Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.

A Cincinnati Immigration Law Firm

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Directions
      • Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.
      • Cleveland Immigration Court
      • USCIS Cincinnati Field Office
    • Why I do what I do
  • Immigration
    • Family Immigration Home
      • K-1 Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)
      • Marriage Green Card
      • Removal of Conditions on Status (I-751)
    • Investment Immigration
      • E-2 Treaty Investor Visa
      • EB-5 Visas
    • Employment Immigration
      • Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1
      • Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2
      • Employment Immigration H-1B
    • Naturalization 2021
    • Preventing Deportation
      • Immigration Court Video
      • Immigration Law Violations
      • Cancellation of Removal
      • I-212 Waivers
      • I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • Work Card or Employment Authorization Document
    • Nonimmigrant Options
      • H-1B Visas For Specialty Occupations, Like Yours
      • The B Visas: Business or Pleasure?
      • Types of Visas for Temporary Visitors
      • E-1/E-2 Eligibility Requirements
        • The E-1 Treaty Trader Visa
          • E-1 Treaty Traders Details
        • E-2 Treaty Investor Visa
    • I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
    • I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • Criminal Law and Immigration
    • Temporary Protected Status
    • USCIS Processing Times Calculator 2021
  • Legal Information
  • Archive & Site Map
  • Log In / Out

Wells Fargo’s Procedure of Freezing Accounts After A Bankruptcy Filing Invalidated

July 7, 2010 by Thomas Geygan

by Adrian Lapas, Eastern North Carolina Bankruptcy Attorney on July 6, 2010 · Posted in *Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Cases & Legislation on BankruptcyLawNetwork.com

Last week, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Ninth Circuit decided Mwangi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  At issue was Wells Fargo’s national procedure of running a computerized comparison of all newly filed chapter 7 bankruptcy cases against Wells Fargo’s list of account holders.  If one of Wells Fargo’s account holders had also filed a chapter 7, then Wells Fargo would immediately “freeze” the account so that the debtor would not have access to his or her money.  Wells Fargo would then send a letter to the chapter 7 trustee seeking instructions for disbursement of the money.

In the Mwangis’ case, the chapter 7 trustee did not instruct Wells Fargo as to what it should do, that is, to pay the money to the trustee, release the money to the debtor, or do something else.  The debtors claimed that 75% of the money in their account was exempt under the applicable exemption scheme and demanded that Wells Fargo return the money to them.  Wells Fargo refused to release the funds to the debtors.  The debtors then filed a motion for sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362 alleging a violation of the automatic stay.

The BAP concluded that Wells Fargo’s policy of placing an administrative hold or “freeze” on the account constituted “exercising control” over property of the bankruptcy estate.  It further stated that the knowing retention of estate property violates the automatic stay subjecting the creditor to potential liability.  Though Wells Fargo argued that it merely held such funds pending directions from the trustee, the court stated that, since no instructions were forthcoming, Wells Fargo was under an obligation to do something–either release the funds to the trustee; release the funds to the debtors after demand was made by the debtors or seek direction from the bankruptcy court.  Wells Fargo did none of those things.

The BAP held that Wells Fargo’s national policy of freezing accounts violates the automatic stay.  However, a further issue to consider on remand will be whether Wells Fargo’s administrative freeze on the account after receiving no instructions from the trustee was reasonable in light of the debtors’ demand that the funds be released to them.  If Wells Fargo’s continued freeze on the funds was unreasoanble then debtors are entitled to recover damages, if any, under § 362(k)(1).

As bankruptcy lawyers, we are generally aware of creditors’ policies regarding various issues.  However, we have no control over a creditor changing their policy–even when it turns out to be completely at odds with the Bankruptcy Code.

Filed Under: Bankruptcy, Chapter 7

Client Resources

May 15, 2017

 

More Posts from this Category

Featured Posts

Biden administration considers migrant restrictions similar to Trump policies.

Asylum rates drop as immigration cases are fast-tracked.

Contact Us

Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.

8050 Hosbrook Road, Suite 107
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236
Tel 513-791-1673
Fax 513-791-1683
info@geygan.com

Disclaimer and Privacy Policy

Lawyer Thomas Geygan | Featured Attorney Immigration

Copyright © 2023 · Enterprise Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in