Legal Actions	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Legal Actions [Abstract]
Legal Actions	Note 11: Legal Actions The following supplements our discussion of certain matters previously reported in Part I, Item 3 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2012 Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2013 first and second quarter Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for events occurring during third quarter 2013. FHA INSURANCE LITIGATION On October 9, 2012, the United States filed a complaint, captioned United States of America v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint makes claims with respect to Wells Fargo's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lending program for the period 2001 to 2010. The complaint alleges, among other allegations, that Wells Fargo improperly certified certain FHA mortgage loans for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) insurance that did not qualify for the program, and therefore Wells Fargo should not have received insurance proceeds from HUD when some of the loans later defaulted. The complaint further alleges Wells Fargo knew some of the mortgages did not qualify for insurance and did not disclose the deficiencies to HUD before making insurance claims. On December 1, 2012, Wells Fargo filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enforce a release of Wells Fargo given by the United States, which was denied on February 12, 2013. On April 11, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and filed its initial appellate brief on September 20, 2013. On December 14, 2012, the United States filed an amended complaint. On January 16, 2013, Wells Fargo filed a motion in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 24, 2013, the Court entered an order denying the motion with respect to the government's federal statutory claims and granting in part, and denying in part, the motion with respect to the government's common law claims. MEDICAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LITIGATION Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. served as indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, which was placed in receivership at the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2009. Since September 2009, Wells Fargo has been named as a defendant in various class and mass actions brought by holders of Medical Capital Corporation's debt, alleging that Wells Fargo breached contractual and other legal obligations owed to them and seeking unspecified damages. On April 16, 2013, the parties reached a settlement, subject to Court approval, of all claims which provides for Wells Fargo to pay $105 million to the plaintiffs. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on August 12, 2013. MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION Several securities law based putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2009, under the caption In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation. The case asserted claims against several Wells Fargo mortgage-backed securities trusts, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and other affiliated entities, individual employee defendants, along with various underwriters and rating agencies. The plaintiffs alleged that the offering documents contain untrue statements of material fact, or omit to state material facts necessary to make the registration statements and accompanying prospectuses not misleading. The parties agreed to settle the case on May 27, 2011, for $125 million. Final approval of the settlement was entered on November 14, 2011. Some class members, including Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), opted out of the settlement. Wells Fargo settled the opt out claims of FNMA in first quarter 2013 and settled the opt out claims of FHLMC in third quarter 2013, in each case for an amount that was within a previously established accrual. Both settlements included the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator of FNMA and FHLMC. The combined amount of the settlements was approximately $335 million. On October 15, 2010, three actions, captioned Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Funding Corporation, et al. (filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, State of Illinois); Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al. (filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles); and Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis v. Banc of America Mortgage America Securities, Inc., et al. (filed in the Superior Court of the State of Indiana for the County of Marion), named multiple defendants, described as issuers/depositors, and underwriters/dealers of private label mortgage-backed securities, in an action asserting claims that defendants used false and misleading statements in offering documents for the sale of such securities. Plaintiffs seek rescission of the sales and damages under state securities and other laws and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Company were named among the defendants. Wells Fargo has reached a settlement in principle with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis to settle the claims against it in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis v. Banc of America Mortgage America Securities, Inc., et al. action for an amount within a previously established accrual. Wells Fargo has also reached a settlement in principle with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago to settle the claims against it in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Funding Corporation, et al. and Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Securities LLC actions for an amount within a previously established accrual. On April 20, 2011, a case captioned Federal Home Loan Bank 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, N.A. as parties and asserts claims that defendants used false and misleading statements in offering documents for the sale of mortgage-backed securities. Wells Fargo settled the claims of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston for an amount within a previously established accrual and was dismissed, with prejudice, from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc., et al. action on September 30, 2013. ORDER OF POSTING LITIGATION On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and, effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. OUTLOOK When establishing a liability for contingent litigation losses, the Company determines a range of potential losses for each matter that is both probable and estimable, and records the amount it considers to be the best estimate within the range. 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 $1.0 billion as of September 30, 2013. 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.

Legal Actions

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Note 11: Legal Actions

The following supplements our discussion of certain matters previously reported in Part I, Item 3 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2012 Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2013 first and second quarter Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for events occurring during third quarter 2013.

FHA INSURANCE LITIGATION On October 9, 2012, the United States filed a complaint, captioned United States of America v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint makes claims with respect to Wells Fargo's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lending program for the period 2001 to 2010. The complaint alleges, among other allegations, that Wells Fargo improperly certified certain FHA mortgage loans for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) insurance that did not qualify for the program, and therefore Wells Fargo should not have received insurance proceeds from HUD when some of the loans later defaulted. The complaint further alleges Wells Fargo knew some of the mortgages did not qualify for insurance and did not disclose the deficiencies to HUD before making insurance claims. On December 1, 2012, Wells Fargo filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enforce a release of Wells Fargo given by the United States, which was denied on February 12, 2013. On April 11, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and filed its initial appellate brief on September 20, 2013. On December 14, 2012, the United States filed an amended complaint. On January 16, 2013, Wells Fargo filed a motion in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 24, 2013, the Court entered an order denying the motion with respect to the government's federal statutory claims and granting in part, and denying in part, the motion with respect to the government's common law claims.

MEDICAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LITIGATION Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. served as indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, which was placed in receivership at the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2009. Since September 2009, Wells Fargo has been named as a defendant in various class and mass actions brought by holders of Medical Capital Corporation's debt, alleging that Wells Fargo breached contractual and other legal obligations owed to them and seeking unspecified damages. On April 16, 2013, the parties reached a settlement, subject to Court approval, of all claims which provides for Wells Fargo to pay $105 million to the plaintiffs. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on August 12, 2013.

MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION Several securities law based putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2009, under the caption In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation. The case asserted claims against several Wells Fargo mortgage-backed securities trusts, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and other affiliated entities, individual employee defendants, along with various underwriters and rating agencies. The plaintiffs alleged that the offering documents contain untrue statements of material fact, or omit to state material facts necessary to make the registration statements and accompanying prospectuses not misleading. The parties agreed to settle the case on May 27, 2011, for $125 million. Final approval of the settlement was entered on November 14, 2011. Some class members, including Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), opted out of the settlement. Wells Fargo settled the opt out claims of FNMA in first quarter 2013 and settled the opt out claims of FHLMC in third quarter 2013, in each case for an amount that was within a previously established accrual. Both settlements included the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator of FNMA and FHLMC. The combined amount of the settlements was approximately $335 million.

On October 15, 2010, three actions, captioned Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Funding Corporation, et al. (filed in the Cook County Circuit Court, State of Illinois); Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al. (filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles); and Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis v. Banc of America Mortgage America Securities, Inc., et al. (filed in the Superior Court of the State of Indiana for the County of Marion), named multiple defendants, described as issuers/depositors, and underwriters/dealers of private label mortgage-backed securities, in an action asserting claims that defendants used false and misleading statements in offering documents for the sale of such securities. Plaintiffs seek rescission of the sales and damages under state securities and other laws and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Company were named among the defendants. Wells Fargo has reached a settlement in principle with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis to settle the claims against it in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis v. Banc of America Mortgage America Securities, Inc., et al. action for an amount within a previously established accrual. Wells Fargo has also reached a settlement in principle with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago to settle the claims against it in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Funding Corporation, et al. and Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Securities LLC actions for an amount within a previously established accrual.

On April 20, 2011, a case captioned Federal Home Loan Bank 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, N.A. as parties and asserts claims that defendants used false and misleading statements in offering documents for the sale of mortgage-backed securities. Wells Fargo settled the claims of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston for an amount within a previously established accrual and was dismissed, with prejudice, from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc., et al. action on September 30, 2013.

ORDER OF POSTING LITIGATION On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and, effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit.

OUTLOOK When establishing a liability for contingent litigation losses, the Company determines a range of potential losses for each matter that is both probable and estimable, and records the amount it considers to be the best estimate within the range. 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 $1.0 billion as of September 30, 2013. 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.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)

-Number 14

-Paragraph 3

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 460

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 8

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 450

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 440

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

+ Details