Matthew McCurley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

Regarding the defendant’s own language in the below linked Conciliation Agreement between US Department of Housing and Urban Development and Wells Fargo, N.A. - https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUDVWFCONCILIATION.PDF (U.S. District Court (USDC) Doc 24 - Pg 80 and Pg 86, Exhibit 1 of the District Court filing): “A cash offer from an investor or nonprofit organization to purchase an REO property shall not be considered a better offer if the offer is for the same or a lesser amount than an offer by an owner occupant who is purchasing the REO property with cash or with financing.” AND Consequences of Breach “The parties understand that if HUD has reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has breached this Agreement, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General of the United States to commence a civil action in the appropriate U.S. District Court, pursuant to 810(c) and 814(b)(2) of the Act” The forms put in place for auction participants to comply with the guidelines of the public conciliation agreement mentioned above based on federal law and the documents Wells Fargo and HUD submit to citizens, customers and bidders read: “The undersigned understands that any misrepresentations made on this form as to the agreed to provisions may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment, or both, under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 1010.” “Respondent acknowledges that it is unlawful to retaliate against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Act and that any such act of retaliation constitutes a material breach of this Agreement and a violation of the Act.” - 2013 Conciliation Agreement Paragraph 16, (USDC Doc 24 - Pg 76, Exhibit 1) i