan to their bank, Poster needs to contact the direct loan department for reinstatement due to this fraud (be sure you have your account numbers and a strong statement in a letter as to what WF did to get your loan cancelled) AND to get WF fixed for doing this, poster needs to contact the state attorney general.

Banks that prey on the unsuspecting should be summarily corrected. If the state and the AG demand good banking practices done in their jurisdiction, the AG will be the one with that onus.... if they don't give a darn, well, civil court ... and yes, small claims is civil court, but it might not have jurisdiction over banking law (check with a local bar association member to find out). Civil fraud with poster as plaintiff is in civil court too, but it is an entirely different venue...It is too expensive an action for an interest problem. This is frankly a matter for criminal attorneys, given the subterfuge carried out by Wells Fargo... so go there next.

Because it is not ACCURATE.

There is a fine line between ERROR and FRAUD.

Obviously, fraud occurs at times in banks. But when you have a company that is well established and well respected in the banking community, it could be argued that what she is facing is not a cohesive attempt by Wells Fargo to commit FRAUD, but rather merely ERROR of substandard employees.

In order to prevail in an action for FRAUD, you must prove 1. motive 2. intent 3. opportunity and 4. repetitive acts 5. Witness statements and 6. concealment.

She is going to have a hard time proving WELLS FARGO committed all six of this criteria. While fraud happens, it seems pretty clear that this was an error made by employees who cannot and should not be employed there any longer. This does not mean that Wells Fargo is not responsible to FIX the error, but it does mean they are probably NOT guilty of intentional opportunistic FRAUD.

And as I mentioned before, the attorney generals ROLE is NOT one of arbitrator. So, the attorney general would not work as a liaison between the feuding parties as was suggested below.