Pacheo vs JP Morgan Chase - Class Action - alleged illegal demand of payment from junior mortgage holders who’s senior mortgages had been foreclosed. The class claims that JPMorgan’s demands violated several California laws

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Pacheo vs JP Morgan Chase – Class Action – alleged illegal demand of payment from junior mortgage holders who’s senior mortgages had been foreclosed. The class claims that JPMorgan’s demands violated several California laws

Pacheo vs JP Morgan Chase – Class Action – alleged illegal demand of payment from junior mortgage holders who’s senior mortgages had been foreclosed. The class claims that JPMorgan’s demands violated several California laws

H/T refinblog

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN PACHEO, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. d/b/a
CHASE, a National Banking Association,
Defendant.

excerpt:
3. Defendant’s policy of routinely seeking to collect on such debts violates section
580d. Defendant’s collection practices and correspondence are unlawful because they mislead
debtors into believing that these “sold-out” junior mortgage debts are legally enforceable when,
in truth, the debtors have no legal obligation to pay them. Defendant’s policies and practices are
also unlawful because, on information and belief, defendant fails to report to credit agencies the
true non-recourse nature of these debts.

4. Plaintiff was a victim of these unlawful policies and practice with respect to his
former-property located at 2471 South Manila Avenue, Fresno, CA 93727 (the “property”).
Specifically, the defendant foreclosed on the first mortgage of the property but continued (and
continues) to demand routine re-payment on the second mortgage debt without disclosing (or
admitting) that the debt was not (and is not) legally enforceable. To the contrary, following the
foreclosure of the property, the defendant affirmatively represented that the plaintiff was
required to pay the debt and that the debt remained legally enforceable notwithstanding the
foreclosure. As a result, the plaintiff made thousands of dollars in monthly payments to avoid
legal enforcement of a debt that was not legally enforceable in the first instance.

[…]

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 8444 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

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives