About That Chase-WAMU Deal

Imagine my surprise when I recently went to the FDIC website, clicked on FOIA at the bottom of the page, then went to Reading Room and looked again at the Chase-WAMU-FDIC-US Trustee Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Having previously read and studied it I was attempting to direct someone to the language that showed that no loans were purchased from WAMU basically because there were no loans in WAMU’s inventory. Staring me in the face was an entirely different document bearing the same date as the one that I had previously seen. Anyone who has an explanation of this is invited to write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

In the interim between my first reading of the agreement and now, I had several conversations including the FDIC receiver who was appointed to “resolve” the WAMU bankruptcy. The receiver (Schoppe) told me that no loans had been purchased or listed as part of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. He also told me that an assignment did not exist and that no other document from the Trustee in the WAMU bankruptcy or the FDIC receiver existed showing the purchase of any loan. And he told me that the effective consideration paid by Chase was less than zero because Chase received around $2 billion in tax refunds due WAMU, which more than offset the purchase price. In fact, in the version I previously read, the consideration was stated as “Zero.”

With that in hand I disseminated information and used it in court to show that Chase had not in fact purchased loans but had instead purchased servicing rights. As the plot thickened, it turned out that those servicing rights were granted by Pooling and Servicing Agreements for REMIC Trusts that never acquired any loans. With no loans in the trust, the PSA grant of servicing rights was meaningless.

And if you look at the statements from Chase to their shareholders and press releases there is no evidence they acquired the loans. Nonetheless tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, lost their homes on the presumption that Chase was in fact the creditor. They were threading a nonexistent needle with nonexistent facts. And in litigation it became apparent that this was the case because they tried to introduce “Powers of Attorney” in lieu of the PSA to support their contention that SPS was now the servicer of most of those loans. But they didn’t quite make out their case when it came to determining whether the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action was ever a creditor. So they lost. But for every one they lost, less astute judges were granting them foreclosures by the thousands.

And if you look at articles like the one in the link below you will see that while it looks like they are talking about loans they are actually talking about securities from “securitizations” that do not exist — i.e., the loans were never acquired by the REMIC Trusts.

And THAT leaves us with the question of where did the alleged loans go? The trust doesn’t have it, the certificate holders in the empty trust don’t have it and neither does Chase. Judges have been inclined to simply say that all this complexity is irrelevant, in an attempt to clear their docket. But they have done both the borrowers and the investors a disservice. And they did the government a big disservice. My answer to the question I pose is that the loans didn’t go anywhere because, in the legal sense, they never got started in the first place. (No consummation). If the party who funded the “loan” was not present in the documents or by proxy, then the party who funded the loan is not “in privity” (i.e., part of the loan contract) with the borrower. And since the party whose name appears on the loan documents was neither a lender or a creditor of the borrower, they were merely the “holder” of the document subject to borrower’s defenses to the “transaction” — namely no consideration.

And THAT my friends is the reason for all the fabricated, forged, back-dated and “found” documents and notes. The banks had to invent what the courts wanted to see.

So the overall answer is that Chase is neither a creditor nor the authorized servicer of anyone because nobody actually “owns” the loan. Pension funds and other investors clearly have a right of action against the Investment banks that sold them bogus mortgage backed securities that were neither securities nor mortgage backed. And those investors might have some action in equity against borrowers, but not a right of enforcement of the mortgage which never should have been recorded in the first place. Of course that probably will never happen because the investment bank pocketed the money that was supposed to go into the REMIC Trusts. Huge groups of investors in multiple “REMIC Trusts” had their money commingled by the investment bank who now has no way of figuring out whose money is in what “loan.” Thus there is no loan contract, and there could never be standing by anyone other than either a true creditor, which does not appear to exist, or a holder in due course, which cannot exist.

The reason why the banks are doing everything to resist proof of payment is that there was no payment anywhere in their chain. In a word, there was nobody to pay because nobody in their chain had anything to sell. Hence there were no purchases and there were no sales, making the assignments and endorsements fraudulent documents. If they had evidence of a purchase they would claim to be holder in due course which enables the holder to enforce against the party who signed the note and mortgage regardless of any defenses the borrower might have had against the “lender” or the “successors.”

And THAT, my friends, is why nobody from Wall Street is filing a lawsuit to vacate rescissions that might be years past the three year limitations. They have no standing — i.e., they don’t have a credible party who can claim to be a creditor and they can’t use the note and mortgage because they are void by operation of law. It is the absence of such lawsuits that corroborates what I am saying. In a flash they could easily vacate the rescission if they could only show that they had any right to be in court by reference to real transactions instead of the fake ones they are using in foreclosures.

The correction for this is simple to say: create new servicers that have full authority to interact with the defrauded investors and the hapless borrowers who were pawns in the securitization scam that was eventually dubbed “Securitization Fail” by Adam Levitin.

Just look at the following article and see how Chase twisted itself and the government into a mental pretzel:

see http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/jpm-wamu/

Chase: $33 Billion in Fines and Settlements and It’s Business As Usual.

4closurefraud.org has compiled an interesting list of the “Cost of doing business” in the fraudulent corrupt world of falsely securitized loans. To date, according to this list Chase has paid $33,318,000.50. And they are considered to be a strong bank because they have, so far, gotten away with financial murder. But as the new film, “The Big Short” will show, fraud “Always goes south.”

The big question is when people actually come to understand that there was no loan what will happen? It wasn’t a gift and it wasn’t loan, so what is it? The fact is that the banks stole investors money and then put some of it use for the benefit of the banks and not the investors. They trapped investors into deals they never wanted and did the same to borrowers. The rest of the money they kept as “trading profits.”

If the banks were to prevail the new law would be that you can steal money, make a deal, and enforce it against both the person from whom you stole the money and the person who thought they were getting a loan when in fact they were being used as a pawn in fraudulent scheme to steal the identity of the borrowers. What a ride!

And the next question is how much should be awarded as a punitive damage award? $33 Billion has not been enough to even make Chase blink.

Also see http://4closurefraud.org/2015/09/22/the-big-short-trailer-2015-thebigshort/

JPMorgan’s Fines To Date: The Cost of Doing Business

Chase Found Guilty (AGAIN) for Fabricating and Uttering False Documentation: CA Appeals Award $250,000+ Attorney Fees

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.


see http://www.housingwire.com/articles/30540-chases-fraudulent-foreclosure-court-says-executive-falsified-documents

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.

FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With Complaint Against Chase, WAMU, Citi and two law firms

For further information and assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688


See Eric Mains Federal Complaint

see Mains – Table of Contents.petition 2 transfer

On Monday Eric Mains resigned from his employment with the FDIC. He had just filed a lawsuit against Chase, Citi, WAMU-HE2 Trust, Cynthia Riley, LPS, WAMU, and two law firms. Since he felt he had a conflict of interest, he believed the best course of action was to resign effective immediately.

His lawsuit, told from the prospective of a true insider, reveals in astonishing detail the worst of the practices that have resulted in millions of illegal foreclosures. Some of his allegations cast a dark shadow over claims of Chase Bank on its balance sheet, as reported to the public and the SEC and the reporting of both Chase and Citi as to their potential liability for wrongful foreclosures. If he is right, and he proves these allegations, much of what Chase has reported as its financial condition will vanish from its financial statements and the liability side of the balance sheets of both Citi (as Trustee) and Chase (as servicer and “owner’) will increase exponentially. This may well have the effect of bringing both giants into the position of insufficient reserve capital and force the government to take action against both entities. Elizabeth Warren might have been right when she said that Citi should have been broken into pieces. And the same logic might apply to Chase.

He has also penned the phrase “wild goose Chase” referring to discovery of the true creditors and processing of applications for modification of loans. And he has opened the door for RICO actions against the banks and individuals who did the bidding of the banks as well as the individuals who directed those actions.

His Indiana lawsuit is filed in federal court. He alleges that

1. WAMU was not the actual lender in his own loan
2. That the loan was part of an illegal scheme from the start
3. That his loan was subject to claims of securitization but that those claims were false
4. That the REMIC Trust was never funded and therefore never had the capacity to originate or buy loans
5. That the intermediaries never followed the law or the documents for securitization of his loan
6. That the REMIC Trust never did purchase his loan
7. That Citi was therefore “trustee” for an unfunded trust
8. That Chase never purchased the loans from WAMU
9. That Chase could not have been the legal servicer over the loan because the loan was not in the trust
10. That Chase has filed conflicting claims as to ownership of the loans
11. That the affidavit of Robert Schoppe, whom Mains worked for, as to ownership of the loans was false when it states that Chase owned the loans
12. That the use of WAMU’s name on the loan documents was a false representation
13. That his loan may have been pledged several times by various parties
14. That multiple payments from multiple parties were likely received by Chase and others on account of the Mains “loan” but were never accounted for to the investors whose money was being used as though it was the Banks themselves who were funding originations and a acquisitions of loans
15. That the industry practice was to reap multiple payments on the same loan — and the foreclose as though there was balance due when in fact the balance claimed was entirely incorrect
16. That the investors were defrauded and that foreclosure was part of the fraudulent scheme
17. That Mains name and identity was used without his consent to justify numerous illegal transactions in which the banks repeated huge profits
18. That neither WAMU nor Chase had any rights to collect money from Mains
19. That Citi had no right to enforce a loan it did not own and had no authority to represent the owner(s) of the loan
20. That the modification procedures adopted by the Banks were used intentionally to force the borrower into the illusions a default
21. That Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, said that Chase and other banks used HAMP modifications as “a kind of predatory lending program.”
22. That Mains stopped making payments when he discovered that there was no known or identified creditor.
23. The despite stopping payments, his loan balance went down, according to statements sent to him.
24. That Chase has routinely violated the terms of consent judgments and settlements with respect to the processing of payments and the filing of foreclosures.
25. That the affidavits filed by persons purportedly representing Chase were neither true nor based upon personal knowledge
26. That the note and mortgage are void from the start.
27. That Mains has found “incontrovertible evidence of fraud, forgery and possibly backdating as well.” (referring to Chase)
28. That the law firms suborned perjury and intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court
29. That Cynthia Riley “is one overwhelmingly productive and multi-talented bank officer. Apparently she was even capable of endorsing hundreds of loan documents a day, and in Mains’ case, even after she was no longer employed by Washington Mutual Bank. [Mains cites to deposition of Riley in JPM Morgan Chase v Orazco Case no 29997 CA, 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida.
30 That Cynthia Riley was laid off in November 2006 and never again employed as a note review examiner by WAMU nor at JP Morgan Chase.
30. That LPS (now Black Knight) owns and operates LPS Desktop Software, which was used to create false documents to be executed by LPS employees for recording in the Offices of the Indiana County recorder.
31. That the false documents in the mains case were created by LPS employee Jodi Sobotta and signed by her with no authority to do so.
32. Neither the notary nor the LPS employee had any real documents nor knowledge when they signed and notarized the documents used against Mains.
33. Chase and its lawyer pursued the foreclosure with full knowledge that the assignment was fraudulent and forged.
34. That LPS was established as an intermediary to provide “plausible deniability” to Chase and others who used LPS.
35. That the law firms also represented LPS in a blatant conflict of interest and with knowledge of LPS fraud and forgery.

Some Quotes form the Complaint:

“Mains perspective on this case is a rather unique one, as Main is an employee of the FDIC (hereinafter, FDIC) who worked in the Dallas field office of the FDIC in the Division of Resolutions and Receiverships (hereinafter DRR), said division which was the one responsible for closing WAMU and acting as its receiver. Mains worked with one Robert Schoppe in his division, whom the defendant Chase Bank often cites to when pulling out an affidavit Robert signed. This affidavit states that Chase Bank had purchased “certain assets and liabilities” of WAMU in the purchase transaction from the FDIC as receiver for WAMU in 2008. Chase Bank uses this affidavit ad museum to convince the court system in foreclosure cases that this affidavit somehow proves that Chase Bank purchased “every conceivable asset” of WAMU, so it must have standing in all cases involving homeowner loans originated through WAMU, or to put it simply that this proves Chase became a holder with rights to enforce or a holder in due course of the loan as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. Antithetically, when it wants to sue the FDIC for a billion dollars… due to mounting expenses from the WAMU purchase transaction, it complains that the purchase agreement it signed didn’t really entail the purchase of “every asset and liability” of WAMU… Chase Bank claims this when it is to their advantage in a lawsuit to do so.

Mains worked as team leader in the DRR Dallas field office

[The] violation of REMIC trust rules occurred because the entities involved, for reasons of control, speed of transaction, and to hide what they were actually doing with the investors money

Unfortunately for the investors, many of the banks involved in the securitization process (like Wahoo) failed to perform the securitizations properly, hence as mentioned above, the securitizations were botched and ineffective as to passing ownership of the notes or underlying collateral. The loans purchased were not purchased THROUGH the REMIC. … The REMIC trust entity must be the one actually purchasing the mortgages directly.

This violation of REMIC trust rules occurred because the entities involved, for reasons of control, speed of transaction, and to hide what they were actually doing with the investors funds once received, held the investor funds in the “lender” banks owned subsidiary accounts, instead of funding the REMIC trusts with the money so that the trust could then purchase the loan from the “lender”, making it an actual buy and sell transaction.”

Chase Admits Violations of Consent Order

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688


see http://dtc-systems.net/2015/03/jpmorgan-chase-admits-failure-comply-april-13-2011-independent-foreclosure-review-consent-order/#more-2157

see also 27_page_settlement2

We already knew that the servicers, banks and trustees were violating the settlements and consent orders that were entered against them for filing fraudulent papers in fraudulent foreclosures. Now the question is what to do about it.

With respect to the 2011 consent orders Chase admitted the wrongdoing and the settlement was supposed to compensate and give notice to borrowers who had been defrauded.

In the proposed settlement, Chase acknowledges that it filed in bankruptcy courts around the country more than 50,000 payment change notices that were improperly signed, under penalty of perjury, by persons who had not reviewed the accuracy of the notices.  More than 25,000 notices were signed in the names of former employees or of employees who had nothing to do with reviewing the accuracy of the filings.  The rest of the notices were signed by individuals employed by a third party vendor on matters unrelated to checking the accuracy of the filings.

The first question that SHOULD come to mind is WHY a multi trillion dollar bank would need or want to engage in such practices? After all they were committing perjury by their own admission. The second question is why borrowers who were hurt by this behavior have not used the admissions to win their foreclosure cases? And the third question is what is the effect of these admissions?

The answer lies in the lies. The plain truth is, based upon my direct knowledge in several cases, that Chase did not own the loans, the Trusts therefore could not have purchased the loans and that not only Chase was lying but so was US Bank when it was named in foreclosure actions as Trustee for a Trust that plainly did not purchase the loans nor was any of the paperwork showing a transfer authentic. The underlying transaction simply isn’t there and Chase (and other banks) successfully hoodwinked courts into applying legal presumptions that were plainly contrary to the facts.

I think the admission could be used as an argument that the banks are not entitled to the legal presumptions that normally apply because of the wrongful behavior that they have admitted. If they want to show that the Trust bought the loan then they must prove it and not just produce a self-serving piece of paper that says it happened. we know it didn’t happen. Why should the burden of proof fall on a homeowner with limited resources?

The bank, with virtually unlimited resources and exclusive access to all the information, should be able to show the transaction date, amount and proof of payment (wire transfer receipt, wire transfer instructions, canceled check etc.) for the loans that were allegedly acquired and/or conveyed by the assignor and the assignee. With obviously unclean hands, the banks should not be rewarded for their subterfuge. The bank should not be allowed to claim any presumptions, legal or otherwise, that are normally applied to documents or commercial paper. If they really have a case, let them prove it — or at least respond to discovery without objection on various spurious grounds.

When I represented banks if someone had said that we didn’t own the loan or never funded the loan I would have stopped them dead with proof of the actual movement of money and that would have ended the discussion. Instead we are splitting hairs in court with the banks saying they don’t want to produce actual proof. All they need, according to them, is some self-serving piece of fabricated paper with a forged signature containing perjurious statements and the court is bound to accept such paper and apply legal presumptions that what is written on the paper is true. They have the temerity to argue that when we all know that the paper is inherently untrustworthy and not credible, given their admissions and continuous behavior.

I think discovery directed at compliance with the settlements and consent orders ought to be pressed against the banks, on the grounds that they could not have fulfilled all conditions precedent because among the conditions precedent are the requirements set forth in the settlements and consent orders. At trial I think the argument should be made, using the settlements and consent orders as exhibits, with Judicial notice, that the banks are not entitled to the presumptions and that they must prove every fact they would otherwise have the court “presume” or “assume.”

Comments invited

see also Katie Porter on servicing

Do you know where your loan payments are going? Bet you Don’t!

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688


Submitted from a person who is an anonymous source but who works deep inside an organization where the raw data is available and just to be clear —- I told you so:

Bonding experience

Subject: Bonding experience

Sorry for the title line, low hanging fruit……Anyway, I thought you both will find this of interest.) From the Citibank Trustee website you both have access to per my prior e-mail (or anyone, it is public….) you will find below the listing of the original principal balance of the loans in the various traunches for the WAMU-HE-2 Trust. The balances below are from the PSA on page 8; they track almost identically to the balances as of the funds 1st reporting date on the Citibank website (I have attached below from May 2007); Directly above the May 2007 balances is the current January 2015 balances. Notice anything strange? All principal balances are lower or gone, and reduced by half in the largest traunch (1-A). How can this be you ask?  Did that many loans default and have the homes liquidated and proceeds applied to the loans? OR,  did insurance payments, credit default swaps, TARP money, or buy backs on the loans by Chase (as likely forced by the investors who have that right for non-conforming loans) pay off the loan balances that are now gone? The answer is likely a bit of all the above.

Not to bore you with the details, but if you look at the January 2015 certificate holder statement on Page 5 you will see detail on who lost what, other pages break out reasons for reductions (yes, some of this is due to repurchase, Chase? maybe, unknown). The M-Series traunches appear to have been wiped out completely, which tracks to PSA which shows 1-A-II A’s get distributions 4th (AFTER credit default swaps and derivative holders mind you, who may be from entirely different funds! Like that, your loan payment is not even going to the fund that claims to hold it 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time around), losses last, Hence if you are M-series you are screwed.

So why does this matter in a typical homeowner foreclosure? As XXX and I pointed out to judges too lazy to want to dive into this, if your loan is in Traunch 1-IIA, which report no principal loss (any losses?) the fund has a hard time claiming standing if the certificate holders of your loan suffered no loss. Due to commingling of funds, and cross defaults, when peoples loan payments are distributed to the Servicer (Chase), it puts your payment in the loan pool, and it is likely used to pay someone else’s loan payment (ditto with foreclosure proceeds, if your loan was in M Traunch, a 100% loss was realized years ago, your proceeds go to make someone else’s loan payment). This was never disclosed to the homeowner at loan signing, your payment goes to another, your home is cross collateralized, your home may be covered by a pool level insurance policy, credit default swaps, your payment does not go to whom you bargained it would (TILA, RESPA, REG Z violations anyone?). If your loan was repurchased, the fund is not even the correct foreclosing party anymore, and if servicer advances and credit default swaps cover your loan payments (from swap holders in other funds!!) you are not even in default nor has the fund suffered a claimed loss. You can see what a mess this is, and why Chase and other “Servicers” don’t want to open the books on what happens to the Trust funds money to anyone. Investors in current lawsuits have to sue their own Trustee’s (like Citigroup) to try to get to the “real” books, sound crazy, it’s happening….  since Chase and the fund never legally held my loan due to multiple forgeries and botched assignments, they in essence committed theft through conversion of my loan payments when I made them, because they never held the legal right to accept payments from me.Like I said, this happens thousands of times daily to thousands of homeowners, and no one, not the government, regulators, judiciary, and especially the banks, want to discuss this mess. LOL, if this all gives you a headache, it should! Same process is now happening on credit cards and auto loans, anything they can securitize…..

see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-24/justice-department-probing-auto-loan-securitization-yates-says

As provided  herein, the Trustee shall  make an election  to treat the segregated  pool of assets consisting of the REMIC 2 Regular Interests as a REMIC for federal income tax purposes, and such segregated pool of assets shall be designated as “REMIC 3.”  The Class R-3 Interest represents  the  sole  class  of  “residual  interests”  in  REMIC  3  for  purposes   of  the  REMIC Provisions.The following  table sets forth (or describes)  the Class  designation,  Pass-Through  Rate and Original Class Certificate Principal Balance for each Class of Certificates that represents one or more of the “regular interests” in REMIC 3 and each class of uncertificated  “regular  interests” inREMIC 3:

Class designation Original Class Certificate Principal Balance Pass-Through


Assumed Final

Maturity Date1

1-A $             491,550,000.00 Variable May25, 2047
II-AI $              357,425,000.00 Variable2 May25, 2047
II-A2 $              125,322,000.00 Variable2 May25, 2047
II-A3 $              199,414,000.00 Variable2 May25, 2047
II-A4 $              117,955,000.00 Variable2 May 25,2047
M-1 $                50,997,000.00 Variable2 May25, 2047
M-2 $                44,623,000.00 Variable2 May25,  2047
M-3 $                27,092,000.00 Variable2 May25, 2047



$                23,905,000.00

$                23, I 08,000.00

$                21,514,000.00




May25, 2047

May25, 2047

May25,  2047

M-7 $                20,718,000.00 Variable2 May25,  2047
M-8 $                12,749,000.00 Variable2 May25, 2047
M-9 $                17,531,000.00 Variable2 May25,  2047
Swap 10 N/A Variables May25, 2047
FM Reserve 10

Class C lnterese


$                59,762,058.04



May25, 2047

May25, 2047

Class P Interest $                            100.00 N/A4 May25,  2047

Title After Wrongful Foreclosure: Martha Coakley Getting to Heart of the Problem of Fraudulent Foreclosures

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688


see Massachusetts Settlement: Fine PLUS Curing Title Defects

Martha Coakley gets it. She is the attorney general of Massachusetts. And she alone has enforced the law the way it should be enforced. When a bank or anyone else files a fraudulent foreclosure action they should pay for it AND the title should be corrected. If the foreclosure was false then the title is defective as shown in the county records. All previous national and state settlements were for money only. In this case four banks have agreed that they will pay a fine AND take all necessary steps to cure title. The four banks are the usual suspects — Bank of America (BOA), Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo.

Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo were accused of violating Massachusetts foreclosure laws and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by foreclosing on properties in the Commonwealth when they did not hold the rights to the mortgages, and therefore did not legally have the right to foreclose….

The Massachusetts AG office alleges in the amended complaint that the four banks ignored a fundamental legal mandate established in the Supreme Judicial Court’s Ibanez decision in January 2011 that mortgagees must strictly comply with the Commonwealth’s foreclosure laws. The Massachusetts foreclosure law states that a mortgage is void if whoever initiates the foreclosure does not hold the mortgage through valid assignment or is not the mortgagee of record at the time the foreclosure notice is published.

The complaint further alleges that the four banks did not obtain a valid assignment of the mortgage prior to publishing foreclosure notices on the properties and therefore the foreclosures should be invalidated. Also according to the complaint, the banks’ actions adversely affected the marketability and insurability of titles to numerous properties in the Commonwealth.

As part of the settlement, the banks will be required to assist consumers who claim the title to his or her residence is void from an unlawful foreclosure. Assistance will likely include conducting a thorough title review, providing curative documents, releasing junior leans held by banks, and paying costs associated with the title cure in cases where consumers do not have title insurance, according to the Massachusetts AG office.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,146 other followers

%d bloggers like this: