Phillip R. Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Amira Jackmon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The cases arose from Wells Fargo’s administration of the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a program established during the 2008 financial crisis to help struggling homeowners modify their mortgages. Plaintiffs Phillip Corvello and Amira Jackmon, on behalf of nationwide classes, alleged that Wells Fargo engaged in deceptive practices by failing to honor its HAMP obligations. Specifically, they claimed the bank improperly denied permanent loan modifications after borrowers had successfully completed Trial Period Plans (TPPs) in which they made the reduced payments required under HAMP.

The plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo’s conduct violated contractual commitments as well as state and federal consumer protection laws. They argued that once borrowers complied with the terms of the TPP—including making timely payments and providing required documentation—Wells Fargo was contractually obligated either to grant a permanent modification or to promptly notify borrowers of ineligibility. Instead, Wells Fargo allegedly left many borrowers in limbo, continued to collect trial payments, and then denied modifications without explanation, leading to foreclosures and financial harm.

Wells Fargo denied wrongdoing and contended that participation in a TPP did not guarantee a permanent loan modification. The bank argued that the TPPs were conditional offers contingent on additional eligibility determinations, such as income verification and investor guidelines. Wells Fargo also asserted that administrative complexity and federal oversight made strict compliance with HAMP obligations difficult, and therefore no enforceable contractual promise was breached when modifications were not granted.

Defense counsel from K&L Gates retained The Bureau to opine on whether the least sophisticated mortgage borrower would understand the terms of the TPP and whether Wells Fargo clearly represented that permanent modification was not guaranteed. The Bureau assessed the quality of disclosures made by Wells Fargo by conducting salience analysis, assessed the value to borrowers of delaying personal bankruptcy, and evaluated surveys performed by Plaintiff experts as a survey expert.