Wells Fargo Unfairly Repossesses Vehicles, Class Action Lawsuit Says

Wells Fargo is violating state and federal laws regulating repossessed vehicles, a class action lawsuit alleges. 

The plaintiffs say they were making loan payments to Wells Fargo when their vehicles were repossessed starting in 2014. During this process, they claim they weren’t properly notified by Wells Fargo, had “unfair” fees attached to the outstanding balance and were not given a fair chance to redeem the seized vehicle. 

“Plaintiffs challenge Defendant’s concealed wrongdoings including…Defendant’s systematic ending of statutorily non-compliant [repossession notices] which failed to inform the debtor of the intended method of disposition, their redemption rights, and fees which resulted in an inaccurate redemption amount,” according to the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit. 

During the repossession notice process, plaintiffs say Wells Fargo violated the federal Uniform Commercial Code and Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act .

“Repossessors of vehicles; such as Wells Fargo, are required to comply with both the UCC and MVSFA,” the plaintiffs said.

The repossession notice from Wells Fargo “failed to state that the borrower had the absolute right to redeem the vehicle up until the date of the sale,” according to the class action lawsuit. Instead, plaintiffs claim, the notice “improperly” limited the amount of time to redeem. 

Additionally, plaintiffs claim the repossession notice sent by Wells Fargo provided “conflicting” statements regarding the money owed to get their vehicles returned, which was “especially confusing” and against Pennsylvania’s motor vehicles finance law regarding a description of liability. 

Plaintiffs point to the language Wells Fargo used in the repossession notice. At first, according to the class action lawsuit, the repossession notice said paying “full amounts owed” would reinstate the loan, but the consequent messaging gave an option of “paying the full amount owed or by paying the past due payments.” 

The repossession notice sent by Wells Fargo to plaintiffs also uses the term “reinstate” and “redeem” interchangeably when “these are separate terms and processes,” according to the lawsuit, and adds to plaintiff confusion. 

In addition, the repossessed vehicles were taken to auction prior to a required 15-day redemption period, plaintiffs said. 

According to the class action lawsuit, Wells Fargo led plaintiffs to believe their vehicles would be sold in a private auction, but were instead listed publicly.

“Wells Fargo systematically failed to inform the Public Auction Class Members that their vehicles were being sold at a public sale, and the date and time of that sale, as required,” plaintiffs said. 

The repossessed vehicles were being handled by unlicensed repossession brokers, according to the class action lawsuit, something required by both the MVSFA and UCC. Specifically, plaintiffs point to the use by Wells Fargo of Victory Recovery Services. 

“Victory is a company incorporated in Georgia that is neither registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania nor licensed as a repossession broker in the Commonwealth.” 

These third party brokers were allowed to charge additional fees not allowed by law, according to the class action lawsuit. The repossession notice also failed to disclose the entirety of the fees.

“Wells Fargo (or its broker) had arrangements with the repossessor, repossession broker, and/or auction permitting the assessment of a Storage Fee, Redemption Fee, Reinstatement Fee, Administrative Fee, and/or Personal Property Fee that would be required to be paid by the borrower to these third parties in addition to the reinstatement and redemption amounts stated in the Notice of Repossession,” according to the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit. 

Plaintiffs claim the amounts owed were not accurately detailed in the repossession notice. These fees are “not actual, necessary, or reasonable expenses as they were not expenses incurred by Wells Fargo,” according to the class action lawsuit.  

Plaintiffs Joseph and Tammy Yerty says they reinstated their loan with Wells Fargo after getting a repossession notice but were surprised to see they owed even more when they traveled to the repossessor (a subcontractor of Victory recovery services). 

“This deceptive and unfair practice had the effect of imposing a non-consensual lien on the personal property owned by Class Members which neither Wells Fargo nor any third party had a right to assert,” plaintiffs said.

Additionally, plaintiffs claim Wells Fargo failed to send “post sale” notices via certified mail after the vehicle was auctioned off. 

The case, filed initially in Pennsylvania state court, has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Have you received a repossession notice from Wells Fargo? Let us know in the comments below.

Richard Shenkan of Shenkan Injury Lawyers LLC is representing the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit. 

The Wells Fargo Repossession Notice Class Action Lawsuit is Vincent Sorace, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 2:20-cv-04318, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Wells Fargo COVID-19 Mortgage Forbearance Policy Sparks Suit

Exxon and PBF Energy Reach $4.4M California Wage and Hour Settlement

Wells Fargo Home Loan Class Action Filed Over Date ‘Corrections’

Are There Any Zantac Side Effects?