Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Chase did not acquire the Mortgage loan as part of the sale from the FDIC. Instead, pursuant to a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement ("P&S") by and between Washington Mutual Bank, FA ("WAMU") and Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA")

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Chase did not acquire the Mortgage loan as part of the sale from the FDIC. Instead, pursuant to a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P&S”) by and between Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WAMU”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”)

Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Chase did not acquire the Mortgage loan as part of the sale from the FDIC. Instead, pursuant to a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P&S”) by and between Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WAMU”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUAN C. CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Defendant.

MOTION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

EXCERPT:

Chase did not acquire the Mortgage loan as part of the sale from the FDIC. Instead, pursuant to
a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P&S”) by and between Washington Mutual Bank, FA
(“WAMU”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), WAMU sold the Plaintiff’s Mortgage loan to BOA
on or about January 26, 2007. Pursuant to the P&S, WAMU retained servicing rights to the Plaintiff’s
Mortgage loan. “On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) declared WAMU to
be insolvent and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for
WAMU. The FDIC accepted the appointment as Receiver on September 25, 2008.” Id. at ¶ 5. “On the
same day that the FDIC was appointed as Receiver of WAMU, it sold certain assets and certain
liabilities of WAMU to Chase pursuant to a written Purchase and Assumption Agreement.” Id. at ¶ 6.
Accordingly, Chase acquired the servicing rights to the Plaintiff’s Mortgage loan as part of the asset
sale from the FDIC. “Chase continues to service the plaintiff’s Mortgage loan for [BOA] and is
authorized to bring actions against borrowers for breach of their payment obligations.” Id. at ¶ 9.

[…]

Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. MOTION OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

Down Load PDF of This Case

Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

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 8684 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

4 Responses to “Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Chase did not acquire the Mortgage loan as part of the sale from the FDIC. Instead, pursuant to a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P&S”) by and between Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WAMU”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”)”

  1. Charles Reed says:

    As I have submitted back in 2011 that Wells Fargo did not purchase the government insured loans of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) it been faking as if they own the loans.

    We are talking about 1.3 million FHA, VA & USDA loans out of the ex-WaMu mortgage processing center in Milwaukee WI, that Wells Fargo purchase the building housing the blank Notes that were relinquished to Ginnie Mae when the loans were placed into the Ginnie Mae pools!

    The banks try to keep the loans in their physical possession even as they signed endorsed the Notes in blank and sold the securities that the loan are in. However the reason to not actually physically release the blank Notes is because the lender turned “issuer” turned “custodian of records” can act as if not transferred occurred.

    Why this is important is that UCC 9 said that the originator in possession of the Note does not have to prove ownership, however it tricks the system as if they are still the “holder in due course” which they are not. But in the case of a Countrywide or better yet Washington Mutual Bank who was seized by OTS and declared a “failed bank” on Sept 25, 2008, there is a clear date that shows the blank Note were not in the possession of WaMu because on Jul 31, 2006 the blank Notes were in the possession of Wells Fargo per the servicing agreement.

    The reason there was no claim by WaMu for the loans because they had no blank Notes at all of these Ginnie Mae pooled loans. Wells Fargo who as the servicer allowed all the borrowers to think that at some point Wells had purchase the loans as all correspondence came from Wells and the payments collected by Wells.

    However when it came time for a modification under the HAMP, FHA HAMP & VA HAMP the homeowners were told to contract the investor of the loans, which to the homeowners was Greek because they did not know of any securities deal that WaMu made and the servicer said the information as to who was the investor was private and they could not give that information to the homeowner.

    Now you got this secret securities deal that not agreed upon by the homeowners, but its told to the homeowners to find out who this allege investor is, while Wells Fargo files Forgeries at the local court assignment from MERS non-paid employees from the various law firm, were the attorneys are these acting MERS personnel.

    As what was reported with the BOA settlement negotiation is they wanted to buy back 150,000 because they could not change terms of the loans! They could not change the term of Countrywide Ginnie Mae pooled loan was because Ginnie Mae is in possession of the blank Notes!

    How if you are wanting to buy something that it means you don’t currently own it, so how are you approaching the court claiming to be the owner of the debt in order to administratively foreclose? You cannot, and this game is over!

  2. Chase is the servicer that caused the foreclosure on the disabled VET in Seattle that was just on the news. His documents state WAMU was the beneficairy and Chase is the successor. Frauds put this Vet and his wife on the sidewalks, after owning their home for 62 years.

  3. TheMotherLoad says:

    What the hell? How many homes have these JPMorgan Chase crooks kicked illegally to the curb?

    People, it is so far beyond torches and pitchforks. These crooks need an extremely close “hair cut” kind of like the Native Americans used to do with a tomahawk.

  4. frntncenter says:

    These crooks are also terrorists under the patriot act. They have stolen over 3 million homes so far and are allowed to still enter court after being caught numerous times perpetrating fraud on the court. They have the most assets of banks in the U.S. and the most criminal activity as well. The list of frauds and crimes read like a criminal enterprise, not a bank.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

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

Archives