Trujillo et al v. Bank of America, NA et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PACER Cover Sheet
for Electronically Filed Documents
Any data shown here are current as of 	. Any element of information on this form,
except the received date, is subject to change as changes may be made to the Court's official docket.
Case Title:
Case Number:
Document Information
Description:
Date Filed:
Date Entered On
Docket:
Filer Information
Submitted By:
If this form is attached to the document identified above, it serves as an endorsed copy of the
document as it existed on the above date. To confirm that nothing has changed since then,
review the docket.
06/10/06
Carla Jean Trujillo, et al. v. Bank of America, NA, et al.
05-01034
Order Granting in Part, Denying in Part [20-1] Motion For Judgment on the
Pleadings by Wells Fargo Bank .
Received on: 2005-08-19 09:50:55.000
2005-08-19 00:00:00.000
2005-08-22 00:00:00.000
Ellen Snyder
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 1 of 15

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re:
Carla Jean Trujillo and
Steve Benedict Trujillo,
Debtors. No. 7-04-11325 MA
Carla Jean Trujillo and
Steve Benedict Trujillo,
Plaintiffs,
v. Adv. No. 05-1034 M
Bank of America, N.A., Chex Systems, Inc. and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”)
filed by Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). A hearing was held on June 27, 2005 at
which time the Court took the matter under advisement. Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning both Bank of
America and Wells Fargo in the verified complaint (the “Complaint”) are relevant to this Motion and
are as follows:
Plaintiffs filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on February 26, 2004. On the date of
the bankruptcy filing, Plaintiffs had an overdraft amount of $584.84 attributable to their checking
account with Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”). Complaint Ex. A. Plaintiffs
listed Bank of America as a creditor in their bankruptcy schedules. Complaint Ex. B. A notice of
bankruptcy filing was sent to Bank of America on February 29, 2005. Complaint Ex. C.
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 2 of 15

1 The copy of Exhibit E in the Court’s electronic docket is illegible as to the day in April 2004
that the account was scheduled to be closed.
2
On February 4, 2005, about three weeks before the bankruptcy filing, the Plaintiffs opened a
new bank account at Wells Fargo and established direct deposit arrangement from their employers.
Complaint Ex. D. Plaintiffs closed their checking account and terminated direct deposit arrangements
with Bank of America. Complaint ¶ 10. Sometime before April 14, 2004, Plaintiffs contacted Wells
Fargo customer service, and Wells Fargo representatives informed Plaintiffs that a hold was placed on
the account and that a letter of explanation would follow. Complaint ¶ 11. Plaintiffs received a letter
dated April 14, 2004 from Wells Fargo notifying them that their account would be closed based on
information received from Defendant, Chex Systems, Inc. (“Chex Systems”). Complaint ¶ 12 and Ex.
E (Letter from Donald D. Vattuone, Vice President, Wells Fargo Deposit Operations Service Center,
San Francisco, California) . The letter stated the following:
In reviewing your account(s), we found activity or information representing potential risk to
Wells Fargo and you. Therefore, as of the date of this letter, we have begun the process of
closing your account(s). Any ATM card(s) assigned to our account(s) has been deactivated,
checks and preauthorized debits presented may be returned unpaid, and preauthorized credits
may not post to your account.
We took this action for the following reason:
Information received from ChexSystems, an account verification service. If you would like to
review the information provided by ChexSystems, refer to the enclosed form to contact Chex
Systems directly. . . .
The process of closing your account(s) is scheduled to be completed April 2_, 20041. On that
date, a bank check for any remaining balance(s) due to you will be mailed to your most recent
address of record.
If your account is overdrawn, please make a deposit in the exact amount of the overdraft. If
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 3 of 15

2 Because Wells Fargo was not a pre-petition creditor or party in interest, it did not receive a
notice of Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy filing in February 2004.
3
your account(s) has a negative balance on the scheduled date of closure, you are responsible
for payment of any outstanding balance(s). . . .
Complaint Ex E.
Wells Fargo employees informed Plaintiffs that Chex Systems reports bank account abuse to
member banks, which may disqualify a consumer for account services. Complaint ¶ 13. Wells Fargo
employees also informed Plaintiffs that the notation on the Chex Systems report was made by Bank of
America, and that as long as the Bank of America notation remained on the Chex Systems report,
neither Wells Fargo nor any reputable bank would grant Plaintiffs consumer banking services.
Complaint ¶ 14. Wells Fargo employees suggested that Plaintiffs return to Bank of America to resolve
the matter and informed Plaintiffs that written notice of any resolution with Bank of America would not
be honored at Wells Fargo unless the notice was sent directly from Bank of America to Wells Fargo.
Complaint ¶ 15 and ¶ 21. Plaintiffs informed the Wells Fargo employees that they had recently filed
bankruptcy and that the debt to Bank of America was included in the bankruptcy schedules.2
Complaint ¶ 16.
Plaintiffs went to the Bank of America offices in Albuquerque and requested that Bank of
America arrange for removal of the notation from the Chex Systems report to allow them to do
business with Wells Fargo. Complaint ¶ 17. Bank of America employees informed them that the
balance of all overdrafts was $658.83 and that the matter would only be resolved by payment of all
overdraft amounts to Bank of America. Complaint ¶ 18. Plaintiffs informed Bank of America
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 4 of 15

3 The letter stated the following:
Thank you for your recent inquiry on the above reference account.
Our records now reflect that the debt referenced above has been paid in full as of April 16,
2004.
It is Bank of America’s practice to report accounts that are closed by the bank to
ChexSystems. This information is retained for a period of five years. However, after
completing our research we have decided to remove this record from ChexSystems. Please be
advised that ChexSystems requires approximately 5 to 7 business days for processing this
request.
This letter may be used as proof that you have satisfied this debt with Bank of America.
. . .
Complaint Ex. G.
4
employees of their bankruptcy, but the employees made no offer to change the Chex Systems report
until Plaintiffs paid the overdraft. Complaint ¶ 19-20.
On or about April 16, 2004, Plaintiffs delivered a cashier’s check in the amount of $658.83
payable to Bank of America Overdraft Recovery Services. Complaint ¶ 22; Complaint Ex. F. In
exchange for the payment, Bank of America employees issued a letter dated April 16, 2004 to Plaintiff,
Carla Jean Trujillo. Complaint Ex. G.3 At Plaintiffs’ request, Bank of America faxed a copy of the
letter to Wells Fargo on April 16, 2004. After Wells Fargo could not locate the first fax, Bank of
America faxed the letter again the next day. Complaint ¶ 24.
Wells Fargo’s “hold” on Plaintiffs’ account caused five checks, written on April 18 and 19,
2004, to be returned for insufficient funds in the total amount of $303.19 plus bank fees of $140.00.
Complaint ¶ 30 and Ex. H.
Discussion
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 5 of 15

4 Rule 12, Fed.R.Civ.P. is made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Rule 7012,
Fed.R.Bankr.P.
5
A court may dismiss a cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)4 for
failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would
entitle the plaintiff to relief. DiMezza v. First USA Bank, Inc., 103 F.Supp.2d 1296,1298 (D.N.M.
2000), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); and H.J.
Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195
(1989). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court assumes as true all well-pleaded facts,
and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. DeMezza, 103 F. Supp.2d at 1298,
citing, Housing Auth. of the Kaw Tribe v. City of Ponca City, 952 F.2d 1183, 1187 (10th
Cir.1991).
Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief alleges that Wells Fargo “willfully violated the stay by
commencing, cooperating and continuing to engage in acts designed to collect, assess or recover a
claim against the debtors that arose before the commencement of this case under title 11.” Complaint ¶
32. Plaintiffs assert that Wells Fargo is liable to Plaintiffs for actual damages, including costs and
attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Complaint ¶ 33. Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter an Order
declaring Wells Fargo “guilty of civil contempt by violating the automatic stay granted herein on
February 26, 2004, for [its] actions and in-actions on or about April 14, 2004[,]” and award Plaintiffs
“compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees and costs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) and
for contempt of court; . . . along with such additional relief as it deems necessary or proper.”
Complaint at p. 12-13.
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 6 of 15

6
The filing of bankruptcy petition “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . .(6) any act
to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the
case under this title. . . . ” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). The purpose of § 362 is “to give the debtor a
‘breathing spell from his creditors’ . . . [and] to prevent dismemberment of the debtors' assets by
creditors." H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 340-42 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. &
Admin.News 1978, 5787, cited in Matter of Lee, 35 B.R. 452, 455 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 1983).
“Paragraph (6) prevents creditors from attempting in any way to collect a pre-petition debt.” In re
Haffner, 25 B.R. 882, 886 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1982) (emphasis added), quoting, H.R.Rep. No. 595,
95 Cong. 1st Sess. 340, 342 (1977) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6298. In
other words, the automatic stay prohibits, “any action against a debtor which is reasonably calculated to
further disorganize the debtor’s efforts to deal with his financial problems and to interfere with a
debtor’s attempt to rehabilitate.” Haffner, 25 B.R. at 887. “A ‘willful violation’ does not require a
specific intent to violate the automatic stay. Rather, the statute provides for damages upon a finding that
the defendant knew of the bankruptcy and that the defendant's actions which violated the stay were
intentional.” In re Suarez, 149 B.R. 193, 196 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1993).
Wells Fargo first argues that its status as a non-creditor insulates it from liability for an alleged
stay violation. However, the language of § 362(a) is applicable to all “entities,” not just creditors.
Section 101(15) defines “entity” to include a person, an estate, a trust, a governmental unit, and the
United States Trustee. A “person” includes an “individual, partnership, and corporation . . .” 11
U.S.C. § 101(41). Based on these definitions, Wells Fargo qualifies as an entity, and is, therefore,
subject to the automatic stay provisions. See Lee, 35 B.R. at 455 (finding that Citizens and Southern
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 7 of 15

5 In Sportfame, the court found that the defendant’s sole basis for refusing to ship goods to
debtor even on a cash basis was its desire to coerce debtor’s repayment of its pre-petition
indebtedness. The court found that this act, albeit a passive one, was an “act to collect, assess, or
recover a claim against the debtor.” Id. at 50.
7
National Bank was an entity subject to stay provisions even though it was not a creditor).
Next, Wells Fargo argues that the facts alleged are insufficient to support a claim that it violated
the stay. According to Wells Fargo, the allegations show that it closed Plaintiffs’ account because
Plaintiffs presented an unacceptable risk and that its employees only suggested that Plaintiffs resolve the
matter with Bank of America to which Plaintiffs responded by voluntarily paying a debt, none of which
is prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code.
Although Plaintiffs have not alleged that Wells Fargo told Plaintiffs that they must pay the debt
to Bank of America or else no bank would do business with them, the Court is troubled by the
implication of Plaintiffs’ allegations which indicate that Wells Fargo by its statements and actions
strongly influenced Plaintiffs pay a pre-petition debt in order be able to bank anywhere. Thus, the
allegations support an inference that by refusing to do business with Plaintiffs, Wells Fargo worked in
concert with Bank of America to collect the debt and thereby violated the stay.
Courts have held that the refusal to do business with bankruptcy debtors, if used to coerce
payment of a debt, violates the stay as an act to collect, assess or recover a claim. See e.g. Sportfame
of Ohio v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (In re Sportfame of Ohio), 40 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr. N.D.
Ohio 1984)(finding that regular supplier of goods to a retailer after bankruptcy filed violated §
362(a)(6) by refusing to enter into cash transactions with the debtor absent payment of its pre-petition
debt);5 and Haffner, 25 B.R. at 887 (finding that refusal by Commodity Credit Corporation to pay
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 8 of 15

6 In Haffner, the court found that the Commodity Credit Corporation, a department within the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, violated the stay by refusing to pay the debtor amounts owed under a
crop storage program until a pre-petition debt was paid. The court concluded, the retention of money
to recover prepetition debts in a post-petition transaction involving bankruptcy debtors, even if required
under federal regulations, constitutes a violation of § 362(a)(6). The court found that the government
“[i]n effect, use[d] the regulation as leverage in forcing a debtor in bankruptcy to reaffirm a pre-petition
debt.” Id. at 887.
8
amounts owed under crop program until debtor paid pre-petition debts violates stay).6 Here, Plaintiffs
allege that Wells Fargo refused to do business with Plaintiffs because of the information contained in the
Chex Systems report and that until Plaintiffs resolved the matter with Bank of America, neither Wells
Fargo nor any other reputable bank would do business with them. Although Wells Fargo’s actions
were not an effort to collect its own debt, nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently state a claim
that Wells Fargo violated the stay.
The Second Claim for Relief alleges that Wells Fargo violated the New Mexico Unfair
Practices Act, NMSA 1978 §§ 57-12-1, et seq. (2000 Repl. Pamp.) (2004 Cum. Supp.)
(“NMUPA”). Under the NMUPA claims may be brought for unfair or deceptive trade practices.
Under the NMUPA an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” means
. . . a false or misleading oral or written statement, . . . made in connection with . . . the
extension of credit or in the collection of debts by a person in the regular course of his trade or
commerce, which may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person.” NMSA 1978 § 57-
12-2D (2004 Cum. Supp.).
Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants violated the NMUPA by “making false or misleading oral or
written statements knowingly made in connection with the collection of a debt by Defendants in the
regular course of their trade or commerce which did tend to or did deceive or mislead Plaintiffs that
nonpayment of the debt would result in the imminent closure of Plaintiffs’ federally insured deposit
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 9 of 15

9
account and denial of banking privileges any where else.” Complaint ¶ 35.
To establish a violation of the NMUPA in connection with debt collection, Plaintiffs must prove
the following: (1) defendant made an oral or written statement that was false or misleading; (2) the false
or misleading statement was knowingly made in connection with collection of debt; (3) the
representation occurred in regular course of trade or commerce; and (4) the representation may, tends
to, or does deceive or mislead any person. Russey v. Rankin, 911 F.Supp. 1449, 1459-60
(D.N.M.1995).
Wells Fargo argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege which statements were false or misleading
statements in violation of the NMUPA. However, Plaintiffs have alleged that the statements that non-
payment of the debt would result in the imminent closure of Plaintiffs’ bank account and denial of
banking privileges anywhere else were false or misleading. Moreover, whether any of the statements,
either written or oral, were false is a question of fact to be decided on the merits and Wells Fargo has
not presented the Court with a reason to doubt Plaintiffs’ allegation that these statements were false.
Wells Fargo also argues that Plaintiffs fail to show that it made the alleged statements to
Plaintiffs in connection with the collection of a debt. Wells Fargo asserts that the alleged statements
were made in connection with whether Plaintiffs could continue their banking services. However, the
Court has concluded that the inferences from the allegations indicate that Wells Fargo was acting in
concert with Bank of America to collect the overdraft debt. Thus, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Wells
Fargo made misleading statements in connection with the collection of a debt.
With regard to the remaining elements, Plaintiffs allege that the statements were made in the
regular course of Wells Fargo banking business and that the statements deceived or misled them.
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 10 of 15

10
Therefore, Plaintiffs have alleged facts supporting each element of a deceptive practice under the
NMUPA.
The Third Claim for Relief alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692(o) (FDCPA). To establish violation of the FDCPA, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that 1) he has been object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt; 2) the
defendant attempting to collect debt qualifies as "debt collector" under the FDCPA; and 3) the
defendant has engaged in a prohibited act or has failed to perform requirement imposed by FDCPA.
Russey v. Rankin, 911 F.Supp. at 1453.
Wells Fargo argues that it is not a “debt collector” as defined in the FDCPA. The FDCPA
defines debt collector as follows:
The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate
commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any
debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or
due or asserted to be owed or due another. . .
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(emphasis added).
The FDCPA establishes two alternative requirements for “debt collector” status. Either the
party must engage in debt collection activity as the principal purpose of its business or the party
regularly engages in such activity. Goldstein v. Hutton, 374 F.3d 56, 61 (2nd Cir. 2004). Wells
Fargo argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege that the principal purpose of Wells Fargo’s business is debt
collection or that Wells Fargo is regularly engaged in such debt collection activity. The Complaint
alleges that Wells Fargo violated the FDCPA in various ways, but the Complaint does not allege how
Wells Fargo can be considered a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA, which is an essential
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 11 of 15

7 The Court has entered an order dismissing all of the claims against Chex Systems. See Order
Granting Chex Systems’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, entered on June 28, 2005 (Doc. 28).
11
element of a claim under the FDCPA. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the FDCPA. See
Azar v. Hayter, 874 F.Supp. 1314, 1319 (N.D. Fla. 1995)(stating that plaintiffs failed to state a claim
under FDCPA because plaintiff did not allege facts from which the court could determine whether
defendants were debt collectors as defined under the FDCPA).
The Fourth Claim for Relief only involves claims against Defendant Chex Systems.7
The Fifth Claim for Relief alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. (FCRA). Plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo violated the FCRA in the following
respects:
a. By willfully and/or negligently failing to describe in its notice to Plaintiffs that an investigative
report is one which would include information as to Plaintiffs’ character, general reputation,
personal characteristics and mode of living, i.e. ‘bank account abuser’ in violation of §
1681d(a)(1) of the FCRA; b. By willfully and/or negligently failing to maintain reasonable
procedures to assure compliance with § 1681d(a)(1) in regard to providing consumers with
disclosures that investigative reports include information as to Plaintiff’s character, general
reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living, i.e. ‘bank account abuser’: [sic] c. By
willfully and/or negligently failing to disclose to Plaintiff [sic] their right to request additional
disclosures of the nature and scope of the investigation. Complaint ¶ 54a-c.
Section 1681d(a)(1) provides:
(a) Disclosure of fact of preparation
A person may not procure or cause to be prepared an investigative consumer report on any
consumer unless--
(1) it is clearly and accurately disclosed to the consumer that an investigative consumer report
including information as to his character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode
of living, whichever are applicable, may be made, and such disclosure (A) is made in a writing
mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the consumer, not later than three days after the date on
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 12 of 15

12
which the report was first requested, and (B) includes a statement informing the consumer of his
right to request the additional disclosures provided for under subsection (b) of this section and
the written summary of the rights of the consumer prepared pursuant to section 1681g(c) of this
title.
15 U.S.C. § 1681d(a)(1).
Section 1681a(e) of the FCRA provides the definition of the term “investigative report” as
follows:
The term “investigative consumer report” means a consumer report or portion thereof in which
information on a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of
living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the
consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge
concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific
factual information on a consumer's credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the
consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly
from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.”
15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
Plaintiffs argue that the Chex Systems report, which includes references to account abuse by Plaintiffs,
constitutes an investigative report under the FCRA. However, the Complaint states no facts from
which this Court can find that the Chex Systems report is an “investigative consumer report.” There are
no allegations that the information was from personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of
the consumer; instead, the source of the information in the report was Bank of America. Therefore, the
Court finds that the allegations by Plaintiffs that Wells Fargo violated the FCRA provisions applicable
to “investigative reports” should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See Clark v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 669 (10th Cir. 1995)(upholding
finding that report was not “investigative consumer report” because only listed credit transactions and
did not fit within the definition of § 1681a(e)); Belshaw v. Credit Bureau of Prescott, 392 F.Supp.
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 13 of 15

13
1356, 1361 (D. Ariz. 1975) (finding that since complaint alleged only that consumer report, not
investigative consumer report, was prepared, plaintiff’s allegation that defendant violated provisions
regarding investigative consumer reports should be dismissed for failure to state a claim).
For the above stated reasons, the Court hereby grants the Motion as to the Third and Fifth
Claims for Relief in the Complaint, which assert liability under the FDCPA and the FCRA. The Court
denies the Motion as to the First and Second Claims for Relief alleging violation of the stay and
violation of the NMUPA.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Third and Fifth Claims for Relief in the
Complaint are dismissed.
MARK B. McFEELEY
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
I certify that on the date shown on the attached document verification, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was either electronically transmitted, faxed, delivered or mailed to the listed counsel
and/or parties.
Steven H. Mazer
Attorney for Plaintiffs
122 10th Street N.W.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Steven E. Sessions
Attorney for Plaintiffs
122 10th Street N.W.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
William R. Keleher
Attorney for Bank of America
P.O. Box 2168
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 14 of 15

14
Bank of America Centre
Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168
Alicia L. Gutierrez
Attorney for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
P.O. Box 27047
Albuquerque, NM 87125
Ellen C. Snyder
Law Clerk
Case 05-01034-m Doc 30 Filed 08/19/05 Entered 08/22/05 11:38:00 Page 15 of 15