JPM MORGAN TAKES INCONSISTENT POSITION AS TO BEING SUCCESSOR TO WAMU

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEE Exhibit to Consent Motion-Confidentiality Stip and Order

SEE Consent Motion for Confidential Documents

SEE Deutsche-Bank-Response-to-FDIC-and-JPM-Motions-to-Dismiss

SEE Docket as of October 7, 2011

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: When it suits JPM Chase, like when they are looking to foreclose, they say they are the successor in interest to WAMU. When it doesn’t suit them, like in a lawsuit with Deutsch over whether there is an obligation to buy back the crappy paper that never was perfected or transferred properly, they say they are not the successor. The truth lies somewhere in between at the option of JPM Chase because fo the crazy way WAMU was “resolved.” But use this as a heuristic guide: the price paid by JPM Chase was about 1% of the total assets of WAMU. Obviously they bought some bank assets and an option on the mortgages — not the assets themselves.

Which brings up the next subject about the “notes” (which are NOT evidence of the complete transaction between the investor and the borrower): When they are foreclosing they point to the fact that the notes were indorsed without recourse. When they litigate amongst themselves they admit that it is with recourse.

Which is it? The answer is in the securitization documents, which is why people need the COMBO report. The notes were never assigned timely, but leaving that out as an issue, they were ALL assigned WITH RECOURSE. Every one of them required the seller to replace a bad note with cash or a comparable note. But the problem is that this creates too much activity to satisfy the passivity standards under the REMIC portion of the Internal Revenue Code, so they stand to lose their tax status as well as their standing.

And that leads to the last point. Why is it that when institutions sue each other over securitization issues, they are entitled to discovery but borrowers have to fight tooth and nail to get the same documents and information? The same Judge is likely to grant  discovery to a litigating institution and deny it to a borrower over essentially the same facts, but on a smaller scale.

Posted by April Charney

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company sued JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC in
2009 claiming breach of contract as to WaMu originated mortgage loans that
were supposed to be transferred into securitized trusts of which DBNTC is
the “trustee”.

> One of the issues in the case is whether WaMu must repurchase mortgage loans
> that did not comply with the “Representations and Warranties” provisions of
> the Trust documents as the loans were in default, in danger of being in
> default, etc. at the time that they were allegedly “transferred” to the
> hundreds of securitized trusts of which DB is the “trustee”.
>
> The Court ordered discovery of the loan files.
>
> JPM Chase has taken the position in this case that it is “not the successor
> in interest to WaMu”, and that it only assumed certain assets and
> liabilities of the failed WaMu as of September 25, 2008, yet JPM Chase has
> filed hundreds of foreclosures where it claims, many times under oath, the
> right to foreclose on the WaMu loans maintaining inconsistantly that it is
> “the successor in interest to WaMu.”

19 Responses

  1. if chase bought wamu’s assets for a fraction of the real value (wamu was worth 319 billion and forced to sell by the FDIC, to chase for 1.9 billion) ,then homeowners who had a mortgage with wamu should only pay the same fraction to chase. Why should chase be allowed to profiteer so much?? The 1.9 billion that chase paid for wamu probably didn’t even cover the amount the branches and buildings they took over were worth. They basically got the mortgages for free

  2. A Letter from Goldman Sachs

    Concerning Occupy Wall Street

    NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)– The following is a letter released today by Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman of banking giant Goldman Sachs:

    Dear Investor:

    Up until now, Goldman Sachs has been silent on the subject of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. That does not mean, however, that it has not been very much on our minds. As thousands have gathered in Lower Manhattan, passionately expressing their deep discontent with the status quo, we have taken note of these protests. And we have asked ourselves this question:

    How can we make money off them?

    The answer is the newly launched Goldman Sachs Global Rage Fund, whose investment objective is to monetize the Occupy Wall Street protests as they spread around the world. At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain – but there’s plenty of money to be made on the way down.

    The Rage Fund will seek out opportunities to invest in products that are poised to benefit from the spreading protests, from police batons and barricades to stun guns and forehead bandages. Furthermore, as clashes between police and protesters turn ever more violent, we are making significant bets on companies that manufacture replacements for broken windows and overturned cars, as well as the raw materials necessary for the construction and incineration of effigies.

    It would be tempting, at a time like this, to say “Let them eat cake.” But at Goldman, we are actively seeking to corner the market in cake futures. We project that through our aggressive market manipulation, the price of a piece of cake will quadruple by the end of 2011.

    Please contact your Goldman representative for a full prospectus. As the world descends into a Darwinian free-for-all, the Goldman Sachs Rage Fund is a great way to tell the protesters, “Occupy this.” We haven’t felt so good about something we’ve sold since our souls.

    Sincerely,

    Lloyd Blankfein

    Chairman, Goldman Sachs

  3. […] SEE Exhibit to Consent Motion-Confidentiality Stip and Order […]

  4. If Chase skipped an assignment last year, in 2010 and the loan went from Homeside Lending to Wamu and then from Chase to the debt collector, balloon payment written off by Chase, derecognition, sold to one of many florida mortgage servicers(he bifurcaated half of the mortgage(without disclosing it), is the lack of assignment from Wamu to Chase a problem for him?

  5. carie,

    You betcha — absolutely correct —

    We entered the world of debt collection/distressed debt fraud — quite some time ago — courts still being hoodwinked (sometimes voluntarily). Not going to last —- not anymore.

    Game will be over — matter of time.

  6. I took out a HELOC with WAMU in 2006.

    I had to stop paying because of income loss thanks to Wall Street ponzi crash.

    Chase started sending me letters saying “Chase is a debt collector and we may begin foreclosure proceedings.”

    I sent a cease and desist/dispute of debt letter. I said “bite me”…I have NO EQUITY and NO INCOME to cover this… “alleged” debt. You are a debt collector. A debt collector has no right to foreclose on unsecured debt.

    They charged it off.

    Fight them however you can.

  7. Remove the wrecking crew from Wall Street and the White House

  8. JP Morgan Chase pays NYPD to brutally beat Wall Street protestors.
    It is time the Congress wakes up….Either clean up your mess of get out of the White House. The 99% will continue to arise and become the majority once again.

  9. Derivatives — Derivatives — Derivatives —–

    Not securities — contracts —

    WAMU — portfolio GSE derivative contract purchaser.

    Chase — securitizer of cash flows — also derivative “contract” purchaser — never mind purchaser of refinanced loans to begin with. . .

    “The Trust documents as the loans were in default, in danger of being ….”

    Start with the GSEs — at one time the subprime refinances were former GSE loans.

    And, then what happened?? No where near disclosure.

    GSEs gave away “rejects/defaults” — and then purchased the “MBS” — (not really MBS) — to the rejects/defaults they gave away.

    What role did the Chases and WAMUs — and others play????

    And then what happened?????

  10. That is exactly what Judge Monroe did 2 weeks ago with my home.

    Cited Purchase Agreement from WAMU/CHASE and Sustained their Demur.

    SHAME! PROTEST!

    Diane in California

  11. JPM Chase (and indeed all financial institutions these days) are Chimeras: constantly shape-shifting and morphing to suit the “need of the moment”. These modern banks change clothes more than a teenage girl before a date.

    One thing I can tell you for certain is that none of them are doing any banking these days; which after all is what their corporate charter is all about.

    I am fascinated by REMIC,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Estate_Mortgage_Investment_Conduit

    Are you saying that JPM Chase seeks to avail itself simultaneously of two internally inconsistent states of existence?

    # 1: Both the passive real estate conduit; and,

    # 2: The self-dealing forecloser; perjuring itself all the way

    Right: wrapping themselves in the veil of the neutral intermediary while they are in fact steeping in self-interest is necessary so they can fool the judges: and fooled the judges are.

    The judges are so universally conflicted that they should long ago have recused themselves.

  12. Wall Street is the favorite Senator that walks the halls in the White House. They must be removed !

  13. Let us re-phrase “Wall Street fleeced the World with one fraudulent mortgage at a time. Make em pay ! Occupy Wall Street ! Send the bastards to jail!

  14. Moderator – please delete this is it is not a real post but more of a question to NG:

    In the above article, somebody begins by stating “Editor’s Analysis . . . “.

    Please – I want to know when it is “you” [NG] who is speaking. This is just a question of “the voice”; not any suggestion that you are travelling incognito or something like that. Sometimes, I get confused about the break between livinglies.com content and content (such as news articles) that have been imported. I want to know when “you” are speaking because I care about what “you” are thinking.

  15. Neil you said:

    “Which brings up the next subject about the “notes” (which are NOT evidence of the complete transaction between the investor and the borrower):”

    You KNOW there was NEVER a “transaction” between the investor and the borrower…NEVER.
    The transaction is with the BANK and the investor…why do you continue to perpetuate and spin falsehood???

    Why aren’t you defending homeowners more than investors?

    You are right about discovery…we don’t get any because the WHOLE TRUTH lies there…which is that there are no ledgers showing payments from borrowers going to an actual “mortgage”.

    NO MORTGAGE. Unsecured debt.

    TARP Inspector General:

    “…Without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    The sooner everyone accepts this FACT—the sooner we can move forward.

  16. The sharks are eating each other maybe ??!!!!

  17. Wall Street fleeced the World one mortgage at a time.
    Make em pay ! Occupy Wall Street ! Send the bastards to jail!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: