There may be a little misunderstanding of the instrument (Land Contract / Contract for Deed) on your and Meg's behalf.
Some notes to the comments in the post:
1. The attorney who drafted the instrument is likely correct, she did not represent either party. LC/CFD are sort of one sided contracts for the benefit of the Seller. The Seller retains title to the real property granting the Buyer utility of the real property until the terms of the LC/CFD are fulfilled and then title fully conveys to the Buyer.
If there are specific provisions that you are concerned about, gives us a little taste and folks will comment on them.
2. LC/CFD does not have a universally accepted format or structure. Their use goes up and down with the market a bit but there has not been a push to get one widely accepted in every state or across state lines. That said, fundamentally, they still end up being pretty similar when written by a competent attorney.
3. Before it comes up, the failure for Meg to obtain legal counsel for her interests is now hindsight. That was her responsibility if she wanted to, when the deal was being created and finalized, not much she can complain about now, after the fact.
4. It is true that a contract for deed can trigger a Due on Sale clause allowing the Mortgagee to accelerate the note and call it all due. Whether that happened here is unknown. The foreclosure could be a result of non-payment from the Seller (Mortgagor).
Since this was a deal "Subject To" the mortgage at the time. Meg should have requested some form of payment lock-box system. It sounds like Meg paid the Seller but doesn't know whether the Seller paid the Mortgagee (Lender). In some LC/CFD the Buyer pays into a Trustee or similar which then splits the payment out to the portion due to the Mortgagee and the portion due to the Seller. That is Meg's protection her payments are keeping the property current in its debt obligations.
I would read through the LC/CFD and see if there is a provision in the agreement to this regard. Again, we don't really understand the 'real' reason for the foreclosure action, however she might have some ground to pursue collections from the Seller.
5. The likely bad news, Meg has no affinity over staying the foreclosure here. Meg is not a recognized party to the Mortgagee. While she has an interest in the property, created through the LC/CFD she is inferior to the Mortgagee.
Since she is not a borrower on the security instrument and note, she will have a hard time trying to even talk to the Mortgagee about any possible resolution. Additionally and again, she doesn't know how far delinquent the Seller is, he may have NEVER made a payment.
For the record, I would think it pretty unlikely the Mortgagee is pursuing foreclosure due to the LC/CFD or a function of the DOS. It is more likely it is from lack of payment.
6. The invested capital from Meg. Well, that is a problem. Since Meg's interest is inferior to the Mortgagee, she doesn't have recourse with the Mortgagee. She may have some recourse, per the LC/CFD with the Seller. You would have to read the agreement and see what is inside to this affect. It may be nothing or little to nothing, unfortunately. This is why the part in #4 is important, it helps ensure the 'non-contracted' party to the LC/CFD (the Mortgagee) is dealt with properly as they are not a party to the contract and they must be paid.
As a potential remedy, she can go attempt to purchase the property and satisfy the Mortgagee's lien. This might be a short sale or it may not, that detail is not in your post. We don't understand what is owed versus what the property is worth. In the event, the property has some equity, she can go get a loan or raise some money and simply purchase the property from the Seller. There might be a clause in the LC/CFD which addresses this option with a price tag. If the Mortgagee is paid in full, then foreclosure is halted.
7. In the event Meg has some standing in the LC/CFD to pursue recovery of her invested capital and perhaps her payments to the seller, this will be a civil court action. Not an overly attractive case for attorney's unless the Seller has assets from which to collect. The process may cost Meg some decent dollars to pursue.
This is the danger of LC/CFD with unsophisticated or insufficiently advised Buyers in these types of agreements. In hindsight, she should have paid a lawyer to protect her interests when it all started.
If there is a breach of contract terms and the Seller has something to collect from then she will just have to continue to shop around for an attorney to help her. In reality, there is a chance she will loose every dollar she paid into and for the property. A horrible way to learn your mistake, unfortunately.
8. Meg might be making the wrong claims when calling attorney's, I suppose. Because of that, the attorney's are not interested in the case as it seems futile. Meg's argument is over the LC/CFD and the terms inside NOT the foreclosure.
Meg is not a borrower on the loan. It is not that Meg doesn't matter, she matters in the LC/CFD just not in the foreclosure. If the agreement was written well, then she can pursue the Seller for breach of contract. Again, depends on how it is written.
9. Wells Fargo 'noticing something' is a bit confusing. What do you think they should have noticed?
I can only speculate on this question, but to some extent, it sounds like you may incorrectly believe Meg's interest in the property is greater than what it is. Meg is essentially a tenant in the property as far as Wells Fargo is concerned and legally frankly. Meg is not an owner of the real property, so Wells Fargo doesn't have to recognize Meg in any manner but she might be named in the foreclosure suit as a defendant, which is standard stuff. Of course the notices come to the property addressed to the Seller, he is the borrower. Not Meg.
10. Plan of Attack:
a) Get an idea of the property value
b) Call the Seller and ask him to consider or enact the clause in the LC/CFD for Meg to purchase the property outright and figure out what that number is.
c) Have the Seller call Wells Fargo and get a payoff amount
d) Determine if Meg can get a loan or pay for the property. If she can, write up a contract and submit it to the Seller and have him submit it to the bank if it is a short sale. This may buy you some time in the foreclosure.
The end game here is really Meg buys the property formally or the bank finishes foreclosure and she looses the property. In that event, the recourse for Meg would be pursue the Seller for breach of contract, provided the terms in the contract are present and were breached.
Good Luck to you and Meg.