Wells Fargo exec. moved into beach home surrendered to bank by Madoff-duped couple

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • standin
    Veteran
    • Apr 2009
    • 2274

    Wells Fargo exec. moved into beach home surrendered to bank by Madoff-duped couple

    Thursday September 10, 2009, 11:11 pm EDT




    MALIBU, Calif. (AP) -- A Wells Fargo & Co. executive who oversees foreclosed properties hosted parties and spent long summer weekends in a $12 million Malibu beach house, moving into the home just after it had been surrendered to Wells Fargo to satisfy debts, neighbors said.

    The previous owners of the beachfront home in Malibu Colony -- a densely built stretch of luxury homes that has been a favorite of celebrities over the years -- were financially devastated in Bernard Madoff's massive fraud scheme, real estate agent Irene Dazzan-Palmer said.

    The couple signed the property over to Wells Fargo last spring, and the bank subsequently denied requests to show the house to prospective buyers, Dazzan-Palmer said.

    Residents in the gated community told the Los Angeles Times that a woman they believe was Cheronda Guyton took up occupancy at the home in May. Residents said they obtained Guyton's name from the community's guards, who had issued her a homeowner's parking pass.

    Residents also wrote down the license plate number of a 2007 Volvo sport-utility vehicle they say was parked in the home's garage. A check of state motor vehicle license plates by the Times found the vehicle was registered to Guyton.

    Guyton is a Wells Fargo senior vice president responsible for foreclosed commercial properties, resident Phillip Roman said.

    "It's outrageous to take over a property like that, not make it available and then put someone from the bank in it," said Roman, who lives a few homes away from the property.

    Residents said Guyton, along with her husband and two children, often hosted guests at the home, including a large party the last weekend of August. Malibu Colony is about 25 miles from downtown Los Angeles.

    Wells Fargo said in a written statement that it would conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations by neighbors, but said it wouldn't "discuss specific team member situations/issues for privacy reasons."

    Guyton's home number is unlisted, and attempts to reach her at her Los Angeles office after work hours were unsuccessful.

    The bank's agreement with the prior owner required it to keep the home -- a 3,800-square-foot, two-story structure built in the early 1990s -- off the market for a period of time, Wells Fargo said in the statement. The bank said it planned to list the property for sale soon.

    Neighbors: Exec. moved into bank-owned beach home - Yahoo! Finance

    The account of Ms. Guyton is a an excellent example of how a community can prevent fraud.

    An anomaly was observed.
    Data gathered.
    Data presented.

    It frustrates me knowing that in all likely hood, there was not an law enforcement agency to present the information for review of a crime or crimes committed.

    Guyton should by all means be prosecuted for a crime, even if it is nothing more than a slew of misdemeanors. This needs to be marked on her record.

    Wells Fargo needs to be held accountable for Guyton's behavior.

    It is a conflict of interest to have a policy of allowing executives especially foreclosure executives to live in foreclosed homes or utilize commercial properties.

    I think this is a very fine example of where the SEC, needs:
    • special agents,
    • field offices,
    • arresting powers
    • ease of access for the population.
    Last edited by standin; 09-11-2009, 05:39 PM.
    To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
    MICHAEL G. MULLEN
  • jhale667
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Aug 2004
    • 20929

    #2
    This was all over the local news last night...the house is amazing, btw...
    Originally posted by conmee
    If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

    That is all.

    Icon.
    Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
    I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


    Originally posted by Isaac R.
    Then it's really true??

    The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

    OMFG...who in their right mind...???
    Originally posted by eddie78
    I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

    Comment

    • standin
      Veteran
      • Apr 2009
      • 2274

      #3
      Is there any information on if actual charges can be brought against Guyton and/or Wells Fargo?


      I haven't seen a picture of the house.
      To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
      MICHAEL G. MULLEN

      Comment

      • standin
        Veteran
        • Apr 2009
        • 2274

        #4
        I did see a picture of Madeoff's beach house.

        However, this being a different set of assets in connection to the crime.
        In all rightness, it seems as if this home should be confiscated under the RICO act or property involved in crimes clause to be sold to help fund Madeoff's victim restitution.
        I don't think the bank should have assets derived from a crime.
        To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
        MICHAEL G. MULLEN

        Comment

        • jhale667
          DIAMOND STATUS
          • Aug 2004
          • 20929

          #5
          Originally posted by standin
          However, this being a different set of assets in connection to the crime.
          In all rightness, it seems as if this home should be confiscated under the RICO act or property involved in crimes clause to be sold to help fund Madeoff's victim restitution.
          I don't think the bank should have assets derived from a crime.
          The house is valued at something like $12 mil...a drop in the Madeoff-bucket, so to speak, but I see your point...
          Originally posted by conmee
          If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

          That is all.

          Icon.
          Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
          I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


          Originally posted by Isaac R.
          Then it's really true??

          The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

          OMFG...who in their right mind...???
          Originally posted by eddie78
          I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

          Comment

          • Blackflag
            Banned
            • Apr 2006
            • 3406

            #6
            Originally posted by jhale667
            but I see your point...
            I don't. It's not like Madoff was living in it. Wells Fargo owns the house, because the owner lost it. What difference does it make whether they live in it or sell it? Either way, it's their house. Bad PR for Wells Fargo, stupid thing to do...but illegal or unethical? Not in the least.

            Comment

            • standin
              Veteran
              • Apr 2009
              • 2274

              #7
              It was at very least a conflict of interest and a conflict of fiduciary duty.
              Wells Fargo is not safe guarding the share holders assets.

              The company should have had a segregation of duties. If Guyton was so bold as to throw lavish parties and use company assets as personal assets, then should would be comfortable committing other types of fraudulent activities. At very least her documents should be reviewed by a 3rd party for criminal activities.
              Corrupt, unethical behavior and criminal behavior should not be over-looked. There is no reason to let a such a blatant "gived" case pass.


              And when you stop counting pennies, or millions in this case, then that is ripe areas for fraud.

              One case of fraud that netted the criminal a significant amount was simply absconding $0.005 and less from books.

              To not account for multi million dollar properties is a grievous breach of fiduciary duty.

              It is not Wells Fargo properties alone. It is the share holders.

              Blackie,
              Are you saying all share holders of bank properties can do what they wish with Wells Fargo's properties?
              To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
              MICHAEL G. MULLEN

              Comment

              • Blackflag
                Banned
                • Apr 2006
                • 3406

                #8
                Guyton is not a shareholder. It is Wells Fargo's property alone. There is no conflict of interest. etc.

                Comment

                • Nitro Express
                  DIAMOND STATUS
                  • Aug 2004
                  • 32942

                  #9
                  Wells Fargo is a lousy bank. They were an absolute bitch to deal with after my brother died and I had to deal with his estate. They started charging a $20 per month fee on a business account I had due to lack of activity. Then the investment club account we had with them had money withdrew coming to find it was the debit card of a club members private account who also was a signer on the clubs account. In other words, they had no money in their account so Well Fargo dipped into the clubs account because that person was a co-signer. Unbelievable. Those accounts are sepparate, and the club account requires the signature of the president and another signing member to withdraw money and had no debit card. This is the world of Wells Fargo.
                  No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                  Comment

                  • standin
                    Veteran
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 2274

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Blackflag
                    Guyton is not a shareholder. It is Wells Fargo's property alone. There is no conflict of interest. etc.
                    How do you know Guyton did not have any stock option?

                    Hell, even Enron gave stock to their general employees.
                    To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
                    MICHAEL G. MULLEN

                    Comment

                    • Nitro Express
                      DIAMOND STATUS
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 32942

                      #11
                      Originally posted by standin
                      How do you know Guyton did not have any stock option?

                      Hell, even Enron gave stock to their general employees.
                      Who cares if they are a stock holder or not? Hell, the US taxpayer bailout that lousy bank out and saved it's sorry broke ass. That bank has the responsibility to sell that home ASAP which plenty of people in the world would still be interested in.
                      No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                      Comment

                      • yah
                        Head Fluffer
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 253

                        #12
                        naughty, naughty Cheronda...

                        Comment

                        • Blackflag
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2006
                          • 3406

                          #13
                          Originally posted by standin
                          How do you know Guyton did not have any stock option?

                          Hell, even Enron gave stock to their general employees.
                          You're confused. What difference does it make if she had stock? Foremost, she's an officer of the company. So if you want to claim something was illegal, you have to start there.
                          Last edited by Blackflag; 09-12-2009, 05:19 PM.

                          Comment

                          • Blackflag
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2006
                            • 3406

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Nitro Express
                            Who cares if they are a stock holder or not? Hell, the US taxpayer bailout that lousy bank out and saved it's sorry broke ass. That bank has the responsibility to sell that home ASAP which plenty of people in the world would still be interested in.
                            Sure, they should sell it, if nothing from a PR perspective. But illegal if they don't? No conceivable way. And that the previous owner was a Madoff victim is completely irrelevant.

                            Comment

                            • standin
                              Veteran
                              • Apr 2009
                              • 2274

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Blackflag
                              I don't. It's not like Madoff was living in it. Wells Fargo owns the house, because the owner lost it. What difference does it make whether they live in it or sell it? Either way, it's their house. Bad PR for Wells Fargo, stupid thing to do...but illegal or unethical? Not in the least.
                              Originally posted by standin
                              It was at very least a conflict of interest and a conflict of fiduciary duty.
                              Wells Fargo is not safe guarding the share holders assets.

                              The company should have had a segregation of duties. If Guyton was so bold as to throw lavish parties and use company assets as personal assets, then should would be comfortable committing other types of fraudulent activities. At very least her documents should be reviewed by a 3rd party for criminal activities.
                              Corrupt, unethical behavior and criminal behavior should not be over-looked. There is no reason to let a such a blatant "gived" case pass.


                              And when you stop counting pennies, or millions in this case, then that is ripe areas for fraud.

                              One case of fraud that netted the criminal a significant amount was simply absconding $0.005 and less from books.

                              To not account for multi million dollar properties is a grievous breach of fiduciary duty.

                              It is not Wells Fargo properties alone. It is the share holders.

                              Blackie,
                              Are you saying all share holders of bank properties can do what they wish with Wells Fargo's properties?
                              Originally posted by Blackflag
                              Guyton is not a shareholder. It is Wells Fargo's property alone. There is no conflict of interest. etc.
                              Originally posted by Blackflag
                              You're confused. What difference does it make if she had stock? Foremost, she's an officer of the company. So if you want to claim something was illegal, you have to start there.
                              Who is Wells Fargo, Blackie?
                              To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate.
                              MICHAEL G. MULLEN

                              Comment

                              Working...