The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a lower court's decision to deny a couple's request to intervene in a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank regarding its COVID-19 mortgage forbearance program. The ruling affects Kenneth and Kayla Rogers, who believed they were wrongly excluded from a settlement that included 400,000 class members. The court's decision highlights the complexities of class action litigation and the requirements for intervention.

The case, known as In re: Wells Fargo COVID Forbearance Settlement Litigation (Docket No. 26-3216), arose after Wells Fargo implemented a mortgage forbearance program during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This program allowed certain customers to temporarily pause their mortgage payments without facing penalties. However, some customers alleged that their mortgages were placed into forbearance without their consent. After years of litigation, a settlement was approved by the district court, but the Rogerses claimed they were unjustly excluded from this agreement.

In April 2020, Kayla Rogers entered the forbearance program on her Wells Fargo-serviced mortgage. In January 2025, after discovering the settlement, she and her husband Kenneth sought to intervene, believing they should be part of the class. Their request was based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, which governs the intervention of parties in ongoing litigation. The couple's motions were denied by the district court, which stated that the Rogerses did not meet the necessary criteria for intervention.

The Rogerses appealed the decision, arguing that they had a substantial legal interest in the case and that their ability to protect that interest would be impaired without intervention. They also sought an evidentiary hearing to present additional evidence regarding their eligibility for the class. However, the Sixth Circuit found no error in the district court's ruling.

The court ruled that the Rogerses failed to satisfy the four elements required for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2). These elements include the timeliness of their request, a substantial legal interest in the case, the potential for impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties. The court noted that the Rogerses' request was indeed timely, but they did not demonstrate a substantial legal interest, as they were not class members.

The court stated, "The Rogerses have not demonstrated an interest in this litigation consistent with the class definition."

To be part of the class, a claimant must have had a mortgage serviced by Wells Fargo that was placed into forbearance without adequate informed consent between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The court found that Kayla's mortgage did not meet this definition, as she had requested forbearance extensions and did not make payments during the forbearance period. Kenneth Rogers, not being a co-borrower on Kayla's mortgage, was also excluded from the class.

The court further explained that the Rogerses' claims were not barred by the settlement agreement, allowing them to pursue separate legal action against Wells Fargo if they chose to do so. The ruling emphasized that the couple's inability to intervene did not hinder their right to seek justice independently.

The Sixth Circuit also addressed the Rogerses' request for an evidentiary hearing. The court ruled that they did not demonstrate a need for such a hearing, especially since the district court had already approved the settlement without substantive objections from class members. The court noted that the Rogerses provided no evidence to counter the sworn declarations from Wells Fargo, which supported the bank's position regarding the Rogerses' exclusion from the class.

The court concluded, "The facts are uncontested... In the absence of other evidence or the suggestion of a dispute over what has been submitted, those declarations are a fair basis for the district court to evaluate the settlement."

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking to intervene in class action lawsuits. It underscores the importance of meeting specific legal criteria and the challenges faced by those who believe they have been wronged but do not fit within the established class definitions. The decision also serves as a reminder that class action settlements can be complex, with strict guidelines governing who qualifies as a member.

As for what’s next, the Rogerses may pursue their claims against Wells Fargo in a separate lawsuit, as the court's ruling does not preclude them from seeking legal recourse outside of the class action framework. There are no indications that the case will be appealed further, as the Sixth Circuit's decision appears to be final.