Wells Fargo Threatens Dying Cancer Patient With Foreclosure: Do You Agree With the Bank's Actions?
mrosen814
2012/07/10 20:16:20
|
|
|||||
|
15 votes
|
|
20% | |||
|
60 votes
|
|
80% | |||
North Carolina resident Cindi Davis had a mortgage of $873 per month. She also has monthly medical bills of more than $1,000. She is in jeopardy of losing her home, because she cannot afford both. According to HuffingtonPost.com, "Despite requests for reprieve from her doctors, who have told Wells Fargo that losing her home would be detrimental to her health, the bank has been unmoved. In a letter to WCNC, Wells Fargo stated." What do you think? Should Wells Fargo ease off or are they in the right?
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM reports:
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM reports:
One bank is forcing a dying woman choose between medical bills and her home
Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/wells-far...






















Big is not necessarily better although no matter what the grouping (e.g., large school district, department chains, etc.) they will tell you it is about efficiency. In the end it is about waste and not about the individual.
In terms of governments....big buracracies (sp.) goggle in the $ and waste it. It is the smaller companies/small businesses, etc. (like community banks, chain stores, or charter schools) that are about profit and the betterment of families and people in the community.
Mrs. Davis would have done better to get a loan from a community bank, not Wells Fargo.
Are banks responsible? Technically, they were bailout by taxpayers which should make them somewhat responsible as help is reciprocal. Are banks responsible for their income? If we look beyond the bailout which saved them, it's even more irresponsible to alienate your customers which furnishes your financial livelihood. Therefore, yes, they are responsible for their actions and the consequences that come from it. And they probably lack this responsibility by not accepting the consequences of last time through having a bailout.
Take care,
Are banks responsible? Technically, they were bailout by taxpayers which should make them somewhat responsible as help is reciprocal. Are banks responsible for their income? If we look beyond the bailout which saved them, it's even more irresponsible to alienate your customers which furnishes your financial livelihood. Therefore, yes, they are responsible for their actions and the consequences that come from it. And they probably lack this responsibility by not accepting the consequences of last time through having a bailout.
Take care,
Take care,
They have tried to help this woman for some time - the time is up apparently. Have no clue why this is so difficult for you to accept, makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can pay her payments, or send her money, or take her in - what ever spins your prop. Cancer kills nearly 547,500 Americans in a single year, every year - should every bank or mortgage company pay for those people or are you going to pay for all their houses??? Should all of the country pay for their houses, cars, TVs - what ever other things you desire?
Reason and logic must enter thought processes at some point. Later
Cancer kills nearly 547,500 Americans in a single year, every year - MR "I HAVE A HEART" - you going to pay for all their houses??? Should all of the country pay for their houses, cars, TVs - what ever other things you desire?
Save the self righteous bull snot - it is boring and illogical.