1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. WILLIS v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
 

WILLIS v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

No. 2:11cv193.

LEVI E. WILLIS II, Trustee, and TOYAWILLIAMS, Trustee, and PATRICIA ROUSE, Trustee, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

January 11, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Levi E. Willis, II, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin B. Rack , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Levi E. Willis, II, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle ReDavid Rack , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Levi E. Willis, II, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan Richard Olansen , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Toya Williams, Church of God in Christ Trustee of Garden of Prayer Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin B. Rack , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Toya Williams, Church of God in Christ Trustee of Garden of Prayer Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle ReDavid Rack , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Toya Williams, Church of God in Christ Trustee of Garden of Prayer Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan Richard Olansen , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Patricia Rouse, Church of God in Christ Trustee of Garden of Prayer Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin B. Rack , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Patricia Rouse, Church of God in Christ Trustee of Garden of Prayer Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle ReDavid Rack , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Patricia Rouse, Church of God in Christ Trustee of Garden of Prayer Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan Richard Olansen , Rack & Olansen P. C..

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as successor by merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brent Lee VanNorman , Hunton & Williams.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as successor by merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Georgianna Gaines Ramsey , Hunton & Williams LLP (Norfolk).

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as successor by merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Kevin Joseph Cosgrove , Hunton & Williams.

OPINION AND ORDER

MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. After examination of the briefs and record, the Court determines that a hearing on the instant motions is unnecessary, as the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be aided significantly by oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). For the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases