has engaged in a nationwide, systematic practice of charging and hiding fees and costs without disclosing them to the bankruptcy court and in contravention of Bankruptcy Code provisions, Bankruptcy Rules, Court orders, and the fresh start purpose of chapter 13. If Plaintiffs prove their allegations, the remedy Plaintiffs seek may be “necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions” of the Bankruptcy Code. Cano, 410 B.R. at 536. In a case in the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Stilson also found that § 105 “would be an appropriate vehicle to bring a claim for fraud on the court because it is necessary for the court to be able to address frauds perpetrated on it.” Holman v. (6th Cir.2000) (same); Yancey v. Citifinancial, Inc. (In re Yancey), 301 B.R. 861 (Bankr.W.D.Tenn.2003) (<HOLDING>). The actions of Wells Fargo, if proven, are a
holding that no private right of action exists recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations holding that a private right of action exists holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for  524 violations holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for fed r bankrp 2016 violations