SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
OF MICHIKO STEHRENBERGER
REGARDING STATEMENTS MADE
BY MR. FRANK OCHOA,
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT CENTER,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
DECLARATION OF MICHIKO STEHRENBERGER
36 REGARDING STATEMENTS MADE TO DEFENDANT BY MR. FRANK OCHOA,
37 VICE PRESIDENT, PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT CENTER,
38 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
40 I, Michiko N. Stehrenberger, am a resident of the state of Idaho. I am over 18 years of age and
41 competent to testify under penalty of perjury to the foregoing, and will do so if called as a witness in
42 a United States court of law.
44 Having been duly sworn under oath, I declare and certify under penalty of perjury the truthfulness of
45 the matters described herein and that I have personal and direct knowledge of such matters:
1. On March 2, 2011, I received a telephone call from an individual named Mr. Frank Ochoa, who
3 identified himself as representing JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (“JPMC”)
5 2. During this call, Mr. Ochoa and I discussed the dispute related to the subject loan of this lawsuit
6 that is linked to the Stehrenberger Promissory Note included in JPMC!s Complaint. I mentioned
7 to Mr. Ochoa my numerous previous written requests to inspect the missing original paper
8 ink-signed loan documents, by which I was referring to the Stehrenberger Promissory Note and
9 the “Streamlined Business Credit Application and Agreement” (the same documents that are
10 attached to Plaintiff!s Complaint Exhibit 1, pages 1-10).
12 3. I also mentioned my Debt Validation letter dated February 21, 2011 that I had sent certified mail
13 to JPMC!s Vice President, Mr. Rodney LaMunyon, and to Ms. Santos Zuniga-Guillen, a
14 representative at JP Morgan Chase Executive Offices who had contacted me January 5, 2011.
15 In my February 21, 2011 letter I had specifically requested “validation of the debt” related to the
16 Stehrenberger Promissory Note under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
18 4. Mr. Ochoa indicated to me that the “Debt Validation letter” that I had recently sent to JPMC by
19 certified mail letter was the reason Mr. Ochoa had called me.
21 5. Mr. Ochoa indicated to me that he is the superior to JPMC!s Vice President Rodney LaMunyon
22 and has the authority, and is otherwise the decision-maker, related to settling the loan account
23 linked to the Stehrenberger Promissory Note in dispute, for which I had repeatedly been
24 requesting inspection of the original paper document in writing from various JPMC
25 representatives and departments for several months with no apparent luck.
27 6. In this March 2, 2011 call from Mr. Ochoa, I once again requested inspection of the original
28 paper loan documents, this time asking Mr. Ochoa directly. I thought he seemed very nice, and
29 I hoped that perhaps he might be willing to arrange an inspection from his position of greater
30 authority than that of the other JPMC representatives.
32 7. In this March 2, 2011 call, I mentioned to Mr. Ochoa that various individuals representing
33 JPMC, including JPMC phone reps, JPMC banking branch managers, and even a
34 representative from JPMC’s executive offices, had told me that all the missing Washington
35 Mutual original paper loan documents, including the original paper Stehrenberger Promissory
36 Note linked to the loan in dispute, had been “shredded,” and that JPMC did not actually have
37 the original paper documents for any of the Washington Mutual loans. I asked him if this was
40 8. Mr. Ochoa indicated to me that he believed this to be true, that the original paper Washington
41 Mutual Bank loan documents had been “shredded” or were otherwise missing.
43 9. I expressed my concerned to Mr. Ochoa that JPMC had destroyed potentially valuable
44 evidence related to my request for a forgery and fraud investigation related to the original paper
45 loan documents linked to the Stehrenberger Promissory Note, since I had been asking for
46 inspection of the original paper loan documents since about October 14, 2010 and by then it
was March 2, 2011 and JPMC had never produced any original 1 paper documents for
4 10. I asked Mr. Ochoa directly, whether JPMC had indeed destroyed evidence related to my loan
5 and “shredded” the Washington Mutual original loan documents, including the original loan
6 documents related to this loan, the original paper Stehrenberger Promissory Note?
8 11. Mr. Ochoa denied that JPMC had “shredded” any of the Washington Mutual original paper loan
9 documents and original paper promissory notes, and emphasized to me that:
10 “It was not Chase [JPMC], but “Washington Mutual, that had “shredded” all the original
11 loan docs…long before they ever got to Chase.”
13 12. I asked Mr. Ochoa if he would confirm what he had just said an email to me – that JPMC had
14 not destroyed evidence, and that JPMC had not “shredded” all the Washington Mutual original
15 paper promissory notes itself? And that JPMC had never actually gotten the original paper loan
16 docs related to the Washington Mutual loans because Washington Mutual had “shredded” the
17 original paper documents and original paper promissory notes “long before they ever got to
18 Chase [JPMC]”? Mr. Ochoa said that he would send me an email confirming that statement.
20 13. I understood the purpose of Mr. Ochoa!s call to me to be to negotiate a settlement with me
21 because he requested my financial information and indicated that a reduced settlement amount
22 of [redacted] % of the principal amount was readily available “within two or three days,”
23 once I sent him my financial information, and that he would email me the financial information
24 forms to fill out.
26 14. I indicated that I might not be able to have the [redacted] % of principal (we referenced it
27 as approximately $ [redacted] , with actual math to be worked out) immediately, but that I
28 would consider it and see if I could arrange for it, and that in the meantime I awaited Mr.
29 Ochoa!s email.
31 15. It is my intention that if JPMC were to actually produce the authentic, original paper loan
32 documents for inspection, including the loan!s “Streamlined Business Line of Credit Application
33 and Agreement” and the original paper Stehrenberger Promissory Note, instead of merely
34 copies, and if those documents were found to be authentic instead of the forgeries that appear
35 to be in the JPMC files, that this dispute would be readily resolved.
37 16. I was current on my payments up until the point where the forgery and falsified income was
38 found on a surprise copy of the loan documents that came from JPMC!s records relatively
39 recently in November 2010, after I had been making regular and reliable payments since 2007.
41 17. While money is tighter than usual these days, it is my intention to continue making payments as
42 best I can to the proper party entitled to receive them, once that proper party is clearly identified
43 by proper evidence. The track record of how this dispute has been conducted by JPMC has
44 caused me to have serious doubts that JPMC is the proper party entitled to receive my
18. After the March 2, 2011 call, I awaited Mr. Ochoa!s email to me confirming 1 what he had said on
2 the phone about JPMC never having had physical possession of any of the Washington Mutual
3 Bank original paper loan documents and original paper promissory notes due to Washington
4 Mutual having “shredded” the documents “long before they ever got to Chase,” but some time
5 passed and Mr. Ochoa did not send the email or the financial information forms.
7 19. Later, upon my second request, he sent me an email that I felt did not address the depth of the
8 statements that he had made to me on March 2, 2011, and did not address my concerns
9 regarding who had physical possession of the original paper loan documents.
11 20. In this first email to me sent on March 14, 2011, Mr. Ochoa!s email signature identifies him as:
12 Frank L. Ochoa Vice President Portfolio Management Center AZ1-1004 | PO BOX 29550
13 Phoenix AZ 85038 | email@example.com |
14 (602.221.7774) | 7 1.866.914.7909 |
16 21. On April 1, 2011, I emailed Mr. Ochoa asking for confirmation of what he had told me, including
17 the following: “In our call March 2, 2011, you!d mentioned that Washington Mutual had
18 “shredded” the original signed loan/line of credit origination documents long before they ever
19 got to Chase […] [JPMC] Just wanted to make sure you!re confirming the fact that it was NOT
20 Chase [JPMC], but instead Washington Mutual, that had “shredded” and destroyed all the
21 original Application [“Streamlined Business Credit Application and Agreement”] and
22 [Stehrenberger] Promissory Note and origination document evidence for the accounts related to
23 #_[redacted]. If that!s not correct, please let me know? Thanks! […]”
25 22. I did not receive a response from Mr. Ochoa, but nor did he refute the statements attributed to
26 him. My email program tracker indicates that on April 1, 2011, someone accessing Mr. Ochoa!s
27 email account had received and viewed my email, but I received no response from him.
29 23. On April 6, I again emailed Mr. Ochoa, asking for confirmation of what he had told me and
30 forwarding the earlier April 1, 2011 email again including the following: “In our call March 2,
31 2011, you!d mentioned that Washington Mutual had “shredded” the original signed loan/line of
32 credit origination documents long before they ever got to Chase […] [JPMC] Just wanted to
33 make sure you!re confirming the fact that it was NOT Chase [JPMC], but instead Washington
34 Mutual, that had “shredded” and destroyed all the original Application [“Streamlined Business
35 Credit Application and Agreement”] and [Stehrenberger] Promissory Note and origination
36 document evidence for the accounts related to #_[redacted].]. If that!s not correct, please let me
37 know? Thanks! […]”
39 24. Again, I received no email from Mr. Ochoa, but nor did he refute the statements attributed to
40 him. My email program tracker indicates that on April 6, 2011, someone accessing Mr. Ochoa!s
41 email had received and viewed my email, but I received no response back from him.
43 25. On June 5, 2011, at approximately 1:20pm Pacific Standard Time, a phone call was made to
44 Mr. Ochoa!s phone line and his voicemail answered, identifying it as Mr. Ochoa!s line. From this
45 I infer that at least as of that June 5, 2011, nearly a month after my emails were sent to him
46 awaiting response, that Mr. Ochoa was or is still employed by JPMC, and that his lack of
response to refute the statements attributed to him in my email is not 1 due to his having left
2 employment at JPMC.
4 26. I received a letter by mail dated August 8, 2011 from Ms. Marsha Isom, identifying herself as
5 “Executive Specialist” for JP Morgan Chase & Co. and stating:
7 “In response to your complaint, I contacted our Portfolio Management Center and was informed
8 the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Ochoa on March 2, 2011 was not recorded;
9 therefore, we are unable to accommodate your request for a copy […] The documentation
10 should be sent directly to our Portfolio Management Center, at the following address:
12 Mr. Frank L. Ochoa
13 Vice President – Managed Assets Manager
14 JP Morgan Chase Bank
15 Portfolio Management Center
16 P.O. Box 29550
17 Phoenix, AZ 85038” […]
18 Upon receipt and review of the requested information, Mr. Ochoa will then make a
19 determination as to whether or not your current terms may be modified, or if a settlement is
20 possible. However, if no further response is received from you, our efforts to collect on this debt
21 will continue.”
23 27. This August 8, 2011 letter indicates to me that Mr. Ochoa is still employed by JP Morgan Chase
24 Bank, N.A. and that his lack of response and to deny the statements attributed to him in my
25 April 1, 2011 and April 6, 2011 emails regarding his assertion that Washington Mutual having
26 “shredded” the original paper loan documents and original paper promissory notes “long before
27 they ever got to Chase” was not due to Mr. Ochoa having left employment at Chase.
29 28. This August 8, 2011 letter from Chase also indicates to me that JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
30 and JP Morgan Chase & Co., its corporate parent, together through their corporate offices, are
31 attempting to collect on a debt they allege is in default against me, at the same time that the law
32 firm Routh, Crabtree and Olsen, P.S. is separately attempting to collect on a debt that that it
33 alleges is in default against me through collection litigation in this case.
35 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
36 true and correct.
Signed this 5th 38 day of March, 2012.
42 Michiko Stehrenberger
P.S. via the tipster
Under the Uniform Commercial Code’s 3-309 provision related to lost or missing promissory notes that are “negotiable instruments” (that contain the phrase “Pay to the Order of” and have a fixed dollar amount, not a credit card agreement), if Chase does not have physical possession of the original paper negotiable instrument/Note, it cannot enforce payment in court on this Note unless Chase can prove that it had physical possession of the original paper Note at the time that the Note was “lost.” These statements from Karyn Armstrong and Michiko Stehrenberger that indicate that Chase bank reps admit that the original paper Notes were shredded or destroyed by WaMu and were never physically delivered to Chase mean that Chase cannot enforce Notes that are negotiable instruments against borrowers in court because Chase does not meet the requirement of UCC 3-309. Each state has its own version of UCC 3-309 and Washington state uses an older version that requires Chase to prove that it had physical possession specifically at the time the original paper Note was lost. Chase tries to prevail instead under UCC 3-203 by claiming that Chase is the “transferee” of the Note under UCC 3-203(b) but overlooks that UCC 3-203(a) requires that Chase would have had to receive “physical delivery” of the original paper Notes (“transfer” is defined under UCC 3-203(a) as “physical delivery”). It would seem that if Washington Mutual shredded a borrower’s original paper Note to digitize it before WaMu was closed on September 25, 2008 and the FDIC took over as Receiver, that Chase cannot now claim to have rights to enforce the mere copies of the negotiable instruments. The FDIC separately confirms that the FDIC never took physical delivery or physical possession of the original paper WaMu Notes and therefore the FDIC cannot issue any “lost note affidavits” regarding WaMu loan Notes. JPMorgan Chase executive office rep Santos Zuniga-Guillen and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vice President of the loan portfolio separately confirm that Washington Mutual “shredded” the original paper Notes “long before they could ever get to Chase.” Watch out for any “Lost Note Affidavits” that may start to surface in Chase lawsuits…they may be forged.© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.