Legal Actions	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Actions [Abstract]
Legal Actions	Note 11: Legal Actions The following supplements and amends our discussion of certain matters previously reported in Item 3 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2010 Form 10-K, and Part II, Item 1 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2011 first quarter Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for events occurring in second quarter 2011. ELAVON LITIGATION On May 23, 2011, the Court entered an order granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and denying Wells Fargo’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Wells Fargo’s termination of the contract at issue was invalid and dismissing several of Wells Fargo’s affirmative defenses. The Court has set a trial date of the remaining issues for September 21, 2011. ERISA LITIGATION The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is considering final approval of the $17.5 million settlement in Figas v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al. IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION On May 27, 2011, Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the matter captioned In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation for $125 million. On July 26, 2011, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 20, 2011, a case captioned Federal Home Loan of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk. The case names, among a large number of parties, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Asset Securitization Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as parties and contains allegations substantially similar to the cases filed by the other Federal Home Loan Banks. On April 28, 2011, a case captioned The Union Central Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Securities Corp., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Among other defendants, it names Wells Fargo Asset Securitization Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. The case asserts various state law fraud claims and claims for violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of three insurance companies, relating to offerings of mortgage-backed securities from 2005 through 2007. In addition, there are other cases involving other issuers of mortgage-backed certificates where Wells Fargo may have indemnity obligations because the pools of mortgages backing the certificates contain mortgages originated by Wells Fargo. MORTGAGE RELATED REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS On March 31, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Bank) entered into a Consent Order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under which the OCC made certain findings in connection with the Bank’s foreclosure practices, which findings the Bank neither admitted nor denied. The Bank agreed in the consent order, among other things, and subject to the OCC’s approval (i) to establish a Compliance Committee to monitor and coordinate the Bank’s compliance with the Consent Order; (ii) to create a comprehensive Action Plan describing the actions needed to achieve compliance with the Consent Order; (iii) to submit an acceptable compliance plan to ensure that its mortgage servicing and foreclosure operations, including loss mitigation and loan modification, comply with legal requirements, OCC supervisory guidance, and the terms of the Consent Order; (iv) to submit a plan to ensure appropriate controls and oversight of the Bank’s activities with respect to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System; (v) to take certain other actions with respect to its mortgage servicing and foreclosure operations; and (vi) to conduct a foreclosure review through an independent consultant on certain residential foreclosure actions. On April 4, 2011, Wells Fargo & Company (Wells Fargo) entered into a Consent Order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve pursuant to which Wells Fargo agreed, among other things, (i) to ensure the Bank’s compliance with the OCC Consent Order; (ii) to develop for the Federal Reserve’s approval a written plan to enhance its Enterprise Risk Management with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing; (iii) to develop for the Federal Reserve’s approval a written plan to enhance its enterprise-wide compliance program with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing; and (iv) to develop for the Federal Reserve’s approval a written plan to enhance the internal audit program with respect to residential mortgage loan servicing. Neither Consent Order provided for civil money penalties but both government entities reserved the ability to seek such penalties and Wells Fargo reserved the ability to oppose the imposition of such penalties. On July 20, 2011, Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc. entered into an Order to Cease and Desist and Order of Assessment of a Civil Money Penalty Issued Upon Consent (the “Order”) with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) which resolved an investigation of Wells Fargo Financial’s mortgage lending activities by the FRB. The Order provides, among other things, that (i) Wells Fargo shall submit to the FRB within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for overseeing fraud prevention and detection and for compliance with certain federal and state laws applicable to unfair and deceptive practices and certain other laws applicable to mortgage lending; (ii) Wells Fargo shall submit to the FRB within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for overseeing the implementation and modification of incentive compensation and performance management programs for sales, sales management and underwriting personnel with respect to mortgage lending within the Wells Fargo organization; (iii) Wells Fargo shall submit within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for the remediation to borrowers who entered into loans with Wells Fargo Financial beginning January 1, 2004 through September 2008 where the loans were based on income documents that were altered or falsified by sales personnel; (iv) Wells Fargo shall submit within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for the remediation to borrowers who received mortgage loans through Wells Fargo Financial at non-prime prices during the period from January 1, 2006 through September 2008 but whose mortgage loans may have qualified for prime pricing. In addition to these provisions to submit plans for compliance and compensation changes and for remediation payments to certain Wells Fargo Financial borrowers, the Order imposes a civil money penalty of $85 million on Wells Fargo. Other government agencies, including state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, continue to investigate various mortgage related practices of the Bank. These investigations could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies (including requiring default servicing or other process changes), or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation. WACHOVIA EQUITY SECURITIES AND BONDS/NOTES LITIGATION The plaintiffs in the In re Wachovia Equity Securities Litigation and the Stichting Pensioenfords ABP, FC Holdings AB, Deka Investments GmbH and Forsta AP-Fonden cases have appealed the March 31, 2011 Decision and Order dismissing their cases. Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs have agreed in principle to settle the In re Wachovia Preferred Securities and Bond/Notes Litigation for $590 million. The proposed settlement is subject to Court approval. The proposed settlement amount has been reflected in Wells Fargo’s financial statements and will not have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo’s consolidated financial position. OUTLOOK The Company establishes a liability for contingent litigation losses when it determines that a potential loss is both probable and estimable. In addition, for significant matters, the Company determines a range of potential loss that is reasonably possible. The high end of the range of reasonably possible potential litigation losses in excess of the Company’s liability for probable and estimable losses was $1.6 billion as of June 30, 2011. For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established liability that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Wells Fargo believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against Wells Fargo and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to Wells Fargo’s results of operations for any particular period.

Note 11: Legal Actions

The following supplements and amends our discussion of certain matters previously reported in Item 3 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2010 Form 10-K, and Part II, Item 1 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2011 first quarter Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for events occurring in second quarter 2011.

ELAVON LITIGATION On May 23, 2011, the Court entered an order granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and denying Wells Fargo’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Wells Fargo’s termination of the contract at issue was invalid and dismissing several of Wells Fargo’s affirmative defenses. The Court has set a trial date of the remaining issues for September 21, 2011.

ERISA LITIGATION The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is considering final approval of the $17.5 million settlement in Figas v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al.

IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION On May 27, 2011, Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the matter captioned In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation for $125 million. On July 26, 2011, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.

On April 20, 2011, a case captioned Federal Home Loan of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk. The case names, among a large number of parties, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Asset Securitization Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as parties and contains allegations substantially similar to the cases filed by the other Federal Home Loan Banks.

On April 28, 2011, a case captioned The Union Central Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Securities Corp., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Among other defendants, it names Wells Fargo Asset Securitization Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. The case asserts various state law fraud claims and claims for violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of three insurance companies, relating to offerings of mortgage-backed securities from 2005 through 2007.

In addition, there are other cases involving other issuers of mortgage-backed certificates where Wells Fargo may have indemnity obligations because the pools of mortgages backing the certificates contain mortgages originated by Wells Fargo.

MORTGAGE RELATED REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS On March 31, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Bank) entered into a Consent Order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under which the OCC made certain findings in connection with the Bank’s foreclosure practices, which findings the Bank neither admitted nor denied. The Bank agreed in the consent order, among other things, and subject to the OCC’s approval (i) to establish a Compliance Committee to monitor and coordinate the Bank’s compliance with the Consent Order; (ii) to create a comprehensive Action Plan describing the actions needed to achieve compliance with the Consent Order; (iii) to submit an acceptable compliance plan to ensure that its mortgage servicing and foreclosure operations, including loss mitigation and loan modification, comply with legal requirements, OCC supervisory guidance, and the terms of the Consent Order; (iv) to submit a plan to ensure appropriate controls and oversight of the Bank’s activities with respect to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System; (v) to take certain other actions with respect to its mortgage servicing and foreclosure operations; and (vi) to conduct a foreclosure review through an independent consultant on certain residential foreclosure actions. On April 4, 2011, Wells Fargo & Company (Wells Fargo) entered into a Consent Order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve pursuant to which Wells Fargo agreed, among other things, (i) to ensure the Bank’s compliance with the OCC Consent Order; (ii) to develop for the Federal Reserve’s approval a written plan to enhance its Enterprise Risk Management with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing; (iii) to develop for the Federal Reserve’s approval a written plan to enhance its enterprise-wide compliance program with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing; and (iv) to develop for the Federal Reserve’s approval a written plan to enhance the internal audit program with respect to residential mortgage loan servicing. Neither Consent Order provided for civil money penalties but both government entities reserved the ability to seek such penalties and Wells Fargo reserved the ability to oppose the imposition of such penalties.

On July 20, 2011, Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc. entered into an Order to Cease and Desist and Order of Assessment of a Civil Money Penalty Issued Upon Consent (the “Order”) with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) which resolved an investigation of Wells Fargo Financial’s mortgage lending activities by the FRB. The Order provides, among other things, that (i) Wells Fargo shall submit to the FRB within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for overseeing fraud prevention and detection and for compliance with certain federal and state laws applicable to unfair and deceptive practices and certain other laws applicable to mortgage lending; (ii) Wells Fargo shall submit to the FRB within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for overseeing the implementation and modification of incentive compensation and performance management programs for sales, sales management and underwriting personnel with respect to mortgage lending within the Wells Fargo organization; (iii) Wells Fargo shall submit within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for the remediation to borrowers who entered into loans with Wells Fargo Financial beginning January 1, 2004 through September 2008 where the loans were based on income documents that were altered or falsified by sales personnel; (iv) Wells Fargo shall submit within 90 days of the Order a plan, acceptable to the FRB, for the remediation to borrowers who received mortgage loans through Wells Fargo Financial at non-prime prices during the period from January 1, 2006 through September 2008 but whose mortgage loans may have qualified for prime pricing. In addition to these provisions to submit plans for compliance and compensation changes and for remediation payments to certain Wells Fargo Financial borrowers, the Order imposes a civil money penalty of $85 million on Wells Fargo.
Other government agencies, including state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, continue to investigate various mortgage related practices of the Bank. These investigations could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies (including requiring default servicing or other process changes), or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation.

WACHOVIA EQUITY SECURITIES AND BONDS/NOTES LITIGATION The plaintiffs in the In re Wachovia Equity Securities Litigation and the Stichting Pensioenfords ABP, FC Holdings AB, Deka Investments GmbH and Forsta AP-Fonden cases have appealed the March 31, 2011 Decision and Order dismissing their cases.

Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs have agreed in principle to settle the In re Wachovia Preferred Securities and Bond/Notes Litigation for $590 million. The proposed settlement is subject to Court approval. The proposed settlement amount has been reflected in Wells Fargo’s financial statements and will not have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo’s consolidated financial position.

OUTLOOK The Company establishes a liability for contingent litigation losses when it determines that a potential loss is both probable and estimable. In addition, for significant matters, the Company determines a range of potential loss that is reasonably possible. The high end of the range of reasonably possible potential litigation losses in excess of the Company’s liability for probable and estimable losses was $1.6 billion as of June 30, 2011. For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established liability that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Wells Fargo believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against Wells Fargo and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to Wells Fargo’s results of operations for any particular period.