Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank N A et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

W.D. La.August 26, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION BRITNEY N. JONES * CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV2513 * VERSUS * JUDGE WALTER * WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL * MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant summary judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor on the claims asserted against Cox Management Services (“Cox Management”) and Image Remodeling & Repairs, LLC (“Image Remodeling”) in its Third-Party Complaint for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in support. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum in support, Wells Fargo prays that its Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and that Cox Management and Image Remodeling be found separately, solidarily, jointly and/or severally liable to Wells Fargo for contribution and indemnity to the full extent of any liability imposed upon Wells Fargo with respect to the claims and demands asserted against it by Plaintiff. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1401 2 Respectfully submitted, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC BY: /s/ Katie L. Dysart KENT A. LAMBERT (La. Bar No. 22458) BRIAN M. BALLAY (La. Bar No. 29077) KATIE L. DYSART (La. Bar. No. 31449) MEGHAN E. CARTER (La. Bar No. 35074) 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Telephone: (504) 566-5200 Facsimile: (504) 636-4000 E-mail: klambert@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: bballay@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: kdysart@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: mcarter@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEYS FOR WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this the 26th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record who have consented to electronic notification. s/Katie L. Dysart Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1402 1 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION BRITNEY N. JONES * CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV2513 * VERSUS * JUDGE WALTER * WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL * MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its accompanying Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons explained herein, Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment on its third-party claims asserted against Cox Management Services and Image Remodeling & Repairs, LLC. BACKGROUND In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Britney N. Jones Brown (“Plaintiff”) has brought claims against Wells Fargo based on two theories of recovery: (1) redhibition and (2) fraud. Plaintiff seeks to hold Wells Fargo liable for damages claimed as a result of alleged mold found in a foreclosure property (the “Property”),1 originally purchased from Wells Fargo by her ex-husband, Mr. Kelly Daniel Jones (“Mr. Jones”), and transferred to Plaintiff in October of 2012, as part of the couple’s divorce.2 The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that after acquiring the Property in 2011, Wells Fargo solicited bids for certain repairs and improvements at the Property, including work 1 The property at issue in this case is the property located at the address: 1425 Magnolia Ridge in Bossier City, Louisiana. See First Amended Complaint at ¶ 3 [R. Doc. No. 111]. 2 Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1403 2 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 necessitated by what appeared to have been leaks associated with a hot water heater located in an alcove in the Property’s garage and mold resulting from the same. Cox Management Services (“Cox Management” or “Cox”) submitted a bid for various work items at the Property, including but not limited to “mold remediation,” at a total project cost of $57,000.3 The bid submitted by Cox Management allocated more than $11,000 for work items related to the hot water heater, including removal and replacement of the water heater itself, the repair of related property damages (exclusive of painting), treatment with mildecide, and “mold remediation”; Wells Fargo ultimately accepted, contracting with Cox to perform the repair and remediation project at the Property for the bid sum of $57,000, as evidenced by a formal written Work Order accepted in writing by Cox Management in October of 2011.4 It is also undisputed that Cox Management hired Image Remodeling & Repairs, LLC (“Image Remodeling” or “Image”) to perform the work Wells Fargo contracted with Cox Management to perform.5 Cox Management invoiced Wells Fargo in the amount of $57,000, which represents the full sum for the work contemplated in the contract between it and Wells Fargo, thereby warranting to Wells Fargo that the work it had been contracted to perform, including treatment with mildecide and mold remediation, had been fully and appropriately rendered and performed in a good and workmanlike manner by properly qualified and licensed persons.6 To that end, Cox Management provided Wells Fargo with results from a third party air 3 Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Michael Cox, Sr. (“Cox Depo.”), taken April 15, 2016, p. 138, attached as Exhibit “1.” 4 Exhibit A-1, 10/13/11 Work Order [R. Doc. No. 116-5]. 5 Id. See also, Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Image Remodeling & Repairs, LLC (“Image Depo.”), taken August 12, 2016, pp. 56 & 65, attached as Exhibit “6.” 6 See 30(b)(6) Deposition of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo Depo.”), taken June 29, 2016, p. 177, attached as Exhibit “2”; see also Ex. “1,” Cox Depo., pp. 80, 87, 110-11, 127, and 162; Exhibit 37 to Wells Fargo Depo., Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 1404 3 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 testing company indicating that the mold remediation had been properly performed.7 Wells Fargo paid the $57,000 invoice submitted to it by Cox Management in full.8 After the completion of the work and notification that the third party air testing provided that the Property was ready for occupancy, Wells Fargo had the house listed for sale and subsequently sold the house to Mr. Jones. Within eight months of acquiring the Property from Wells Fargo, Mr. Jones transferred his interest to Ms. Jones pursuant to a Cash Sale Deed in connection with his divorce from Ms. Jones. In approximately August of 2012, Ms. Jones claims to have learned of the presence of mold from her ex-brother-in-law who prepared a bid for repairs prior to the sale to Mr. Jones.9 Plaintiff initiated this suit in July of 2013 against Wells Fargo and Cox Management for damages purportedly suffered as a result of being exposed to the mold that Ms. Jones claims to have discovered within the Property.10 Although Wells Fargo denies Plaintiff’s allegations, to the extent any such liability or damages may ultimately be determined to exist, they are solely attributable to the fault and/or breaches or other misconduct of Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling. Thus, to the extent any liability or damages are determined to exist, Cox Management and Image Remodeling are liable to Wells Fargo for indemnity, contribution and warranty. attached as Exhibit “3”; Work Evaluation Comment Documents, WF-JONES Bates Nos. 167, 136, 137, 138, 9-45, attached as Exhibit “4.” 7 Id. 8 Ex. “1,” Cox Depo., p. 140. 9 Deposition of Britney N. Jones Brown (“Plaintiff’s Depo.”), taken April 11, 2016, pp. 44-45, attached as Exhibit “5.” 10 Petition, Exhibit A - Petition of Jones to Notice of Removal, [R. Doc. No. 1-1]. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 1405 4 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 Without question, Wells Fargo contracted with Cox Management who in turn contracted with Image to perform work including “treatment with mildecide” and “mold remediation” at the Property at issue. Accordingly, Cox and/or Image have not (and cannot) produce any evidence negating that Wells Fargo contracted with Cox, paid Cox in full for “mold remediation,” and sold the Property based on the representation by Cox and Image that it was ready for “occupancy.” In fact, Image recently testified that it does not dispute receiving (and itself produced in its responses to requests for production in this litigation as “IMAGE 0013”) a document that specifically provides for mold-area build back and remediation. Despite Image's testimony that it “do[es]n’t remember seeing” the reference to “mold removal and build back, ” it provided the document in its own document production reflecting its agreement regarding scope with Cox.11 Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Cox and Image relating to its claims for legal indemnity and/or faulty workmanship should be granted at this time. LAW AND ARGUMENT I. Summary Judgment Standard “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”12 A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.13 If the movant satisfies its burden, “the non-moving party must show that summary judgment is inappropriate by setting forth ‘specific facts showing the existence of 11 Ex. “6,” Image Depo, pp. 65 & 137. 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 13 Beck v. Somerset Techs., Inc., 882 F.2d 993, 996 (5th Cir. 1989). Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 1406 5 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.’”14 However, the non-moving party cannot satisfy its burden “with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.”15 II. Wells Fargo Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law. The Plaintiff alleges that remediation of mold at the property was actively concealed and otherwise was not performed properly and further alleges that the Plaintiff sustained damages as a result. As stated in its Third-Party Complaint, Wells Fargo hired Cox Management, who, in turn, hired Image Remodeling, to perform mold remediation work on the Property. The fact that Wells Fargo contracted with Cox Management, who in turn contracted with Image Remodeling to perform the entirety of the work (save for third party air quality testing), is not contested.16 Thus, Wells Fargo’s liability is only technical, secondary, or partial as the owner in the chain of title, and Image Remodeling and Cox Management, as the third party defendants who performed the work complained of, are actively liable. Therefore, Wells Fargo is entitled to reimbursement by Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling for any and all amounts, if any, owed to Plaintiff. A. Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling Owes Indemnity to Wells Fargo. The liability of Wells Fargo to the Plaintiff in this matter is specifically denied; however, in the event that Wells Fargo is found liable for any of the Plaintiff’s alleged damages, Wells Fargo is entitled to indemnity from Cox Management as Cox Management was responsible for performing the work at issue. “Indemnity is due when fairness requires that one person bear the 14 Rivera v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 349 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998)). 15 Willis v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)). 16 Ex. “1,” Cox Depo., pp. 145, 159; Ex. “6,” Image Depo, pp. 53-54. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 1407 6 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 total responsibility for an injury.” Klumpp v. XYZ Ins. Co., 547 So.2d 391, 393 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1989), writ denied, 551 So.2d 1322. “The obligation to indemnify may be express, as in a contractual provision, or may be implied in law, under a tort or quasi-contract theory, even in the absence of an indemnity agreement.” 425 Notre Dame, LLC v. Kolbe & Kolbe Mill Work Co., Inc., CV 15-454, 2015 WL 9001918, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2015). “The basis for indemnity in the civil law is restitution, the indemnitor having been unjustly enriched when the person seeking indemnity has discharged liability that was his responsibility.” Klumpp, 547 So.2d at 393. In Martco Ltd. Ptnshp. v. Bruks, 430 Fed. Appx. 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2011), the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and found that a manufacturer stated a valid third-party claim for indemnity against an engineering firm that allegedly supplied defective design plans. The court recognized Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence providing that “an indemnity claim rests ‘upon the general obligation to repair the damages caused by one’s fault … and the moral maxim that ‘no one ought to enrich himself at the expense of another.’” Id. (quoting Bewley Furniture Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 285 So.2d 216, 220 (La. 1973)). Cox Management represented to Wells Fargo that the mold had been remediated.17 After representing that the remediation had been properly performed, Wells Fargo paid Cox Management for the remediation. And, Image does not dispute that it received a document providing for mold-area build back and remediation at the Property; it was paid for treatment with mildecide (that it admits was never performed); and it otherwise represented and provided Cox with independent, third-party air test results that the air quality was “normal” and that “everything was within normal limits.”18 Wells Fargo relied on this representation. If Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the presence of mold at the Property – which is denied – and 17 Ex. “2,” Wells Fargo Depo., p. 177; see also, Ex. “1,” Cox Depo., pp. 80, 87, 110-11, 127, and 162. 18 Ex. “6,” Image Depo, at pp. 56, 65, 74-75, 121-122, 137. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 1408 7 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 Wells Fargo is found liable for any of those damages, Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling will have unjustly enriched themselves at Wells Fargo’s expense. In Martco, the Fifth Circuit also noted the Louisiana Supreme Court case of Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 739 So. 2d 183 (La. 1999), in which the court held that a builder (found liable to a homeowner in redhibition for defects in the foundation of a home) could recover in indemnity from the engineering firm that designed the faulty foundation. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the builder was “only technically or constructively liable” for the homeowner’s damages and attorney’s fees under La. Civ. Code art. 2545, and that the engineering firm’s negligence in designing the foundation was the “true fault or cause of the damage [the homeowner] sustained.” Nassif, 739 So. 2d at 187. The court concluded that, because the builder “was exposed to liability and compelled to pay damages and statutory attorney fees on account of the negligent act of [the engineering firm], an implied contract of indemnity arose in [the builder’s] favor to prevent an unjust enrichment.” Id. Like the third party plaintiffs in Martco and Nassif, any liability of Wells Fargo (which is denied) would be only technical or constructive because the alleged damages were caused by Cox Management and Image Remodeling. To the extent the Plaintiff has suffered damage as a result of preexisting mold at the Property (which is denied), Cox Management’s and Image Remodeling’s failure to completely or properly remediate the mold and their misrepresentation that the work was performed properly are the causes of Plaintiff’s purported damages. Wells Fargo, as the seller of the Property, would therefore only be technically or constructively liable for the damages caused by the Plaintiff’s alleged exposure to the mold as a result of Cox Management’s and Image Remodeling’s failure to complete their work.19 Accordingly, if 19 For example, in Campo v. John Fayard Fast Freight, Inc., CIV.A.02-3690, 2003 WL 22229300, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 2003), a defendant-operator in automobile personal injury suit filed a cross-claim against the vehicle Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 1409 8 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 Plaintiff has sustained any damages, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling are the cause of Plaintiff’s damage. Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment should be granted. B. Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling Owe Contribution to Wells Fargo. Plaintiff has alleged that Wells Fargo intentionally concealed the fact that mold was present at the Property.20 This allegation is denied and completely belied by the facts: Wells Fargo hired Cox to perform mold remediation and was provided with mold air test results showing that the Property could be occupied - there is simply no evidence of concealment by Wells Fargo. However, if anyone conspired to misrepresent or suppress the truth concerning the quality, completeness, and/or adequacy of the work at issue, then that someone would be Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling.21 Because Plaintiff has alleged that Wells Fargo intentionally concealed the alleged fact that mold was present at the Property and Wells Fargo has alleged that Cox Management and Image Remodeling intentionally concealed the faulty performance of word to remediate the mold, the allegations give rise to the solidary obligation for which Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling may be liable to Wells Fargo for contribution. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff has suffered any damages based on these allegations, Cox and/or Image owe contribution to Wells Fargo. manufacturer for full indemnification in the event the operator was cast into judgment. The defendant-operator argued that should it be found liable for any of the plaintiff's injuries or damages, it should be indemnified by the manufacturer because such liability would be a result brought about by the actions of the manufacturer in manufacturing a defective trailer. Id. The court held that since the defective manufacture of the trailer was the ultimate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant-operator was only technically or constructively at fault by virtue of owning the trailer. Id. at p. 3. Therefore, tort indemnity could be had against the manufacturer. Id. 20 Amended Complaint, R. Doc. No. 111 at ¶ 7. 21 See (proposed) Amended Third Party Complaint, [R. Doc. No. 138-2] at ¶¶ 50-53. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 1410 9 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 C. No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists as to Whether Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling are Liable for Faulty Workmanship/Breach of Warranty. There is no genuine issue of material fact that if Wells Fargo is determined to be liable to Plaintiff (which is denied), its liability would flow directly from the faulty workmanship of Cox and/or Image. Specifically, a third party who negligently performs his work may be held liable for the resulting damages. Long v. Jeb Breithaupt Design Build Inc., 44,002 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09, 19); 4 So.3d 930, 942; Marine Insurance Company v. Strecker, 234 La. 522, 100 So.2d 493 (1958) (holding that notwithstanding the lack of privity between a tenant and contractor, the tenant could recover from the contractor for damages caused by the fall of a cabinet installed by the contractor). For example, in Cosman v. Cabrera, 2009-0265 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/23/09, 2); 28 So.3d 1075, 1077, the First Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed that a cause of action for faulty workmanship may proceed notwithstanding lack of privity. In Cosman, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to supply materials and labor for stucco construction work on a home. Id. at 1078. Although there was no written agreement between the homeowner and the subcontractor, the subcontractor ultimately filed suit against the homeowner to recover amounts allegedly owed to him for the stucco work performed. Id. The homeowner filed a reconventional demand, alleging that the subcontractor’s work was substandard. Id. The court held that the homeowner could maintain its cause of action because it “[c]learly … had a legal interest - or right of action - in the subject matter of [the] litigation.” Id. at 1080. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 1411 10 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 Here, Cox Management and/or Image Remodeling were hired to perform mold remediation and the Plaintiff is complaining about the presence of mold.22 At the deposition of Image Remodeling on August 12, 2016, Wells Fargo learned for the first time through Image’s testimony that “mold remediation” was not performed despite payment for same and despite testimony from Cox that it was, in fact, performed.23 Cox Management and Image Remodeling were hired and paid to treat the home with mildecide, and Wells Fargo relied on Cox’s representations that such work was performed.24 If Plaintiff sustained damages resulting from mold, it is because Cox Management and/or Image did not properly perform the work Wells Fargo paid for; therefore, Cox and Image should be liable if Wells Fargo is cast in judgment in this matter. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Wells Fargo respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment. 22 Ex. “1,” Cox Depo., p. 159. 23 Ex. “6,” Image Depo, pp. 63 & 82. 24 Ex. “6,” Image Depo, pp. 55-56. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 1412 11 4851-1487-9543 v2 2780973-001988 08/26/2016 Respectfully submitted, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC BY: /s/Katie L. Dysart KENT A. LAMBERT (La. Bar No. 22458) BRIAN M. BALLAY (La. Bar No. 29077) KATIE L. DYSART (La. Bar No. 31449) MEGHAN E. CARTER (La. Bar No. 35074) 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Telephone: (504) 566-5200 Facsimile: (504) 636-4000 E-mail: klambert@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: bballay@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: kdysart@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: mcarter@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEYS FOR WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 26, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record who have consented to electronic notification. /s/Katie L. Dysart Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-1 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 1413 ·1· · · · · · IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · · · · · · ·FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ·2· · · · · · · · · · SHREVEPORT DIVISION ·3 ·4 ·5· ·BRITNEY N. JONES, ·6· · · · · · · Plaintiff, · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CIVIL ACTION FILE ·7· · · · · ·vs. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · NO. 5:13CV2513 ·8· ·WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., · · ·et al., ·9 · · · · · · · · Defendants. 10· ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11 12· · · · · · · · · ·30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF 13· · · · · · · · · · · MICHAEL COX, SR. 14 15 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·April 15, 2016 16 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·1:53 p.m. 17 18 19· · · · · · · · · · 8789 Northview Drive · · · · · · · · · · Lithia Springs, Georgia 20 21 22 23· · · · · · · ·Kelly S. Lawrence, CCR-B-1625 24 25 MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 1 Exhibit "1" Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1414 ·1· ·don't know their exact positions, but very good ·2· ·people I communicated with there. ·3· · · · Q.· · You said there are a few people? ·4· · · · A.· · Very good, very good personnel. ·5· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Do you recall if there was one ·6· ·person or several people that you would communicate ·7· ·with? ·8· · · · A.· · At least two. ·9· · · · Q.· · Does the name Chris Hamm ring a bell? 10· · · · A.· · The name Chris does ring a bell.· The last 11· ·name, I cannot accurately say 100 percent. 12· · · · Q.· · Okay.· What do you recall about someone 13· ·named Chris?· Was he one of the supervisors that you 14· ·are referring to? 15· · · · A.· · I recall a gentleman by the name of Chris 16· ·that I did speak to on occasion.· I believe he was in 17· ·a leadership position because we did speak on a 18· ·number of occasions, him and another gentleman, and 19· ·everything went perfectly. 20· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Do you know who William Patrick 21· ·Mullins is? 22· · · · A.· · His name sounds very familiar. 23· · · · Q.· · Do you know if he works for Image? 24· · · · A.· · To the best of my knowledge, I will say 25· ·yes. MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 80 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 1415 ·1· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So the documentation that you are ·2· ·referring to, what exactly are you referring to in ·3· ·the documentation that you would retain for five ·4· ·years? ·5· · · · A.· · The information that's been submitted to ·6· ·my attorney. ·7· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So everything else, e-mail ·8· ·correspondence and the like, would have been deleted ·9· ·and would not have been retained? 10· · · · A.· · Correct.· Once the clearance letter was 11· ·issued and the project was completed 100 percent and 12· ·all parties were satisfied with the work that was 13· ·done and payment was issued, we would have closed it 14· ·out, yes, ma'am, that is accurate. 15· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Talk to me about -- talk to me 16· ·about what you recall about the property at Magnolia 17· ·Ridge and how you became involved with the property 18· ·and what you were retained to do, specifically. 19· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am.· I don't recall details on 20· ·that particular property because we were doing a 21· ·volume of projects for Wells at that particular time. 22· ·But I can only imagine that it was one of the 23· ·projects we were given and asked to go in and 24· ·complete a scope, and we went in and completed it. 25· ·And I recall with the clearance letter, obviously, MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 87 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 1416 ·1· ·knowledge. ·2· · · · Q.· · Did the scope of work include mold ·3· ·remediation? ·4· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am.· In order for us -- looking at ·5· ·Document 032, where it states other, it states: ·6· ·Remove and replace water heater and accessories; ·7· ·third-party mold clearance testing done; remove of ·8· ·all affected material; treat with mildecide. ·9· · · · · · · So in order for us to get that third-party 10· ·mold clearance testing -- or clearance letter, it 11· ·would have to have gone through some remediation 12· ·stage or phase. 13· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Mr. Cox, did Wells Fargo or 14· ·somebody at Premier pay Cox Management for the full 15· ·scope of work here? 16· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am. 17· · · · Q.· · And what was Cox's role in ensuring that 18· ·the scope of work was performed accurately and 19· ·completely? 20· · · · A.· · We would have before-pictures submitted to 21· ·us.· We would have after-pictures submitted to us. 22· ·The contractors themselves, based on those 23· ·after-pictures, would let us know the project has 24· ·been completed accordingly.· The project was then 25· ·inspected, I'm sure, by the agent, and I'm sure the MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 110 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 1417 ·1· ·project was inspected, as well, possibly by Wells ·2· ·Fargo having their own inspector going out and ·3· ·inspect the property.· So there's many phases that ·4· ·each property undergoes before payment is rendered to ·5· ·anybody, especially with Wells Fargo. ·6· · · · Q.· · Okay.· What do you mean, especially with ·7· ·Wells Fargo? ·8· · · · A.· · Well, they would have their people come ·9· ·out and do an inspection, as well.· That's where the 10· ·punch-out list is generated.· When the punch list is 11· ·generated, it is then given back to us; and we would 12· ·have to make sure that it's taken care of.· So we 13· ·don't -- 14· · · · Q.· · Okay.· They would -- 15· · · · A.· · I'm sorry. 16· · · · Q.· · They would submit it to Cox or they would 17· ·submit it to Image? 18· · · · A.· · They would submit it to Cox.· All 19· ·communication comes through Cox. 20· · · · Q.· · And then you would pass that along to 21· ·Image? 22· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am, we would communicate back to 23· ·Image if there is a punch-out.· Now, I can't recall 24· ·if there was a punch-out at this property or not. 25· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And who required the before- and MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 111 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 1418 ·1· · · · Q.· · You need some time to review it? ·2· · · · A.· · Yes, just one more moment, please. ·3· · · · Q.· · Sure.· Tell me when you're ready. ·4· · · · A.· · Sure.· Go ahead.· I'm ready. ·5· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Is it your understanding that that ·6· ·report reflects that the air testing that was done ·7· ·after Image Remodeling completed its work, the test ·8· ·results showed that the air quality was acceptable ·9· ·for occupancy and did not present any health risks? 10· · · · A.· · Based on my knowledge of reading reports, 11· ·that is correct.· We were told that it passed the 12· ·clearance test and submitted it to the client and all 13· ·was satisfactory. 14· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And that was after Image completed 15· ·its work, correct? 16· · · · A.· · Correct. 17· · · · Q.· · There have been some claims asserted 18· ·against both Cox and Image by Wells Fargo in this 19· ·case.· Are you aware of any information whatsoever 20· ·that Image Remodeling withheld any information from 21· ·either Cox or Wells Fargo in connection with this 22· ·project? 23· · · · A.· · No, I'm not. 24· · · · Q.· · Are you aware of any information 25· ·whatsoever that -- whatsoever that Image Remodeling MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 127 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 1419 ·1· · · · Q.· · And these are your prices on the ·2· ·right-hand side that total to 7235? ·3· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am. ·4· · · · Q.· · Was this part of the 57,000 that we ·5· ·previously discussed? ·6· · · · A.· · Okay.· Yeah.· Those two right there, they ·7· ·total.· Yes, it's under the other.· 7235. ·8· · · · · · · MR. OTTEN:· And just to clarify, which ·9· · · · document are you pointing to? 10· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm pointing to Document 11· · · · Number 34.· The total is broken down into two 12· · · · figures under other. 13· · · · Q.· · (By Ms. Dysart)· Okay.· I see it.· So 14· ·this -- the document that we just discussed at 15· ·Exhibit 6, that document would have been accompanied 16· ·by a more detailed document, you said? 17· · · · A.· · Yes. 18· · · · Q.· · Who provided the information in this 19· ·document that says:· Water heater in garage burst at 20· ·TPR connection? 21· · · · A.· · Image Remodeling. 22· · · · Q.· · They provided that information to you? 23· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am. 24· · · · Q.· · And then you put it into this form and 25· ·sent it back to either PAS or Wells? MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 138 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 1420 ·1· · · · A.· · That's the local company that was set up ·2· ·with AIC initially. ·3· · · · Q.· · Is Andrew Williams your insurance agent? ·4· · · · A.· · He was. ·5· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Was this bid ultimately accepted by ·6· ·PAS? ·7· · · · A.· · Yes. ·8· · · · Q.· · Along with the one that we previously ·9· ·discussed for a combined total of fifty-seven? 10· · · · A.· · Yes. 11· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So this number 49,765, that was not 12· ·the final number that Wells Fargo paid; is that 13· ·correct? 14· · · · A.· · Just one second, please.· No, the amount 15· ·they paid was fifty-seven. 16· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And who determined the numbers that 17· ·are in this document? 18· · · · A.· · I did. 19· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And how did you determine those 20· ·numbers? 21· · · · A.· · Based on the numbers given to me by Image. 22· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So this -- is it accurate to say 23· ·that this is not the final scope of work? 24· · · · A.· · Yes. 25· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Let's look at the next document, MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 140 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 1421 ·1· ·was executed, did you know who was to perform the ·2· ·mold remediation work? ·3· · · · A.· · Everything was being taken care of by ·4· ·Image Remodeling. ·5· · · · Q.· · So Image came up with the numbers that are ·6· ·set forth in this document? ·7· · · · A.· · Correct. ·8· · · · Q.· · Okay.· If you'll flip to Exhibit 9, Cox ·9· ·001. 10· · · · A.· · Correct. 11· · · · Q.· · In the re line it says:· Limited indoor 12· ·air quality survey.· And then there's a name 13· ·underneath it.· It's Chris.· And I'm not even going 14· ·to pretend to try and pronounce the last name.· But 15· ·it's spelled K-u-e-h-n-e-m-u-n-d.· And in parentheses 16· ·it says Image Remodeling. 17· · · · · · · MR. OTTEN:· Kuehnemund.· Come on. 18· · · · · · · MS. DYSART:· What is it? 19· · · · · · · MR. OTTEN:· I said Kuehnemund.· Come on, 20· · · · it's easy. 21· · · · · · · MS. DYSART:· It's not that easy.· I knew I 22· · · · was going to mispronounce it, and I wanted to 23· · · · save myself from any jokes. 24· · · · Q.· · (By Ms. Dysart)· Do you know who that 25· ·individual is, Mr. Cox? MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 145 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 1422 ·1· · · · period you're referring to. ·2· · · · · · · MR. OTTEN:· Well, I'm just not sure -- ·3· · · · were you asking if Wells Fargo knew or didn't -- ·4· · · · can you re-ask it? ·5· · · · · · · MR. JONES:· Sure. ·6· · · · · · · MR. OTTEN:· Or ask it in a different way, ·7· · · · I should say. ·8· · · · Q.· · (By Mr. Jones)· Mr. Cox, in 2011 you ·9· ·submitted or you at least had communications with 10· ·Wells Fargo or its representatives concerning mold 11· ·remediation to be performed at the home; did you not? 12· · · · A.· · Yes. 13· · · · Q.· · And the contract or the bid that you 14· ·entered into with Wells Fargo in 2011 provided for 15· ·mold remediation services, correct? 16· · · · A.· · Yes. 17· · · · Q.· · Has Cox Management Services ever worked on 18· ·any other projects that were foreclosure properties? 19· · · · A.· · Yes. 20· · · · Q.· · And Cox Management Services does a fair 21· ·amount of work with property management or asset 22· ·management companies; is that correct? 23· · · · A.· · We used to. 24· · · · Q.· · You used to? 25· · · · A.· · Yes. MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 159 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 1423 ·1· · · · do you mind reading back his testimony, the last ·2· · · · couple of sentences? ·3· · · · · · · (The record was read by the reporter as ·4· ·follows:· "Question.· And do you assume that your ·5· ·work on properties for asset management companies, ·6· ·property management companies, is done in order that ·7· ·the client can then sell the property for a better ·8· ·price than it would have otherwise? ·9· · · · · · · Answer.· Yes. 10· · · · · · · Question.· Was that your assumption in 11· ·this case? 12· · · · · · · Answer.· Yes.") 13· · · · · · · MS. DYSART:· Okay.· Thank you. 14· · · · Q.· · (By Ms. Dysart)· Mr. Cox, is it your 15· ·understanding that any mold issues that may have been 16· ·at the property prior to when you and Image and ALTEC 17· ·and the U.S. Mold Services did work at the home, is 18· ·it your understanding that the mold issue had been 19· ·completely eradicated? 20· · · · A.· · That is correct. 21· · · · Q.· · And you're confident that all the mold was 22· ·out of the house by the time of the letter, the 23· ·clearance letter that we discussed earlier? 24· · · · A.· · Yes, ma'am. 25· · · · Q.· · Mr. Cox, you indicated earlier, especially MICHAEL COX, SR.· 30(b)(6) JONES vs. WELLS FARGO April 15, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 162 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-2 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 1424 ·1· · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·2· · · · · · · WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ·3· · · · · · · · · SHREVEPORT LOUISIANA ·4 ·5· BRITNEY N. JONES· · · · · · · · · ·NO. 5:13-CV-2513 ·6· VERSUS· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER ·7· WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,· · · · · · MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES ·8· ET AL. ·9 10· *************************************************** 11· · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF JESSICA REIF-JONES 12 13· · · · The Corporate Deposition of, WELLS FARGO BANK, 14· N.A., through its Corporate Representative, JESSICA 15· REIF-JONES, was taken in the above entitled cause, 16· pursuant to the following stipulation, before 17· Parris A. Amedee, Certified Court Reporter, at the 18· law offices of Baker Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & 19· Berkowitz, PC, 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600, 20· New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 29 day of June 2016, 21· beginning at 9:10 a.m. 22 23 24 25 JESSICA REIF-JONES JONES VERSUS WELLS FARGO BANK June 29, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 1 Exhibit "2" Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-3 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1425 ·1· a document that I will introduce, if you don’t ·2· mind, as, “Exhibit 37,” which is Bates 118.· If you ·3· could tell me what you were telling me earlier ·4· about which communication identifies receipt of the ·5· results? ·6· · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, the Communications about ·7· · · · · · · ·Air Sampling Results Bates labeled 118 ·8· · · · · · · ·were identified and marked as Exhibit 37 ·9· · · · · · · ·and attached to the deposition.) 10· · · · A.· · It’s the note dated “November 18, 2011 at 11· 9:38 by Debra Turner, Work Evaluation Comment –- 12· All Final Documents Have Been Reviewed or Attached. 13· Set Invoice Submitted Task For Analyst” 14· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And the date on that was? 15· · · · A.· · The date that Ms. Turner made the comment 16· is “November 18th, 2011.” 17· · · · Q.· · What documents were attached? 18· · · · · · · ·MR. WELLS: I’m sorry.· What was the 19· Bates? 20· BY MR. JONES: 21· · · · A.· · Do you want me to read the Bates number? 22· · · · Q.· · Sure. 23· · · · A.· · “167, 136, 137, 138,” and then “9 through 24· 45.” 25· · · · Q.· · Okay.· I don’t need to attach those.· And JESSICA REIF-JONES JONES VERSUS WELLS FARGO BANK June 29, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 177 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-3 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1426 Print Page 20 of 37 Review of the documents and proposals have resulted in the following recommendations strongly recommend we Award scope of work to Cox Management Services in the total amount of $57000 for the work as per the items on the bid which seems adequate for the job Property preservation Mold Remediation condibon improvements will make property much more appealing to buyers reduce DOM help to market property allow property to stand out amongst competition and bring in higher/stronger offers Repairs will also help with WF branding and help to stabilize local neighborhood property values Sbj is an ideal candidate for repairs Sbj has great potential and that potential can be brought back out thru full scope repairs Property size and specs makes for great owner occ 1st time HB or starter home for Buyer Once full scope repairs are completed property will look charming and appealing to interested Buyers Thru Repairs an Owner 0cc or 1st time HB can be Taryated If repairs are not donu property will have limited financing opbons and limited buyer pool and offers will be lower than that of repaired property Sbj in only 13 yrs old and has Owner 0cc specs and design style and has good curb appeal Repaired Valuations $194K and $211K Why Repairs will make property show well as well as make property more marketable to sell as well as open the buyer pool financing opbons Most Recent Comps Best list comp 245 Fletcher bed 2.5 bath sfd in good condition 10 yrs old attached car 9100 sf lot 2130 int.sq.ft 93 dom .05 prox listed at 236K Comp simlar in int.sq.ft bed/bath count age proximity Comp is superior to subject in condibon however will be similar once repairs are completed Best sold comp 112 Heritage Drive bed bath sfd in good condition 10 yrs old attachced car 2045 int.sq.ft 9900 sf lot 55 dom .05 prox listed at 199.4K sold for 195K Comp similar in int.sq.ft bed/bath count age lot size proximity Comp is currently in superior condition however will be similar once repairs are done on subject fl 11/28/2011 131600 William.e.herrerawellsfargo.com work order payment issued CUT CK LAO $57000.00 TO COX MANAGEMENT SERVICES Public 11/28/2011 FOR WORK ORDER REPAIRS COMPLETED 11/11/2011 11/1B/2011 093800 Work Evaluation Comment Public 11/18/2011 Debra.turner3@wellsfargo.com RT All final documents have bean received and are attached Set Invoice Submitted Task for Analyst CK 11/17/2011 115600 Incentive Details Public 11/17/2011 Ryan.Schockemoehl@wellsfargo.com Alice Please include this information on the MLS Please contact listing agent for more information on how buyers purchasing property as owner occupants may be eligible to receive 3.5% in closing cost assistance https//teamreo.pasreo.oom/Jnclude/PrintPage.aspx S3 T_ 8/12/2013 WF-JONES Pwa 0000118 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit "3" Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-4 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1427 WF-JONES 0000167 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit "4" Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 41 Page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ase 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 41 Page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ase 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 1430 WF-JONES 0000138 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 1431 WF-JONES 00009 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 1432 WF-JONES 000010 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 1433 WF-JONES 000011 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 1434 WF-JONES 000012 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 1435 WF-JONES 000013 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 1436 WF-JONES 000014 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 1437 WF-JONES 000015 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 1438 WF-JONES 000016 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 1439 WF-JONES 000017 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 1440 WF-JONES 000018 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 1441 WF-JONES 000019 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 1442 WF-JONES 000020 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 1443 WF-JONES 000021 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 1444 WF-JONES 000022 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 1445 WF-JONES 000023 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 19 of 41 PageID #: 1446 WF-JONES 000024 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 20 of 41 PageID #: 1447 WF-JONES 000025 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 21 of 41 PageID #: 1448 WF-JONES 000026 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 22 of 41 PageID #: 1449 WF-JONES 000027 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 23 of 41 PageID #: 1450 WF-JONES 000028 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 24 of 41 PageID #: 1451 WF-JONES 000029 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 25 of 41 PageID #: 1452 WF-JONES 000030 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 26 of 41 PageID #: 1453 WF-JONES 000031 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 27 of 41 PageID #: 1454 WF-JONES 000032 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 28 of 41 PageID #: 1455 WF-JONES 000033 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 29 of 41 PageID #: 1456 WF-JONES 000034 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 30 of 41 PageID #: 1457 WF-JONES 000035 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 31 of 41 PageID #: 1458 WF-JONES 000036 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 32 of 41 PageID #: 1459 WF-JONES 000037 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 33 of 41 PageID #: 1460 WF-JONES 000038 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 34 of 41 PageID #: 1461 WF-JONES 000039 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 35 of 41 PageID #: 1462 WF-JONES 000040 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 36 of 41 PageID #: 1463 WF-JONES 000041 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 37 of 41 PageID #: 1464 WF-JONES 000042 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 38 of 41 PageID #: 1465 WF-JONES 000043 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 39 of 41 PageID #: 1466 WF-JONES 000044 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 40 of 41 PageID #: 1467 WF-JONES 000045 CONFIDENTIAL Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-5 Filed 08/26/16 Page 41 of 41 PageID #: 1468 BRITNEY N. JONES BROWN 4/11/2016 3000 Fairfield Avenue, Suite A - Shreveport, LA 71104 318.424.1707 KAREN TYLER REPORTING 318.424.1744 - Fax 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION BRITNEY N. JONES : : VERSUS : NO. 5:13CV2513 : WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., : ET AL : DEPOSITION OF BRITNEY N. JONES BROWN April 11, 2016 Reported by: Carol H. Mixon, CCR(LA), CSR(TX), RMR Notary Public Exhibit "5" Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1469 BRITNEY N. JONES BROWN 4/11/2016 3000 Fairfield Avenue, Suite A - Shreveport, LA 71104 318.424.1707 KAREN TYLER REPORTING 318.424.1744 - Fax 44 1 Q. Both ARC and Envirocon? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And so Envirocon came out, they 4 recommended remediation, air scrubbing, clean 5 air ducts. You said you couldn't afford it at 6 the time, and so you had some paint encapsulant 7 work done. And how did you know about the paint 8 encapsulant? 9 A. Because Mike Allen told me to do it. 10 Q. And Mike Allen is with who? 11 A. ARC Abatement. 12 Q. So you didn't actually paint the 13 encapsulant on until at least October 2013? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. So from the time that you found the mold 16 in July until October, it just sat there until 17 October of 2013? 18 A. I don't know. I'm going to have to 19 start from the beginning, because I can't -- 20 this is choppy, and I can't -- I can't get my 21 timeline unless I start from the beginning. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. All right. So I bought my house in 24 February 2012. Around August 2012 I was told by 25 my brother -- my ex-brother-in-law, that that Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1470 BRITNEY N. JONES BROWN 4/11/2016 3000 Fairfield Avenue, Suite A - Shreveport, LA 71104 318.424.1707 KAREN TYLER REPORTING 318.424.1744 - Fax 45 1 home that I lived in on Magnolia Ridge -- he 2 worked for ARC Abatement by the way. 3 Q. Who? 4 A. My ex-brother-in-law worked for ARC 5 Abatement. 6 Q. And what's his name? 7 A. Jonathan Dayton. 8 Q. And how is he your ex-brother-in-law? 9 A. He was married to my sister a long time 10 ago. 11 Q. But he's no longer? 12 A. No, no. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Anyhow, in August, around August 15 of 2012, that is when he told me he had, two 16 years prior in 2010, he had done a mold 17 remediation proposal on Magnolia Ridge. The 18 next day I contacted SRP Environmental to come 19 out and take some air samples. 20 Q. Who is SRP? 21 A. They're another environmental consulting 22 agency. 23 Q. And how did you know about them? 24 A. My father. 25 Q. Okay. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-6 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1471 ·1· · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·2· · · · · WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ·3 ·4 · · ·BRITNEY N. JONES· · · · · · CIVIL ACTION ·5 · · ·VERSUS· · · · · · · · · · · NO. 5:13CV2513 ·6 · · ·WELLS FARGO BANK,· · · · · ·JUDGE WALTER ·7· ·N.A., ET AL· · · · · · · · ·MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES ·8 ·9 10· · · · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF IMAGE REMODELING & · · ·REPAIRS, LLC, THROUGH WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS, TAKEN 11· ·AT THE LAW OFFICES OF LARZELERE PICOU WELLS SIMPSON · · ·LONERO, 3850 NORTH CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1100, 12· ·METAIRIE, LOUISIANA, ON THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016, · · ·COMMENCING AT 9:31 A. M. AND CONCLUDING AT 1:23 P.M. 13 14 15 16· ·REPORTED BY: 17 · · · · · · · · RUBY M. WALLEN 18· · · · · · · CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 1 Exhibit "6" Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1472 ·1· ·document.· Let's do this. ·2· · · · · MR. WELLS: ·3· · · · · · · · · Here is an extra. ·4· ·BY MS. DYSART: ·5· · · · · Q.· · · I am going to introduce the re-notice ·6· ·of today's deposition as Exhibit 1. ·7· · · · · · · · · Image's production that they provided ·8· ·us with today that Mr. Wells just identified will be ·9· ·Exhibit 2.· And specifically, Exhibit 2, Image Bates 10· ·number 0005 through 12. 11· · · · · · · · · Patrick, is this the document that you 12· ·are referring to that Cox provided to you guys, that 13· ·you all filled in and then submitted back to him? 14· · · · · A.· · · Yes.· But we only filled in our 15· ·numbers.· Any of the wording that he has under each 16· ·section, that was already filled in when it got to 17· ·us. 18· · · · · Q.· · · Okay. 19· · · · · A.· · · We only filled in our numbers to do 20· ·each one of those jobs. 21· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· So none of the work, none of 22· ·the verbiage was supplemented by Image at all? 23· · · · · A.· · · That is correct. 24· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· And did Image accept the entire 25· ·scope that was provided in this document? WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 53 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1473 ·1· · · · · A.· · · What do you mean "accepted"? ·2· · · · · Q.· · · Did Image accept responsibility for ·3· ·doing all of the work that was identified in this ·4· ·document? ·5· · · · · A.· · · We did the work that was in this ·6· ·document.· Yes. ·7· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· The total on Page 7 is ·8· ·45,651.65.· And then if you flip to Page 8, there is ·9· ·a "Contractor Comments."· And it says:· "Water 10· ·Damage/Mitigation Clean-Up Form."· Total is 6,407.06. 11· ·Total estimate for the job is 52,058.74, grand total 12· ·of the job.· Any unforeseen or hidden items may 13· ·result in additional charges." 14· · · · · · · · · Do you recall if the final amount that 15· ·Image was paid was 52,058.74? 16· · · · · A.· · · Yes. 17· · · · · Q.· · · Or did that amount change? 18· · · · · A.· · · No. All the amounts stayed the same. 19· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· So it performed the water 20· ·damage/mitigation clean-up? 21· · · · · MR. WELLS: 22· · · · · · · · · Objection to the form.· But you can go 23· ·ahead. 24· · · · · THE WITNESS: 25· · · · · · · · · There was no water.· Like I said, the WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 54 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1474 ·1· ·however, will treat with mildecide." ·2· · · · · A.· · · We didn't do any treating.· It was ·3· ·totally dry. ·4· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· So who wrote that, "however ·5· ·will treat with mildecide"? ·6· · · · · A.· · · I can only assume we did that.· But we ·7· ·didn't treat anything with any type of chemical at ·8· ·all in the house. ·9· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· Why did you all not treat it 10· ·with chemical? 11· · · · · A.· · · Because there was nothing there to 12· ·treat.· There wasn't any mildew or anything. 13· · · · · Q.· · · Okay. 14· · · · · A.· · · And this is -- again, I definitely 15· ·want to state, this was in the area that we worked, 16· ·that was back there by the hot water tank. 17· · · · · Q.· · · Right.· Did the price go down because 18· ·you didn't have to use the chemical, the mildecide? 19· · · · · A.· · · No. 20· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· So the 375, you all were still 21· ·paid for it even though you all didn't use it? 22· · · · · A.· · · I guess, yes. 23· · · · · Q.· · · Do you recall at any time telling 24· ·anyone at Cox that you had about a dozen workers on 25· ·the project? WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 56 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1475 ·1· ·we've never seen this page until yesterday.· We've ·2· ·never seen this. ·3· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· This was a document that your ·4· ·attorney produced on behalf of Image. ·5· · · · · A.· · · It came from me.· But again, I don't ·6· ·remember seeing it.· But we didn't fill this in. ·7· ·Because I don't know what some of this even means. ·8· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· Do you see at the bottom how it ·9· ·says, "all mold removal and build-back must be on the 10· ·remediation form"? 11· · · · · A.· · · I don't know what that means.· As far 12· ·as "mold build-back," I don't know what they are 13· ·referring to.· My estimate wouldn't have any of this 14· ·on here.· It would have codes on it. 15· · · · · Q.· · · Do you know if the remediation form 16· ·would be the Water Damage/Mitigation Clean-Up Form? 17· · · · · A.· · · I have no idea. 18· · · · · Q.· · · And you don't -- you have never seen 19· ·this document? 20· · · · · A.· · · I don't remember seeing it.· Like I 21· ·said, I saved all of this on my Gmail.· If it came 22· ·from me, obviously I had a copy of it.· But I don't 23· ·remember seeing any of it. 24· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· Image 0014 is another document 25· ·that was produced. WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 65 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1476 ·1· ·job.· I guess that is the date that we finished or ·2· ·somewhere thereabouts.· Just showing the bathroom ·3· ·because we had to remove and what we call detach and ·4· ·reset the toilet to redo the floor.· And I was just ·5· ·going through showing the paint, showing the ·6· ·flooring, new flooring.· These are all finished, the ·7· ·finished product. ·8· · · · · Q.· · · So the before pictures were taken ·9· ·October 11th and after were taken November 11.· So it 10· ·took roughly a month to complete the job? 11· · · · · A.· · · Yeah.· I guess. 12· · · · · Q.· · · Did Image put a new water heater in? 13· · · · · A.· · · I don't know if we did it or not. I 14· ·just do not remember if we did it or someone else did 15· ·it. 16· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· Okay.· Let's go to Image 0038. 17· · · · · A.· · · Okay. 18· · · · · Q.· · · What is this document? 19· · · · · A.· · · This is what Altec told us when they 20· ·came out and they gave us all that -- those forms 21· ·that I gave you -- and they said that everything was 22· ·okay.· So that is what I sent to Michael. 23· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· So you understood when you 24· ·received those documents from Altec that everything 25· ·showed as normal? WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 74 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1477 ·1· · · · · A.· · · I didn't understand on the forms. I ·2· ·just went by what the guy had told me. ·3· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· And did Michael respond to this ·4· ·E-mail? ·5· · · · · A.· · · I don't know.· I don't know if I have ·6· ·anything. ·7· · · · · Q.· · · Did he request any additional ·8· ·information? ·9· · · · · A.· · · He did not. 10· · · · · Q.· · · The next document is Image 0039.· And 11· ·it says:· "Received.· We can't complete processing 12· ·without the clearance letter.· Send ASAP when 13· ·received." 14· · · · · · · · · What is he referring to? 15· · · · · A.· · · I have no idea.· Unless it was from -- 16· ·I guess, the air quality company, maybe sending him 17· ·something stating it was okay.· But we never got any 18· ·documents from Altec, other than those readouts of 19· ·the report.· Everything else went to Cox Management. 20· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· It says, "We can't complete 21· ·processing without the clearance letter."· Does that 22· ·mean he can't pay you without a clearance letter? 23· · · · · A.· · · I'm assuming, yes. 24· · · · · Q.· · · And then when you sent the indoor air 25· ·test that Altec sent you, is that when you got paid? WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 75 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1478 ·1· ·were redoing.· We had to have before pictures.· We ·2· ·had to have after pictures.· And like I said, as far ·3· ·as the project being inspected, I don't know anything ·4· ·about that. ·5· · · · · Q.· · · Okay.· And the amount that is listed ·6· ·here, 52,058.74, that was the ultimate amount that ·7· ·Image was paid.· Is that correct? ·8· · · · · A.· · · That is correct. ·9· · · · · MR. WELLS: 10· · · · · · · · · Did you -- just for clarification, did 11· ·you identify the date on this document? 12· · · · · MS. DYSART: 13· · · · · · · · · It is October 14th, 2011.· Correct? 14· · · · · MR. WELLS: 15· · · · · · · · · Yes, it is.· Thanks. 16· ·BY MS. DYSART: 17· · · · · Q.· · · Do you know what these handwritten 18· ·notations mean?· The handwritten portions of it? 19· · · · · A.· · · I have no idea. 20· · · · · Q.· · · Is that your handwriting? 21· · · · · A.· · · No. It is not. 22· · · · · Q.· · · Next page is Cox 031.· Same exhibit. 23· ·Is this the invoice that you sent to Cox? 24· · · · · A.· · · Yes, it is. 25· · · · · Q.· · · Upon completion? WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 82 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1479 ·1· ·photographs out? ·2· · · · · A.· · · I don't know if it was when I sent ·3· ·them to him, to my attorney, or -- ·4· · · · · Q.· · · Was it recently or was it like three ·5· ·years ago? ·6· · · · · A.· · · I don't know. ·7· · · · · Q.· · · But in any event, you think you may be ·8· ·able to access these E-mails and give us digital ·9· ·copies of these photographs? 10· · · · · A.· · · I could access these and probably make 11· ·them bigger if that is what you are asking me.· But I 12· ·don't know if they will be any better quality. 13· · · · · Q.· · · That would be helpful if we could work 14· ·with your attorney -- 15· · · · · A.· · · Okay. 16· · · · · Q.· · · -- to get digital copies. 17· · · · · A.· · · Sure. 18· · · · · Q.· · · On Image 38, we touched on this E-mail 19· ·earlier.· The E-mail at the bottom is from you to 20· ·Michael Cox, Sr.· It is dated November 15th, 2011. 21· ·Do you see that? 22· · · · · A.· · · Yes. 23· · · · · Q.· · · And you said, "Hi, Michael.· What I am 24· ·sending is from the lab which shows everything as 25· ·normal."· Do you see that? WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 121 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1480 ·1· · · · · A.· · · I do. ·2· · · · · Q.· · · And so how did you know that the ·3· ·results were normal if you stated earlier you ·4· ·couldn't interpret the results? ·5· · · · · A.· · · Because that is what the gentleman had ·6· ·sent me the form said.· I just asked him.· I said, so ·7· ·what are the findings?· He said everything was within ·8· ·normal limits.· So I just conveyed that to Michael ·9· ·Cox. 10· · · · · Q.· · · And the person that made that 11· ·representation was the Altec representative? 12· · · · · A.· · · He was the Altec representative.· Yes. 13· · · · · Q.· · · Do you recall any other discussions 14· ·with the Altec representative? 15· · · · · A.· · · I do not. 16· · · · · Q.· · · Did you ever express any concern that 17· ·to the extent that you believed someone qualified at 18· ·mold remediation should come and inspect the house? 19· · · · · MR. WELLS: 20· · · · · · · · · Object to the form of the question. 21· ·You can answer. 22· · · · · THE WITNESS: 23· · · · · · · · · No. If I had actually seen mold, I 24· ·probably would have said something to Mr. Cox. 25· ·BY MR. JONES: WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 122 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1481 ·1· · · · · Q.· · · Okay. ·2· · · · · A.· · · So from 005 to 0012.· And then you ·3· ·come to this 13, it also says Page 8. ·4· · · · · Q.· · · Okay. ·5· · · · · A.· · · So why are there -- I'm questioning ·6· ·why are there two of these forms.· It is almost like ·7· ·-- I probably signed this one, but I would never sign ·8· ·this one. ·9· · · · · Q.· · · Okay. 10· · · · · MR. WELLS: 11· · · · · · · · · When you said you would -- I'm sorry. 12· ·Just to make it clear for the record, when you said 13· ·you would sign this one, you meant Image 12. 14· · · · · THE WITNESS: 15· · · · · · · · · I would sign Image 12, but I would 16· ·never sign and agree to do mold removal on this Page 17· ·8, Image 0013. 18· ·BY MS. DYSART: 19· · · · · Q.· · · So would you agree that you had to be 20· ·in receipt of this page in order to be able to 21· ·produce it to us in this litigation? 22· · · · · A.· · · I would say yes. 23· · · · · Q.· · · Did you let Cox know when you saw this 24· ·red notation or when you received this red notation 25· ·that you would not be doing mold removal and WILLIAM PATRICK MULLINS BRITNEY vs. WELLS FARGO August 12, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 137 YVer1f Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1482 WATER DAMAGE/Mfl1GATION CLEAN-UP FORM Date /______ onfractor Name Property Address tODRESS image Remodeling and Repair STREET 1425 Magnolia Ridge HONE 318-464-4601 CITY/STATE Bossier City La 71111 MAJL irnageremodelingilc@gmaiLcorn We assume no expeslise in environmental cleaning The methods equlpmen4 and materials used are to be determined by the professional bidding the work needed This form is simply for the clarification of cost by category rief description of the issue Vater heater in garage burst at TPR Connection Sonrce MUST BE DETERMINED or Addressed with ccs cure Cost to Cure emove and Replace water he ater and accessories 1351.62 Deniolition at removal ofaffected matedal-dnvwalt floorinq etc Cost to Cure emoval of all damaged flooring base molding drywall insulation Price includes lemolition and haul off 323047 MltiRatlon Cost to Cure Dry Out what It will take to pet the Cost to Cure roperty is dry however will treat with mildecide 37a--r-Estimated Daysjç Complete Oays CLEARANCE TESTING Cost to Cure %ir Quality Test By Party 4J TOTAL TOTAL COST TOCUREj $6407.09 Rev 09/0112010 IMAGE_0003 Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1483 Sheet Date at BId ________ Estimated days to complete Contractors Signature __________________________________ Contractor Comments toter Carnage Mitigation Clean up tone totel Is $6417.00 Total Entirnate tot Jab Is St26L74 Grand Total of Job any unfarsean orbidden loon may result In Sditional charges Ploaxe call with any questions Thankycu cz s.3-- c.- -1c100 Ccx Management Services 3SSSFCaseadeRogd -- Suita2164 .- Atlanta GA 36331 _________.is tL_ -1. Qffiea 41I4653-S661 .Zbt All 4048564572 Fax 770 234-3937 PageS IMAGE_0013 Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1484 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION BRITNEY N. JONES * CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV2513 * VERSUS * JUDGE WALTER * WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL * MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes defendant, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), and, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, hereby submits the following Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment filed this date: 1. The properly located at 1425 Magnolia Ridge in Bossier City, Louisiana (the “Property”) was originally acquired by Wells Fargo at a foreclosure sale conducted by the Bossier Parish Sheriff on September 8, 2010, as evidenced by a written Deed executed and recorded by the Sheriff into the Bossier Parish public record on October 11, 2010 as Instrument Number 1005282. 2. Following its acquisition of the Property, on September 30, 2010, Wells Fargo transferred the property to the Department of Veterans Administration (“VA”). 3. The VA owed the Property from September 30, 2010, until July 8, 2011, when the VA quitclaimed the property to Wells Fargo. 4. Between September 30, 2010 and July 8, 2011, Wells Fargo did not own the Property, did not service the property and had nothing to do with the Property’s management. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1485 2 5. After reacquiring the Property in July of 2011, Wells Fargo engaged a listing agent who solicited bids from third-party, independent contractors to handle remediation and repairs of the foreclosure Property prior to placing it on the market. 6. Wells Fargo hired Cox Management Services (“Cox Management”), to perform the remediation and repairs of the Property pursuant to a Work Order dated October 13, 2011. 7. Cox Management, in turn, hired Image Remodeling & Repairs, LLC (“Image Remodeling”), to perform work on the house, including the remediation of mold. 8. The Work Order between Wells Fargo and Cox Management required mold remediation and treatment with mildecide. 9. The bid amount of $57,000 included more than $11,000 of work exclusively pertaining to mold remediation. 10. The documents exchanged between Cox Management and Image Remodeling regarding the work to be performed at the Property, which were produced by Image Remodeling, provided for mold remediation and treatment with mildecide. 11. Image Remodeling did not perform any mold remediation work on the Property and did not treat any part of the Property with mildecide. 12. However, Image Remodeling was paid the full amount for the work described in the documents exchanged between it and Cox Management, including treatment with mildecide and mold remediation. 13. The Work Order also required, and Image Remodeling obtained, independent, third-party mold clearance testing. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1486 3 14. ALTEC, a third-party, independent mold testing company hired by Image Remodeling, tested the Property after the mold remediation work was performed, and concluded that it was ready for occupancy. 15. After Cox Management provided confirmation to Wells Fargo that the mold remediation work was complete and that the Property passed mold clearance testing, Wells Fargo paid Cox Management for its work. 16. Thereafter, Wells Fargo listed the Property for sale and, ultimately, entered into negotiations with Mr. Jones (to whom Plaintiff concedes she was still legally married at the time) as a prospective purchaser. 17. In the course of these discussions, Mr. Jones made an offer to Wells Fargo, and on December 12, 2011, Wells Fargo made a counter-offer (hereinafter, the “Counter-Offer”), subject to various terms, conditions, and disclosures as set forth in the Counter-Offer and accompanying Standard Seller’s Addendum, Property Condition Addendum and Mold Disclosure and Release. One day later, on December 13, 2011, Mr. Jones formally accepted Wells Fargo’s Counter-Offer, separately signing both the Counter-Offer and each of the accompanying Standard Seller’s Addendum, Property Disclosure Addendum, and Mold Disclosure and Release. 18. Mr. Jones expressly acknowledged, among other things, that Wells Fargo had “obtained the Property through foreclosure or similar process and … has not occupied the Property”; that the Property “is being sold in its present ‘As Is’ condition with no warranties, repairs, or inspections completed by the Seller”; and that “Buyer has received no promises as to condition and no warranties, and has been afforded an opportunity to obtain an inspection by an inspector of Buyer’s choosing.” Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1487 4 19. Mr. Jones also expressly agreed to and accepted the “Mold Disclosure and Release,” which he executed as part of the Property Condition Addendum signed, dated, and initialed by Mr. Jones as an essential term of the parties’ purchase agreement contract. 20. Wells Fargo thereafter conveyed title of the Property to Mr. Jones for the tender and receipt of the $216,900 purchase price, as evidenced by a Special/Limited Warranty Deed executed between the parties and recorded into the Bossier Parish public record on February 8, 2012 as Instrument Number 1037531. 21. Within just eight months of acquiring the Property from Wells Fargo, Mr. Jones transferred his interests to Plaintiff pursuant to a Cash Sale Deed executed by each of Mr. and Ms. Jones on October 5, 2012, and filed into the public record that day as Instrument Number 1057034. As set forth therein, Mr. Jones conveyed title to the Property to plaintiff, Ms. Jones, including the transfer and subrogation of all rights and actions of warranty, “for and in consideration of [plaintiff’s] assumption of the mortgage [then encumbering the Property] and partial settlement of the community property” existing between plaintiff and her ex-husband. 22. Plaintiff, Ms. Jones, alleges that sometime after acquiring clear title to the Property from her ex-husband in October 2012, she “discovered the existence of mold in the residence.” 23. There is no evidence that Wells Fargo concealed mold or otherwise misrepresented the facts known to it, as communicated by Cox Management, who confirmed that it received confirmation that the Property passed clearance tests from a third-party, independent mold testing company, ALTEC Environmental Consulting, LLC, who confirmed that the Property was ready for occupancy. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1488 5 24. Wells Fargo was provided with a proposal for work, including remediation of mold; accepted the proposal for such work; and, paid approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the Property’s value for repairs, which included mold remediation. 25. After hiring Cox Management to perform remediation work and prior to the sale to Mr. Jones, Cox Management affirmatively represented to Wells Fargo that no mold existed in the Property. 26. As a result of Image Remodeling’s work and Cox Management’s representations, Wells Fargo understood that any preexisting mold had been fully and properly remediated. 27. Wells Fargo acted with the utmost precaution in disclosing the potential existence of mold, despite the fact that at all times it was under the understanding that Cox and its subcontractor had remediated the mold as required by the Work Order. 28. Wells Fargo made no misrepresentation but instead disclosed that there may be mold present out of an abundance of caution. Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1489 6 Respectfully submitted, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC BY: /s/Katie L. Dysart KENT A. LAMBERT (La. Bar No. 22458) BRIAN M. BALLAY (La. Bar No. 29077) KATIE L. DYSART (La. Bar. No. 31449) MEGHAN E. CARTER (La. Bar No. 35074) 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Telephone: (504) 566-5200 Facsimile: (504) 636-4000 E-mail: klambert@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: bballay@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: kdysart@bakerdonelson.com E-mail: mcarter@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEYS FOR WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this the 26th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record who have consented to electronic notification. /s/Katie D. Dysart Case 5:13-cv-02513-DEW-KLH Document 141-8 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1490