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