For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.
This article is not a substitute for a legal opinion from an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. Get a lawyer.
In January Patrick Giunta and I won a case against US Bank, Chase and SPS. The basis was simple. The Trust never acquired the loan. Thus US bank failed to establish standing. The Plaintiff was US Bank as trustee for the certificate holders, but the real player was Chase who then slipped in SPS as a “Successor” to the “Servicing” of the a loan in which there were no servicing duties. At trial they tried coming up with new fabricated documents and the Judge refused to admit them into evidence. Not only were the documents fabricated but also the “business records” showing a mixed bag of tricks with reversals of payments received and money going in and out of escrow that clearly could not be reconciled. The robo-witness could not come up with a default date nor could he reconcile the amount demanded for reinstatement with any terms of the loan.
Why was Chase operating behind the scenes creating these bogus claims? Also a simple answer. They wanted to stop making “servicer advance” payments, get the foreclosure and the sale and then eat up all the proceeds of sale with their false claims for fees, “recovery” of servicer advances and other claims.
In this case, reported by housing wire.com, there are many similarities:
JPMorgan Chase (JPM) created and recorded false documentation that showed the bank owned the mortgage of two California residents in order to foreclose on their home, the California Court of Appeals stated in a ruling Monday.
The Kalickis sued WaMu in 2009, alleging that the bank wrongfully foreclosed on their property in 2008. In 2010, Chase was granted a motion to intervene because it had purchased WaMu’s assets and held the interests in the loan.
The Kalickis amended their complaint to add Chase as a defendant and dismissed WaMu from the suit. In the complaint, the Kalickis alleged that Chase claimed ownership of their loan based on fraudulent documents.
In September 2012, a trial court in California ruled in favor of the Kalickis, stating that they owned the property and quieted the title in their favor.
The court also found that Chase had executed and recorded false documentation that showed that the ownership of the Kalickis’ mortgage was transferred to Chase. The court also ruled that a Chase executive created a document that “fraudulently represented that a prior assignment had been lost and that Chase owned the Kalickis’ mortgage.”
The lower court ruling voided all of the fraudulent documents and prohibited Chase from recording any false or misleading documents representing that it owned the Kalickis’ mortgage.
The court later found in the Kalickis’ favor and awarded them “reasonable” attorney fees in the amount of $255,135, stating the amount included feeds for reviewing and replying to Chase’s opposition briefs. Chase appealed that ruling, which led to the ruling Monday in the California Court of Appeals.