Rose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 529
| D.C. | 2013Background
- In 1999 James Rose executed a deed of trust to secure a mortgage; Wells Fargo later became holder of the note.
- James defaulted; Rose (his widow and personal representative) received a D.C. statutory foreclosure notice dated May 5, 2010, scheduling sale for June 10, 2010.
- The notice identified the holder as Wells Fargo and listed the holder’s address as “Wells Fargo … c/o Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC” (the foreclosure counsel/agent) and gave both parties’ phone numbers.
- Sale occurred June 10, 2010; substitute trustee’s deed conveyed the property to purchaser 101 Geneva LLC and was recorded.
- Rose sued to void the sale, alleging defects in the foreclosure notice (wrong/addressed to agent), failure to record transfers, statutory power-of-attorney defects, and CPPA violations; trial court granted judgment/summary judgment for Wells Fargo and Rose appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing holder’s address as “c/o” agent in foreclosure notice violated D.C. notice rules | Rose: agent’s address does not satisfy requirement to give holder’s address; strict compliance required | Wells Fargo: agent address was reasonably precise, identified Wells Fargo as holder and provided contact info; defect de minimis | Court: no invalidation — de minimis deviation; notice adequate to inform and contact holder/agent |
| Whether failure to record transfer/assignment under D.C. recordation statutes precludes foreclosure | Rose: mandatory recordation statute means holder cannot foreclose if interest not recorded | Wells Fargo: transfer of note vests enforceable rights; recordation protects third parties but does not bar foreclosure | Court: recording requirement is tax-related; failure to record does not defeat foreclosure rights |
| Whether omission of statutorily required language on power of attorney deprives Rose of relief | Rose: defect in power of attorney (and related deed of appointment) invalidates proceedings | Wells Fargo: any formal defects are curable and plaintiff lacks cognizable injury from omission | Court: Rose lacks standing to challenge that omission; claim rejected as not within zone of interests |
| Whether alleged statutory defects support a CPPA claim | Rose: failures (notice/address, recordation, power-of-attorney formalities) are unlawful trade practices/omissions | Wells Fargo: alleged defects were not material and caused no injury; CPPA requires injury-in-fact | Court: no material misrepresentation/omission and Rose shows no cognizable injury; CPPA claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Boddie v. Robinson, 430 A.2d 519 (D.C. 1981) (invalidated tax sale for incorrect address despite delivery; example of strict compliance)
- Independence Fed. Sav. Bank v. Huntley, 573 A.2d 787 (D.C. 1990) (applied strict compliance where statute required certified mail)
- Bank-Fund Staff Fed. Credit Union v. Cuellar, 639 A.2d 561 (D.C. 1994) (invalidated foreclosure for omission of cure amount)
- Gore v. Newsome, 614 A.2d 40 (D.C. 1992) (permitted de minimis name/address deviation; focus on whether notice likely to mislead)
- Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, 991 A.2d 20 (D.C. 2010) (transfer of note carries enforceable security interest even without formal assignment)
- Grayson v. AT & T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (zone-of-interests and standing in statutory consumer claims)
- Osbourne v. Capital City Mortg. Corp., 667 A.2d 1321 (D.C. 1995) (prior CPPA standing/"damage" discussion referenced in later analysis)