(MintPress)—A 61-year-old California woman whose husband committed suicide in the midst of a lengthy foreclosure battle with Wells Fargo is speaking out as an advocate for a Homeowners Bill of Rights, which would aid homeowners in loan negotiations and mandate that banks provide one single representative for those battling the foreclosure process.
Oriane Rousseau’s advocacy stems from a desire to ensure that what happened to her and her late husband, Norman, will never be duplicated. Her husband shot himself days before the couple was set to be evicted from their home, due to a lengthy foreclosure process.
The Rousseau’s story isn’t one of financial mismanagement, but rather one of a convoluted bank bureaucracy system that left the couple, who had always been able to afford the house, in a somewhat hopeless situation, according to the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
In April, 2009, the couple paid their monthly mortgage to Wells Fargo, to the tune of roughly $1,600. As they did with all other transactions, they paid with a cashier’s check at their local bank and collected their receipts to prove the payment had been made. When they received notice from Wells Fargo that the monthly payment had not been received, they attempted to remedy the situation, thinking their receipt would clear it all up — but it certainly did not. Instead, it launched the couple into a three-year-long battle that ended in the foreclosure of their home.
Oriane Rousseau’s loss of her husband isn’t causing her to give up the fight — instead, she has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Norman and herself, alleging Wells Fargo took part in mortgage fraud.
American dream turned nightmare
Norman and Oriane purchased their Ventura County single family residence home in March 2000, presenting a 30 percent down payment for the purchase and securing a loan with Wachovia bank (before it was purchased by Wells Fargo), according to the court complaint filed on behalf of the couple.
Starting in April 2002, they were encouraged to refinance their loan — a suggestion made by World Savings Bank representatives who served the couple during their monthly loan payments.
“The teller urged Plaintiffs to meet with a World loan consultant to discuss new loan products available to valued, long-term and well-qualified customers such as the Rousseaus,” according to the complaint.
It wasn’t until 2007 that the couple agreed — on the condition that the loan would remain on a 30-year-fixed cycle. The bank advisor allegedly encouraged the couple to take on a lower interest finance loan, which he concluded could potentially lower payments by $600. It did not do that, however.
The couple made monthly payments on time at their local Thousand Oaks, Calif. branch from the time of the refinanced loan — in 2007 — up until 2009, when their loan statement showed a delinquency for their April payment and a $15 charge for a non-sufficient funds check.
This is when their story took a turn for the worse. The court complaint tells the tale of a couple frustrated with what they allege was a banking error. They had proof that payment had been taken out of their account and held the receipt from that very bank that the payment had been made. After filing a faxed complaint to the corporate office, under the direction of their local branch manager, they rest assured that it would all be cleared up.
While waiting for their claim to be handled, they received a letter stating they were two months behind schedule — a call to the bank was seemingly successful, as telephone banker John Nickells allegedly apologized for the mistake, stating records showed the couple was up-to-date on payments.
Even after a verbal confirmation that the couple had been cleared, they received a letter, dated Aug. 21, claiming a past due amount of $3,487. The couple then turned to legal help, frustrated with the banking system and struggling to make payments after the recent loss of Norman’s job. They sought legal help in an attempt to refinance their loan.
While the bank eventually did clear up the April payment, the couple continued to receive conflicting balance reports in the mail — often within weeks of one another.
The couple attempted to pay their regular payments at the bank branch, but were repeatedly told they could not, citing the fact that a refinancing application was pending. Checks were mailed to the corporate office, according to the complaint.
Still, the couple was receiving foreclosure warnings in the mail. The cycle of confusion and alternating statements from the bank allegedly continued, all while the couple was coping with the loss of Norman’s job. While still attempting to make payments at the bank, they were told they could not do so — and the letters kept coming from Wells Fargo.
Eventually, the bank informed the couple they did not qualify for the loan modification program they applied for, citing the fact that they did not receive requested information — legal representation claimed such information had been faxed numerous times.
In November, 2010, the couple was given notice that $26,000 was due for reinstatement of loans — a price they were willing to pay by draining retirement accounts. However, withdrawing such funds could not be done in one swift act, as accounts had provisions for taking money out. The couple did not meet the bank’s deadline, set at nine business days.
Norman shot himself May 13 — as the couple awaited the imminent foreclosure on their home.
In an interview with the British newspaper, The Guardian, Oriane said the foreclosure battle took a terrible toll on her late husband. “He saw no way out,” she told the newspaper.
She’s now using her story and the pending lawsuit against the now Wells Fargo Bank to showcase the fight of many she considers to be just like her.
Wells Fargo is standing by its actions.
“Despite current reports, we tried repeatedly to find affordable options for the family,” A Wells Fargo spokesperson told The Guardian.