Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington Discovery showing uncertainty in validity of WaMu/Chase Declarations of Ownership (5810) Dec

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington Discovery showing uncertainty in validity of WaMu/Chase Declarations of Ownership (5810) Dec

Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington Discovery showing uncertainty in validity of WaMu/Chase Declarations of Ownership (5810) Dec

ARTICLE:

In Washington State, the only thing that trustees allege have to have before beginning a foreclosure is a document called the “Beneficiary Declaration.” (identified as the 5810 bene dec below)

In Washington State, this beneficiary declaration is required by RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) which states:
“That, for residential real property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.”

This beneficiary declaration was passed by the Washington legislature in the 2009 legislative session in Senate Bill 5810. (this detail will be more fully understood when reading the document Plaintiff was emailed by the Defendants’ counsel below.)

In two legislative sessions, the homeowners in Washington have put forward legislation that makes a false beneficiary declaration a felony penalty rather than just a useless penalty of perjury. I mean come on let’s be real, when bankers are allegedly: a) forging documents,; b) lying in Court; c) putting forward color copies of promissory notes; and d) carrying out illegal activity as a part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaging in the illegal activity…….would they really care about committing perjury?

NOW, WE GET TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER:

Within a Washington Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel brief:
“In addition, Plaintiff is in possession of a document emailed to her by Defendant’s previous counsel and previous counsel’s legal assistant that contradicts the Declaration of Ownership itself as to when the Declaration of Ownership was executed. It is precisely this document which makes the evidence Plaintiff requests from Defendants (evidence of date of receipt of Declaration of Ownership) so crucial. This document (which contains an email exchange from Defendants’ General Counsel, Daniel Goulding, to Andrew Nelson of JPMorgan Chase) clearly states:
“In preparation for a MSJ we contacted Chase, who has not been named in the litigation, and advised that we would need a sworn declaration that Chase has been in possession of the Note at least back to when the 5810[1] was executed (May 2, 2010).” (emphasis added)

This email exchange between the Defendants’ General Counsel and JPMorgan Chase clearly displays contradictory evidence of when the Declaration of Ownership was received by Defendants. The Declaration of Ownership that has been provided to Plaintiff was dated February 3, 2010, a full three months prior to when Defendants’ General Counsel states within this communication that the Declaration of Ownership was executed on May 2, 2010.”

[1] Senate Bill 5810 mandating a sworn declaration be received to the trustee of the deed of trust from the beneficiary stating the beneficiary maintains ownership and holder status of the promissory note prior to trustee’s ability to record, transmit, or serve any notice of sale.

Excerpts from the document itself:
Page 3 of 139:

Your time and help would be appreciated as we are concerned that we have an overly sympathetic borrower friendly judge on this case.

click on  emails below

 

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8646 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

8 Responses to “Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington Discovery showing uncertainty in validity of WaMu/Chase Declarations of Ownership (5810) Dec”

  1. Charles Reed says:

    The time bomb waiting to happen in the State of Washington which is ground zero for the mess left by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) and the government insured loans that Wells Fargo Bank started mortgage servicing with the Jul 31, 2006 deal.

    People think wrongly that Wells Fargo purchased 1.3 million government insured loans, but it was only a mortgage servicing agreement and not a purchase of your loan.

    If any loan serviced by Wells Fargo that started out with WaMu or that WaMu purchased and has been foreclosed by Wells Fargo after the Sept 25, 2008 seizing of the bank and being declared a “failed bank” was done with a forgery of the security instrument (deed of trust, mortgage, security deed).

    MERS has come in an skip over the fact that WaMu signed blank endorsed Notes to Ginnie Mae that are forever non-negotiable Notes as Ginnie Mae nor Wells Fargo purchase the loans.

    The JPMorgan scam by the FDIC provided cover that not only did JPM purchase these Notes but neither did Wells Fargo!

    Wake up to the fraud!

  2. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah …

  3. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    Gasp

  4. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny says:

    … hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. GuyFawkesLIves says:

    Holy Batman——

    Did these fools really put into print “over sympathetic borrower friendly judge”???

    Don’t they know that these kinds of communication need to be only had via telephone???

    How stupid are these crooks? <—-rhetorical

  6. Charles Reed says:

    This would explain why there a no complaints coming out of WA about the Wells Fargo handling on the WaMu government insure loans as, Wells is getting one of these signed per foreclosure!

  7. GuyFawkesLIves says:

    After reading the entire document, it certainly shows those of us in the Deeds of Trust states how collusive the trustees are with the servicers.

    Aren’t the trustees supposed to be neutral third parties? This document brings to light how collusive they are in stealing homes.

    Gasp! Is right!

  8. DudeLude says:

    I lost my house to these criminal trustees in concert with JPMorgan Chase. Fuckers. Both of the criminals working together.

    I hope they are taken down with this evidence as the dogs they are.

    Lie down with dogs and get up with fleas.

    These criminals deserve to flame in hell.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives