No. 18-6922

Raghvendra Singh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-12-07
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: anti-deficiency-statutes civil-procedure constitutional-rights foreclosure form-1099 irs non-recourse-debt tax-code tax-hardship wells-fargo-bank
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the Form 1099 illegal for non-recourse debt?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : . ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION Form 1099 is ILLEGAL for any non-recourse debt. | Without any detail, the property owner is unable to do anything. Incase of a foreclosure, Wells Fargo Bank (‘Wells Fargo”) takes the property; provides no information about the foreclosure sale; and sends a Form 1099 in the arbitrary amount to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) without any explanation. This said act results in extra-ordinary amount of Taxes [about $500,000 in this case] and forces the property owner to pay all the Taxes IN THAT ) YEAR ILLEGALLY. AS IRS SENT PETITIONER IN JAIL, A RELIEF 1S NECESSARY, Assuming that all this is legal, then, in order to avoid very high Taxes in that year, the property owner will be forced to pay much less monthly payments and there will not be any foreclosure sale. Further, it will defeat the purpose of anti-deficiency statutes. Despite many promises, Wells Fargo did not correct Form 1099 and did not provide any detail about foreclosure. Without any detail, the property owner is unable to do anything. Plaintiffs filed the underlying action for the Illegal Hardship, for the illegal acts of Defendants, for Violation of Constitutional Rights and for Civil Conspiracy. But, the trial court mistakenly considered this case just for issuing 1099 for forgiving deficiency ONLY and dismissed this case with the conclusion that Wells Fargo can issue a 1099 in the arbitrary amount without considering the correctness of the Form 1099, The issues are the following: ‘ 1. Is the Form 1099 ILLEGAL for the non-recourse debt? 2, Can Wells Fargo claim Forgiveness or cancellation of deficiency without any approval of the owner? Collection of deficiency has nothing to do with this. 3. Is Wells Fargo allowed to issues Form 1099 in all foreclosures whether purchase price is higher or lower than the mortagage balance? . For example, Let us say that the mortgage balance is $500,000. Wells Fargo issues the Form 1099 for $200,000 if the house is taken for net $300,000 or net $700,000. THIS FORCES THE PROPERTY OWNER ILLEGALLY TO PAY ALL THE TAXES IN THAT YEAR CAUSING EXTREME HARDSHIP. -Page 1 4, Wells Fargo did not allow any bid less than the mortgage balance during Foreclosure Sale. Does this fact show that Well Fargo got the subject property for the mortgage balance? ; _ 5. Wells Fargo does not issue Form 1099 when the owner surrenders the house. How does this fact affect this appeal? | 6. Should the taxpayers be taxed for the involuntarily activities [i.e. foreclosure] beyond the control of the taxpayers particularly associated with a contract [Mortgage contract here] affecting the constitutional rights AND CAUSING EXTREME HARDSHIP? This point has many parts. 7. Does issuing the Form 1099 in a Foreclosure circumvent anti-deficiency statutes? , 8. Does issuing the Form 1099 in a Foreclosure violate the public policies? ‘9. Are we allowed to sue Wells Fargo for other issues, i.e., not disclosing the facts, frauds, a breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, violation of Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), correction of Form 1099, etc.? ;

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2018-12-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-18
Waiver of right of respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to respond filed.
2018-11-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)

Attorneys

Raghvendra Singh
Raj Singh — Petitioner
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Jan T. ChiltonSeverson & Werson, Respondent