MA Appellate Court Tells Chase They Can’t Sit on Two Chairs With One Ass

As Charles Marshall just quoted to me “it’s always refreshing when you find a judge who follows the law.”

Chase can’t say that the Trust owns the loan since 2006 and that the loan was owned by WAMU in 2008. It can’t be both. And it can only be one allegation that survives — the “first sale.”

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

see Starkey v Deutsche – MA Ct of Appeals

The big question is when if ever is Chase, through its lawyers, going to try to prove that the “Trust” exists and now owns the debt, note and mortgage.

Chase knows that WAMU didn’t own the loan because they bankrolled the very same loan that is at issue. But they used OPM (Other People’s Money).

Chase also knows that the OPM nature of the transaction makes the investors the owner of the debt with equitable rights to the mortgage and note.

Chase knows that the trust was written but not created. Nothing was ever entrusted to a trustee to actively manage on behalf of beneficiaries. Investors are not beneficiaries if all they get is a promise from a nonexistent entity (the trust) and they have no right, title or interest to the “underlying loans.”

Chase knows that the so-called underlying loans does NOT include ownership of the debts.

Chase knows that there is no transaction in the history of the world in which the trust purchased any loans.

Chase knows that it never allowed the investor money into the trust.

Chase knows that the named trust has no power even to inquire into the affairs of the “trust.”

Chase knows that it using the trust name as an unregistered fictitious name whereby OPM is converted into Chase assets.

Chase doesn’t care. For the most part homeowners do not fight.

 

 

17 Responses

  1. Elaine-
    I would check the courthouse records
    per the suggestion of rogerinaldi. If that’s the case in Baltimore County, I would hatch a plan to extract justice from the system.
    Post here if you’re not sure how to proceed.
    As I recall, Baltimore County was suing Wells Fraudgo for improper foreclosures, racially prejudiced lending practices, and blighted properties among other things.
    But I haven’t heard a thing about it, and had forgotten until you mentioned Baltimore.
    If the lawsuit has been “dropped”, there should be an explanation as to why- that may give you more info on possible corruption.

    Like

  2. @elaine: you are not alone. This continues because the judiciary is indeed holding these securities and bank stocks in their own portfolios.

    Do yourself a favor and go down to the county recorders offices and do some research. You have to find the judges’ home addresses and look at their recorded mortgages. When you find a MERS satisfaction of mortgage for one amount and another new mortgage from Wells, Chase, Citi, BofA, US Bank, for a considerably lesser amount….
    JACKPOT! There’s your sign! It happened to me and it can happen to you.
    We from Chicago remember “Operation Greylord”, where the lawyers were feeding the judges bundles of cash wrapped in the newspaper and passing it off in the men’s room. Now, they don’t need cash, and they don’t even need transaction records: they file a piece of paper in the recorder’s office. Judges get their mortgages paid off and nobody is the wiser. No IRS income to declare, there’s no record! Instant equity to the judge and the bank pays nothing. Pretty slick set up, eh?
    Think about it. Satisfying a mortgage (or a portion thereof) with a piece of paper and no money trail. Just another tool to be used with the insertion of MERS into chain. Even if the mortgage isn’t a MERS mortgage to begin with, the satisfaction CAN COME from MERS.

    Like

  3. elaine021455 — THAT IS HORRENDOUS. You are right again — all over the country – the same.

    Like

  4. @Javagold – when will we ever be allowed to follow the rule of law you ask – that would be never. Here we are 10 years in – nothing has changed – judges still don’t get it. We have a very clear case of fraud upon the court, we had a clear case of backdated, forged and created ‘documents.’ Not one judge in Baltimore County would even consider our case or argument. We had to quit after five years, three attorney and a drained 401k.

    Like

  5. don st clair — I think attorneys debt collectors were considered subject to the law later on. Originally, they were not. The law states – The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

    You will see the Miranda warning used by most non-bank servicers. Also see Lisa Bridges v Ocwen Federal Bank et al – Sixth Circuit.

    Shelly Erickson — Interesting. This case posted here is important to you. WAMU owned Long Beach — also indirectly owned Argent, Ameriquest. If your judge is saying Chase is successor (they acquired WAMU through FDIC in 2008) — then did all those trusts go back onto WAMU’s balance sheet before the transfer. If they did – then they were not bankruptcy remote. Also, not all loans went — some were repurchased and went elsewhere. Chase is not successor to repurchases according to FDIC. You need discovery – just as the judge gave in the case Neil posted. .

    See — this from Bill Paatelo – the invesigator who posts here
    https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-jpmorgan-chase-did-not-purchase-ownership-of-615b-worth-of-wamu-loans-in-three-simple-steps/

    Like

  6. Anon, the FDCPA was aimed at the attorneys who are considered debt collectors if collecting is their main business

    Like

  7. This case is exactly like my case with non existing Trust Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4. Go to the SEC site and print out a form to order a certified copy of the trust either existing or not statutorily existing. The trust never exist. Just because they are listed does not mean they legally exist. The crooks listed the trust but never completed them or registered the trust. Closed the trust immediately and pretend to be representing a trust that never existed. Then Chase and JPMorgan Chase claim they are successors in interest when there are no successors in interest and Chase never owned the loan. Two asses in one chair fits perfectly. The judges in my case did not care and claimed JPMorgan Chase is successor in interest so my case in now being refiled as a Fraud Upon The Court Case.

    Like

  8. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    Great headline!
    “Chase knows that the so-called underlying loans does NOT include ownership of the debts.” How about that!

    Like

  9. don st clair, — Thanks. Let us know how the case goes. Problem with most cases and FDCPA — is that judges state mortgage servicers are not debt collectors — usually because they say the servicer acquired servicing when the debt was not in default. But, that is false. If you have a non-bank servicer — servicing was acquired when the loan was already reported in default. Need to go back to prior loan.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Hi Anon,
    I have a case that has proceeded, even though the Plaintiff was CCR’d the FDCPA letter before any answer was sent.

    Supremacy laws can not be subdued, in particular in relation to violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1692 et seq. and the over riding precedence of Federal Law when State law stands in opposition as the Federal law states that Defendant was not under obligation to answer in state court. It would be improper for the court to rule when Plaintiff continued to default after three (3) years of neglect in failing to answer the FDCPA validation letter. A violation occurred when Plaintiff’s attorney continued to default, even when the law reads that time is statutorily extended if there is a request for the validation of his debt as in this impending case.
    In re: Pablo MARTINEZ 266 B.R. 523
    [18] Upon acting upon a Validation Notice by disputing the debt, a consumer is under no obligation to respond to the complaint until, at the earliest, the debt collector responds with the requested information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). It mischaracterizes the law to suggest that it is satisfactory for a least sophisticated consumer to be induced to respond to a complaint within the time set forth in the summons, when, as a matter of law, that time is statutorily extended if there is a request for the validation of his debt. Only a consumer at best uncertain as to his rights would come to this conclusion. See Bartlett, 128 F.3d at 500-01 (“A contradiction is just one means of inducing confusion.”).
    The District Court decision is AFFIRMED.C.A.11 (Fla.),2002. In re: Martinez 311 F.3d 1272, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 8, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 54 The appeals court determined:
    In re: Spears vs. Brennan 745N.E.2d.862.”Brennan (plaintiff collection attorney) violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) when he obtained a default judgment against Spears (defendant) after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that the debt was being disputed and before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Unfortunately, this is what Home Ownership has become in America… today and for generations to come. I hope that we are all here when the next financial crisis happens and wipes out all the Judges pension funds,
    … only to have that “I told you so moment!

    Never surrender

    Liked by 1 person

  12. don st clair – -backed up by the accounting of it. No one ever asks — where did these supposed loans come from? Whose balance sheet? Must be accounted for. All must have had a “home” to start with.

    Why won’t the courts or government expose this? Because it is a trillion dollar market — debt buying contract derivatives. And, if it is disclosed that that there was no balance sheet accounting to start with — the loan is VOID.

    If they can trace to a balance sheet — the FDCPA comes in. The full transfer and assignments must be disclosed. !) the original balance sheet lender assignment. 2) transfer by complete and full assignment to off-balance sheet trust 3) transfer by liquidation back to the original balance sheet 4) charge-off and sale of collection rights to undisclosed debt buyer.

    They cant’ do it — either way. Title cannot be cleared until there is foreclosure. That’s the unfortunate goal.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Javagold

    I believe it too, but

    It is so obvious these debts are UNSECURED …and this is backed up where?

    Like

  14. Neil is right about the trusts. But, why is this not ever discussed in cases?

    Judges do not understand securitization. They take for granted that the trust is valid. Assume they are right. Then there is still a thorn in the argument. In order to have valid securitization, the loan must first be on a balance sheet. Once the loan is reported in default, it is liquidated from the trust, and put back onto the balance sheet of the originator. The trust will reflect zero balance owed for the loan. This occurs when the servicer ceases to advance payments to the trust and deems it not collectible. Once it is taken back onto the balance sheet, it is charged off. The debt is then usually sold to a debt buyer (although it can be retained for collection). This process is the same for ANY type of debt that is securitized.

    Thus, in the case referenced here, it does not matter whether WAMU existed or had already been acquired by Chase. In either case, the debt would be placed back on either WAMU’s balance sheet — or Chase’s balance sheet if Chase had already acquired WAMU. The trust relevance is gone. And, that is regardless of whether the trust was properly formed or not. .

    The problem is that the loan was never on anyone’s balance sheet. So the trust liquidation of it creates a situation in which the loan has no place to be accounted for. This was the true effect of the financial crisis that was not discussed by the government and not understood by judges.

    Covered up by just saying – bad underwriting. They do not tell us- bad accounting. Which would, as Javagold states create a situation in which the debt is UNSECURED.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. These are definitely true and powerful statments, but how do we present the back up in court without their case law ?…I can’t say Mr. Garfield said so. The courts here are so corrupt.

    Chase knows that WAMU didn’t own the loan because they bankrolled the very same loan that is at issue. But they used OPM (Other People’s Money).

    Chase also knows that the OPM nature of the transaction makes the investors the owner of the debt with equitable rights to the mortgage and note.

    Chase knows that the trust was written but not created. Nothing was ever entrusted to a trustee to actively manage on behalf of beneficiaries. Investors are not beneficiaries if all they get is a promise from a nonexistent entity (the trust) and they have no right, title or interest to the “underlying loans.”

    Chase knows that the so-called underlying loans does NOT include ownership of the debts.

    Chase knows that there is no transaction in the history of the world in which the trust purchased any loans.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Here is a document filed against Wells Fargo on behalf of NY homeowners. Shea Hecht vs Wells Fargo. It was voluntarily withdrawn by HECHT , a Rabi leader in the community, likely because Wells Fargo settled.

    Here is the link to the well constructed legal filing that can be used as a templet when the bank denied a modification for unjust enrichment.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/266247198/Hecht-vs-Wells-Fargo-Bank-N-A-Re-Class-Action-against-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Over-Allegations-it-Used-Federal-Funds-to-Enrich-Itself-Rather-Than-Help-Str

    Like

  17. It is so obvious these debts are UNSECURED debts and fraudclosures should never be allowed to move forward. But when will we ever be allowed to follow the rule of law ?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: