CFPB Issues Bulletin Removing the Corporate Veils

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

In a recent bulletin, the Consumer Financial Protection Board issued a bulletin that obliterated the “layering” of corporate veils to pierce through and allow homeowner borrowers to press their claims for wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, fraud and other claims against EVERYONE that is a “service provider” within the broad definition contained in the  Dodd-Frank Act. It makes everyone liable. Hat Tip to Darrell Blomberg. Instead of projecting dozens of hours as to discovery, depositions, and other forms of investigation, the CFPB has essentially created a presumption by an administrative finding. This finding, being merely a codification of existing law and doctrine is in my opinion completely retroactive.

The mere fact that a supervised bank or nonbank enters into a business relationship with a service provider does not absolve the supervised bank or nonbank of responsibility for complying with Federal consumer financial law to avoid consumer harm. A service provider that is unfamiliar with the legal requirements applicable to the products or services being offered, or that does not make efforts to implement those requirements carefully and effectively, or that exhibits weak internal controls, can harm consumers and create potential liabilities for both the service provider and the entity with which it has a business relationship. Depending on the circumstances, legal responsibility may lie with the supervised bank or nonbank as well as with the supervised service provider.

B.    The CFPB’s Supervisory Authority Over Service Providers

Title X authorizes the CFPB to examine and obtain reports from supervised banks and nonbanks for compliance with Federal consumer financial law and for other related purposes and also to exercise its enforcement authority when violations of the law are identified. Title X also grants the CFPB supervisory and enforcement authority over supervised service providers, which includes the authority to examine the operations of service providers on site.1 The CFPB will exercise the full extent of its supervision authority over supervised service providers, including its authority to examine for compliance with Title X’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB will also exercise its enforcement authority against supervised service providers as appropriate.2

C.    The CFPB’s Expectations

The CFPB expects supervised banks and nonbanks to have an effective process for managing the risks of service provider relationships. The CFPB will apply these expectations consistently, regardless of whether it is a supervised bank or nonbank that has the relationship with a service provider.

To limit the potential for statutory or regulatory violations and related consumer harm, supervised banks and nonbanks should take steps to ensure that their business arrangements with service providers do not present unwarranted risks to consumers. These steps should include, but are not limited to:

    Conducting thorough due diligence to verify that the service provider understands and is capable of complying with Federal consumer financial law;

See full article 2012-03 at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/guidance/

49 Responses

  1. I agree johngault. I don’t know why either except they’re are incompetent buffoons. It probably gets a statutory FDCPA award but it doesn’t really mean that much. Still, $1000 is $1000!

  2. @jordana – re WF and deed in lieu. From the hip only: when a party with an interest obtains a larger interest, the smaller interest sort of disappears into the larger interest. I forget the exact language. So when WF accepted the deed in lieu, I think any interest in the debt merged with the deed (and that’s what survives). A D in L would vitiate the debt, right? WF relinquished its right to the debt…the debt is gone, the deed being the payment (but see language in dil) to be sure. I am certainly at a loss to figure out what the hey WF could possibly have assigned. Servicing of what?! The deed extinguishes the debt, is what it is , I am pretty certain. If I got this right, the second buffoons have no right to report jack re: loan servicing. What does this violate? I dunno…..something(s). Defamation by publication (c.r.)?

  3. Jordana, it is good to know Neil is getting in there to help us all. We are definately not alone, but in the same cruise ship with a lot of frustrated, violated homeowners and income earners and income makers. We are blessed with good attorneys trying to change the course of the cruise liner. We are to large a group to call it a boat. More like a US war ship, have you ever seen one of those up close. It is like a city.

  4. Joann, I thought you would love to get that article. All Chase cases weither with Deutsche bank or what ever forecloser is a fraud alike the rest, and this proves it. Chase is the debt collector and so is Deutsche. They were never creditors of a penny….of WAMU loans. See Deutsche Bank V FDIC/WAMU/Chase and then pull up Chase assumption agreement and then Chase assumption extention agreement. Deutch Bank by their own hands claims Chase and WAMU and FDIC did not transfer the notes timely, therefore the notes were faulty (VOID) however they claim in every court room across the U.S. to be the trustees and own the notes, yet claim they donot have to prove the original note is in their hands but by affidavit and hearsay. Both Chase and Deutsche claim to be debt collectors on the notices not creditors. Attempting to collect a debt. Neither of them answered my FDCPA letter, that I did have an attorney send to them. Then that attorney told me she had no experience with this kind of case and could not go any farther than that.

  5. I would rather take the time to send the complaints and hope it makes a difference, even the slightest, than to take a chance the government and the banks make a stance, they gave us the chance and noone complianed so everything is ok. I for one am sending the complaints.

  6. Thanks Shelley for all your info and advice. I appreciate it. Good to know I’m not alone.

  7. Jordana, Incase you can not fiind an attorney to do this, which I would think you will, purchase the Kevin Trudeau Debt cures book. It has the info on what to say and how on debts FDCPA debts. It will help you. Try to find an attorney whom will help. Neil Garfield has a FDCPA letter notice of dispute of debt. on the left hand column under letters and notices.

  8. Shelly

    You posted some good Chase stuff today. I am adding this:

    In a case involving Deutsche Bank NA in its capacity as a securitization trustee bank against Chase Bank NA and the FDIC, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co v Federal Deposit Insurance Corp et al., Chase stated in the “Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” on page 33:

    “Under the plain terms of that agreement, JPMC did NOT become WMB’s successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WMB. While JPMC purchased all of the assets of WMB, it assumed only specified liabilities: those that had been reduced to a dollar amount on WMB’s “general ledger and subsidiary ledgers and supporting schedules which support the general ledger balances.” [Emphasis in the original NOT is italics]”

    Chase has refused access to the mortgage files to the trustee Deutsche Bank even though the Court has ordered discovery of the documents in JPM’s possession, including the mortgage loan files.

    The Court has ordered discovery, to be completed by May 11, 2012, “as to the meaning of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement”, which is the agreement Chase uses to foreclose and assign mortgages nationwide. This production is under a “Confidentiality Order”.

    When securitization trustee banks cannot determine their ownership of specific WAMU mortgages and need a Court to determine the meaning of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, how can foreclosures by Chase and California Reconveyance Company be allowed to proceed on specific mortgages using this agreement that did not list specific mortgages? How can Chase and employees of California Reconveyance Company posing as CEO’s of Chase make assignments to the Deed of Trust of specific WAMU mortgages to trusts that closed years ago?

  9. two points
    bank may pay $billion —-but they dont care—–they will spend $1 million to prevent losing a 60k house–even if its not a precedent–because they can charge the whole tab against investor cashflows–with a 15% or mor markup for admin

    DOJ etc have got to get all their charges lined up to be filed about October 1 –so plenty of time for news interviews –so the voters that have been screwed will think that obama cares about it—-anything eralier will be forgotten by election day–or the cynics will have time to analyze the charges and notice its all puffery—sorry how many times can they expect to do this—i guess as long as there are elections—but they should be looking at whats happening to the 2 big parties across europe—ie the european equals of r’s and d’s———they are being abandoned——fringes becoming mainstream–right meeting left on far side of the circle——right wing nationals and left-leaning socialists——good thing that US does not allow more than 2 parties–oer there would be a record turnout for the non-two this election

    oh and the people of greece send a hearty thankyou to us for promissing to backstop next months subsidy pmts–even if a communist govt in charge now that has abandoned all the bailout deal promises—of course we knew that–the banks must be paid 1st and foremost—people can starve –live in streets —ok ok–whiners–shiftless–but the banks gotta be paid or truly awful things will happen: the value of paintings and mansions and private jets and diamond necklaces and fast cars and racehorses and yachts and french wine— will fall—the essentials to a thriving global economy must be preserved at all costs

  10. Jordana,

    This is a from a list from a CEASE & DESIST order of case law for violations of the FDCPA laws.

    21. VIOLATIONS OF DEBT COLLECTOR LAWS: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0112p-06.pdf

    RICO TORT ACTS AGAINST THE VOS BY RECONTRUST AND ALL THE BIG BANKS AND DEBT COLLECTORS.
    http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/RICO-complaint-MERS-BAC-Countrywide-foreclosure-1049142-1.html

    IF YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THIS GAME WITH US YOU ARE ON NOTICE OF YOUR REQUIRED MANDATED DUTY TO 18USC2,3,&4 STATUTES:

    Video of the fraud in a nut shell:
    http://mariofinkbiner.com/quiet-title-action-with-finacial-expertdon-frano-part-1-10285/

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/04/01/shoup-vs-mccurdy-candler-llc-11th-cir-court-of-appeals-mers-is-not-a-creditor-the-complaint-states-a-plausible-claim-for-relief-under-the-fdcpa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29

    FDCPA case law non compliance with CPA law: Voided the mortgage contract and treble damages.http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/03/31/deutsche-bank-vs-williams-usdc-hawaii-there-is-no-evidence-on-the-record-establishing-what-mortgages-were-included-in-the-psa/

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/03/31/usdc-judge-seabright-in-hawaiii-exemplars-securitization-fail-and-dismisses-a-foreclosure-for-lack-of-standing/
    case law for non compliance with FCDPA law:

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/03/31/deutsche-bank-vs-williams-usdc-hawaii-there-is-no-evidence-on-the-record-establishing-what-mortgages-were-included-in-the-psa/

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1200.pdf

    The Seventh Amendment, provides in pertinent part that “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved…” This language does not include a single reference to “manipulation” of a jury by the Court in a conspiracy with lawyers to design a verdict suitable to the Court through the use of lawyer rules, judicial rules, court rules, or otherwise trumped-up legal technicalities and instructions which effectively “handcuffs” the jury. All of these activities are no more or less than a denial of the right to a jury of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and law in a case. UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
    The million dollar question does the rule of law stand in Washington Courts?Fraud Upon the Court and 18USC 2,3, &4

    http://mariofinkbiner.com/quiet-title-action-with-finacial-expertdon-frano-part-1-10285/

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/04/01/shoup-vs-mccurdy-candler-llc-11th-cir-court-of-appeals-mers-is-not-a-creditor-the-complaint-states-a-plausible-claim-for-relief-under-the-fdcpa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29

    FDCPA case law non compliance with CPA law: Voided the mortgage contract and treble damages.http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/03/31/deutsche-bank-vs-williams-usdc-hawaii-there-is-no-evidence-on-the-record-establishing-what-mortgages-were-included-in-the-psa/

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/03/31/usdc-judge-seabright-in-hawaiii-exemplars-securitization-fail-and-dismisses-a-foreclosure-for-lack-of-standing/
    case law for non compliance with FCDPA law:

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/03/31/deutsche-bank-vs-williams-usdc-hawaii-there-is-no-evidence-on-the-record-establishing-what-mortgages-were-included-in-the-psa/

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1200.pdf

    The Seventh Amendment, provides in pertinent part that “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved…” This language does not include a single reference to “manipulation” of a jury by the Court in a conspiracy
    with lawyers to design a verdict suitable to the Court through the use of lawyer rules, judicial rules, court rules, or otherwise trumped-up legal technicalities and instructions which effectively “handcuffs” the jury. All of these activities are no more or less than a denial of the right to a jury
    of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and law in a case

    1)The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge actsafter he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction,and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engagedin extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
    http://www.scribd.com/DrLindaShelton/d/24841191-Judicial-Treason-Continuing-Case-Despite-No-Probable-Cause-2009-Cook-County

    Persuant 13.ELC 7.1; The petition for suspension may be filed before the formal complaint. If the crime is a felony, the Court must enter an order immediately suspending the respondent from the practice of law. When a Lawyer is convicted of a felony, disciplinary counsel must file a formal complaint regarding the conviction. Disciplinary counsel must also petition the Supreme Court for an order suspending the respondent lawyer during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. In re of case no. ________________

  11. RE. CFPB

    “…The bureau will be an independent unit located inside and funded by the United States Federal Reserve, with interim affiliation with the U.S. Treasury Department. It will write and enforce bank rules, conduct bank examinations, monitor and report on markets, as well as collect and track consumer complaints…”

    SO—LIKE SOMEONE SAID—THE FOX IS WATCHING THE HENHOUSE…TOTAL BULLSH**…

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/fedreserve.htm

  12. CAVEAT EMPTOR !!! CFPB will do NOTHING for you if you are in a court case now … I wrote them in January with specific citings of fraud, forgery, illegal notarization, concealment (sealed yellow envelope dual deal w/o borrower knowledge) and “servicer abuses including HAMP violations & HUD-1 blanks, 4-QWRs unanswered, destruction of business & license … they ignored it all … then sent the details to the “servicer” aka pretender-lender. Now onto DOJ, its been a week w/o reply despite the State multi-$B settlemments said to assist us. Neil – your readers will likewise be abused further by their ploys, ala the Independent Review Administrators (also hired/paid/biased by & for the “servicers”). This truly abusive system is not “for the People”!

  13. […] Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: borrower, CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Board, Darrell Blomberg, Dodd-Frank Act, due diligence, Federal consumer financial law, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, forgery, fraud, homeowner, Mortgage, predatory lending, service provider, Title X, wrongful foreclosure Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  14. Thanks guys! It’s just a weird situation. We had settled last Dec. but it’s like the monster mortgage from the Black Lagoon which keeps surfacing. After we settled the foreclosure case and it was dismissed, Wells transferred a negative escrow account for collections to Bayview, definitely a debt collector. We had no escrow account and Wells kind of admitted this was an error. But now, because it was transferred, Wells is claiming it is not responsible for the negative reporting which includes the debt being listed twice, by both Wells and Bayview. In one bureau it’s listed as a “foreclosure.” so, I think I’ll find a NY atty. who will take it as a simple FDCPA filing for me. Don’t want anything to do with MN!

  15. @ Jordana

    You might find some help in this decision about FDCPA violations:

    http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0112p-06.pdf

  16. Here’s another one:

    http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Taxes/fed_banking_fraud.htm

    “…Today’s banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today’s banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.

    Let’s say you’re approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn’t actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED…”

  17. No one seems to be keeping track as diligently as a couple of months ago and the facebook page “Mass Global Resignations” has disappeared… Yet, CEOs and CFOs keep resigning daily worldwide.

    And investigations are being conducted worldwide. So… something is definitely going on.

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre8471hn-us-thomascook/

    Insurer Aviva’s CEO quits after pay revolt
    LONDON, May 8, 2012 (Reuters) — Insurer Aviva , which was hit last week by one of the biggest revolts over executive pay ever suffered by a British company, said on Tuesday its Chief Executive Andrew Moss had resigned from his position with immediate effect

    Investment banker Rubinoff leaving Bank of America
    Apr. 24, 2012 (Reuters) — Dealmaker Michael Rubinoff has left Bank of America Corp in the latest high-profile departure from the company’s corporate and investment banking unit

  18. Wells Fargo faces new fines for mortgage ripoffs

    Big bank says it may have as much as $1 billion in future legal costs.

    FORTUNE — Wells Fargo (WFC) isn’t done paying for the mess it made in the mortgage market.

    The Department of Justice appears to be close to bringing charges against Wells Fargo for violations of fair lending laws by its mortgage division in the run up to the housing bust. On Tuesday, Wells in a financial filing said MORE

    Stephen Gandel, senior editor – May 8, 2012 11:19 AM ET

  19. The link I posted was a real eye-opener for me…never knew that thing about JFK…makes sense…scumbags.

  20. the problem with the federal investigators is that they are too young—-and they get lost in the forest–the way it must be done is to take a single middle sized operator and do a corporate tree–link analysis—cant do em all–just take one and tear into it and fous–once you get the pattern on the one the others will more easily fallinto plce–all the offshore stuff is simply cookie cutter documentation and tax structures ginned up by a couple wall street law firms for big acctg firms–look at what international globetrotter banker uses KPMG–and thats a good start—in this case you dont folow the money–you cant–you gotta follow the smell——rothschild moves the intrntl money—who fronts for that operationinthe us—who is he us triggerman

    attys and finance guys –old ones are more likely to unravel this than the hotshots–who really dont want to burn those bridges–from expeerience–if you start stepping on a big law firms toes–youll get a call from some sr partner wios chairman of 2 or 3 ABA committees and hell flat out tell you you are gonna scew it up for the brotherhood—if you are a young lawyer working in that area it is too intimidating

  21. I second this! excellent, Excellent, EXcellent, EXCellent, EXCEllent, EXCELlent, EXCELLent, EXCELLEnt, EXCELLENt, EXCELLENT. We have God on our side. God does not want this tyrany for his children..

  22. Jordana, the only violation to a negative credit report, if you can prove the note was void and you were not late or in default, cause the note is void or paid in full by the banksters criminal acts and purposeful negligence in tranferring the notes. I believe and this is my theory, it is like a dead body, if the note is shredded it is hard to prove the crime and prove securities fraud and tax evasion, but not impossible like a homicide with out a body. I was told to be late inorder to qualify for the mod loan, three times before I decided the bank was telling me to do this, they would not tell me to do this if I was not suppose to, they are the bank. I thought banks were to be trusted. Boy have I learned a lot since they unapproved the mod after five payments and a sixth one still in Melissa Huelsmans trust account, to prove I had the money to be making them, and have proof of all five on time. That is false credit reporting. At least in Washington state the forecloser is not to post an alleged debt while the debt is being disputed. That has been done to me also. The banks posted bad credit while we were making the mod payments or if you just asked for a mod. This bad credit report stopped people from going to other lenders for a loan to save their houses. The banks caused the loss of income, then report you for being behind due to their crime. The tax payers bail the bankrupt banks out and we are subject to bad credit by the very ones we bailed out. Whom are not credible in any way.

  23. @ Carie

    “And last but no(t) least, get down on your knee to pray to Almighty God to free America from the yoke of High Finance, so that it can again become “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. Melvin Sickler”

    excellent, Excellent, EXcellent, EXCellent, EXCEllent, EXCELlent, EXCELLent, EXCELLEnt, EXCELLENt, EXCELLENT. 🙂

  24. Jordana, do the statements claim they are a debt collector attempting to collect a debt, and or they may be a debt collector attempting to collect a debt? I have seen both. Then they are claiming to be debt collectors and are subject to FDCPA law and they can not be both a debt collector and a creditor. That is against the law. I just posted an article about this a short while back. I will try to find it.

  25. This is absolutely true and sad for America. As Ron Paul says we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS and put the money and government back into the peoples hands, for the people. This is why there is bank rule. Do you know the bench is latin for bank. The judges judge on the bench, Bank. The public mistakenly thinking the judge is doing their job to uphold the Constitution. A little conflict of interest? The judges need to be sitting on the U.S. consitution and the bible and not a “bench”.

  26. Question: servicer (Wells) sold mortgage servicing to another servicer (Bayview) after deed in lieu executed and recorded transfer of property. Bayview issues negative report to credit bureaus. Is there an FDcPA violation in this anywhere? Anything else?

  27. hman, looks like the debt collector is only aquiring servicing not purchasing the loans, like all the others. There is a reason they are all debt collectors attempting to collect a debt and subject to FDCPA laws. .

  28. I know all to well how corrupt Chase is. Chase is the bankster that approved my loan mod, before I found out about all the fraud. I and a customer were lead into foreclosure by Chase. I was not behind, just sqeezing out the payments, due to the financial losses due to the economic fraud I was not yet aware of being bankster induced. Then five months latter told I was now unapproved due to the Obama Changes, which I found later on was a lie. I have found Chase not to have assumed the loans from WAMU ever, however assumed servicing rights. Deutsche Bank sued FDIC and Chase and WAMU for not transferring the notes in a timely manner, causing all the notes to be faulty. Chase claimed, Chase was not liable to them due to Chase only assumed servicing rights and not the loans. Duetche Bank however is the one claiming to be the trustee that has the note. But does not need to produce the note. U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)

    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:

    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011

    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf

    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641

    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html

    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.

    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,

    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial

    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily

    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2

    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those

    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California

    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).

    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);

    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

    – 17 –

    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.

    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.

    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family

    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it

    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss

    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase

    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court

    __._,_.___

    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have

    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been

    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s

    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary

    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though

    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…

    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    The mortgage is not secured by the note and the contract is breached at inception due to failure to disclose the true lender and fraud assignment to Duetsche Bank National Trust whom is unlawfully doing business in the State of Washington, not incompliance with WA Deed of Trust Act and not in compliance with the Washington CPA laws and Washington Corporation laws. See on the web OCC letter dated January 14, 2005 stating National Bank law does not preempt state law. Duetsche bank has never been authorized to be doing business of any kind including banking , foreclosing, and being a beneficiary in the State of Washington and has been foreclosing unlawfully in the State of Washington. John E. and Shelley A. Erickson’s mortgage contract Breached at inception causes unsecured statutes of limitations three year law to be in place and is uncollectable after the payment has not been made to the lender for three years. The Erickson’s have never had the lender disclosed to us, as far as we knew the lender was a John Doe unknown. It is the duty of the borrower to make sure the borrower is paying the proper person for the debt or be liable to pay the debt again to the proper party. It is not our liability or duty to pay a fraud beneficiary. It is our duty not to pay a fraud beneficiary. See attached Amicus Curiae by AG Rob McKenna, Page 7, paragraph two, Third sentence, The court has said that borrowers who pay off their loans without knowing the owner of the loan should take the risk of loss if another asserts the same debt. See Rodgers, 40 Wn. App. At 1321, (It is “long –settled law that one paying a note either negotiable or non negotiable, should demand production of it upon payment or risk having to pay again to the assignee”.)(citing In re Columbia Pac. Mortgage , Inc, 22
    Bankr. 753 (W.D.Eash. 1982); RCW 62A.3-602(a)(ii) (a loan is only considered paid to the extent that the payment is “ to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.”) Price, 161 Wash. 690 There is evidence that some lenders never transferred promissory notes at all. E.g. In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 628 (Banker. D. NJ. 2010) (bank officer testifies that it was customary for originating bank to maintain possession of the original note when the loan was sold.); Dale Whitman, How Negotiability Has Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What To Do About It, 37 Pepp .L. Rev. 738, 757-758 (2010). See Kurt Eggert, Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine,, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503, 538 (2002); The beneficiary mind you not the fraud servicer Chase Bank, nor fraud beneficiaries claimed by Deutsche Bank only by deception and fraud. Washington State also has the adverse possession law and the Castle law in place. All contact by this alleged debt collector has been in bad faith with unclean hands committing unfair and deceptive acts and violated its duty of good faith by noticing and conducting trustee sales while failing to perform statutory requisites for conducting such sales as contained in the deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24.030 and 040.Those failures include: (a). failing to maintain a physical presence with telephone service at that address. (b). Failing to identify the actual owner of the Promissory Note in the Notice of Default. (c). Failing to obtain proof that the beneficiary is the owner of the promissory note secured by the deed of trust.(d). Failing to clearly and conspicuously identify in the notice of Trustee’s Sale the defaults other than non payment, , that entitle the beneficiary to foreclose and which may be cured by the borrower. Instead, deceptive fraud debt collectors like yourself, Identify every possible default and demand those defaults be cured whether those defaults have actually occurred or not. (e.) Conducting foreclosure sales in on public places such as the garage of private office buildings and a hotel ballrooms, etc. (f). Creating or using documents essential to a valid trustee’s sale, or to a reconveyance of the deed of trust, that are improperly or not at all signed and sometimes without a printed name, improperly executed, notarized or sworn to, including: i) documents that were not signed in front of a notary, ii) documents that had both the signature and notarization applied mechanically while claiming that the signatory personally appeared before the notary, iii) using signatories who simultaneously claim to be officers of the beneficiary, of MERS and of a servicer, all while actually being employees of the deceptive debt collector, and ( iv). Executing documents without direct knowledge of the facts contained therein. (g). Conducting joint prosecution and /or defense of legal claims with the beneficiary or its agents on matters related to its duty of good faith to the borrower. Violating RCW 61.24.030(6), failure to maintain the statutorily-required physical presence in the state of Washington, with telephone service at that address. (a). By issuing Notices of Trustee sales and foreclosures conducting trustee’s sales, and issuing Trustee’s Deed without maintaining the required physical presence, debt collector Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust the servicer, fraud beneificiary, has misrepresented its authority to issue such notices, conduct trustee’s sales, and issue Trustee’s Deeds. (b). By conducting the non judicial foreclosure process while failing to maintain a physical presence with telephone service, the debt collector has unfairly: 1) prevented homeowners from having face –to-face contact with their trustee, ii) prevented homeowners from gaining response to time-sensitive foreclosure issues, iii. prevented homeowners from physically presenting time-sensitive payments to stop a foreclosure, iv). Prevent homeowners from physically presenting mortgage related documents in a manner that will stop the beneficiary from claiming the homeowner failed to provide such documents, and vi ) in bad faith negotiated a modification plan you had no authority to negotiate paralleling the unauthorized negotiation with foreclosure. Vii). Potentially clouded title to homes it has sold at auction. Viii). All the above a systemic crime that has caused me, the homeowner loss of income , and raised mortgage payments due to unlawful fees added to my mortgage intended to default me and thousands of homeowners in a scheme to steal my house and thousands of homeowners home . Because courts are not generally involved in the foreclosure process, homeowner’s only protections are the detailed procedures and requirement contained in the Deed of Trust Act, and a neutral foreclosure trustee whom insures those procedures are followed to the letter. You as an alleged debt collector of this alleged debt, have failed to comply with the procedures of the Deed of trust act in each and every foreclosure you have executed and specifically mine, the homeowner of this property. You are not registered to be doing business in the state of Washington, therefore not in compliance with any Washington state laws listed above.

  29. What do y’all think of THIS:

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/fedreserve.htm

  30. @Shelley,

    I posted that yesterday, directly from Jeff Barnes’ site. Did you read it?

    Enraged, on May 7, 2012 at 8:42 pm said:
    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

    LOL: CHASE IS “COMMITTED TO HELPING HOMEOWNERS REMAIN IN THEIR HOMES”
    May 7, 2012

    May 7, 2012

    The nonsense and outright lies perpetrated by the banks just keeps getting more and more unbelieveable. This latest example is laughable out loud.

    Numerous homeowners around the United States have been sending us correspondence from Chase Home Finance (which merged into JPMorgan Chase some time ago) and attorneys representing Chase stating that “Chase is committed to helping homeowners remain in their homes”. These letters have been sent in connection with threatened foreclosure proceedings, and with information as to (purported) loan modification through HUD.

    The result is disturbingly the same: the “offer” from Chase is a loan “modification” where the new payment is larger than the monthly payment sought to be reduced by modification. As Chase has actual knowledge that the homeowner cannot even make the current monthly payment, Chase is obviously intentionally setting up the homeowner for a loan modification “offer” which Chase knows must be declined as economically impossible.

    To add insult to the injury, the Chase loan mod program is known as “Once and Done”, meaning that if a loan mod offer is rejected that Chase will not make any further loan modification efforts, and will commence foreclosure proceedings.

    Chase also has a record, as do other banks, of claiming that a trial mod payment was “not received timely” resulting in a default being declared when in fact the homeowner has proof that the payment was received timely if not before the due date. Again, more evidence of Chase’s intentional manufacturing of fraudulent defaults for the purpose of furthering fraudulent foreclosures.

    So there you have it: if you don’t agree to pay Chase more money which Chase knows up front that you cannot afford, there is no loan mod, and you proceed to foreclosure. Obviously this is Chase’s intended result, purposefully structured so that it can tell the Government that “well, we attempted to work with the homeowner, but the homeowner rejected our offer…”, knowing full well that the alleged “modification” was not made in good faith and knowing what the only consequence will be.

    More “good public relations” from Chase and Mr. Dimon

  31. FYI

    Haven’t seen much talk of this anywhere but it looks like Aurora was finally purchased.

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120306005825/en/Nationstar-Mortgage-Announces-Definitive-Agreement-Acquire-Servicing

    I wonder what happens when allegedly defaulted loans are acquired as part of this deal? Hmmm…

  32. Ugh! Just spent the past hour researching Spire Law Group and Mitchell Steing. Forget my help…. forget potato chips! Sorry I got all excited about this suit, not realizing the context of this all. Okay, so we keep hoping for the real thing.

  33. Jordanalipscomb@gmail.com

  34. Jordana, I would like to contact you. Please let me know how to reach you.

  35. Great looking lawsuit. Sign me up. I have been asking Wells for an explanation as to where my trials payments went (since they did not go toward a loan mod) for two years. I get nothing. Offshore? Money laundering? Let me know how I can assist. Anyone need an ex lawyer to review documents? I work for potato chips!

  36. All the big banks were trying to give principal reduction to the people not in default before the settlement, One of my customers that lost her house, works for Chase and she was telling me how she did a refi for her parents, and many of Chase customers, giving them principle reductions of 40,000.00 approx. When the houses are underwater a hundred thousand. When I told her this was sad, and explained why I felt this way. She was helping her parents and others to re up loans with Chase that they dont even own. But do now! And the houses are still underwater and going underwater worse in the next two years I would be fairly accurate to guess. Now they owe the debt for sure to Chase, with a brand new agreement, when Chase did not own the loan, or was the creditor. Her father has contacted me for info and is heated about his discoveries. My customer feels bad now. This is something the bank was doing before the settlements only with parties that were not behind and would never have refied except they were lead into it to reup this loan, for a lesser interest rate and a small principle reduction. This is a win win for the banks. At any refi or reup and now they have a new contract that these people owe them, when they did not have this contract. The bank is making it look like they are doing something new and different and are working to help people, when this is absolutely a move to secure the property int heir name and cause massive people to believe they are being given an opportunity to improve their loan position. When they are refiing with a party that had no right to the property. I can not see how this can clear their titles. They dont know are clouded. Jenn tells me she has been working overtime to refi everyone for months before the settlelment.

  37. Yes, they do. But it’s more than just PR. They have to do something, or look like they’re doing something because of the settlements. It’s more of the same nothing. I am convinced B of A will be the first of the big banks to go down in the US.

  38. The important thing is that the people think BoA is a charitable enterprise right up till they get the next bailout check—which with Europe crumblig –could be pretty soon. BoA has some good PR folks

  39. This B of A thing is such bullshit! It’s the same plan as HAMP modifications except 25% instead of 35%. It’s nearly impossible to qualify and they’ll spend a lot less than the predicted 11billion since very few people will make the cut. It’s ridiculous. Same old, same old.

  40. B of A’s PR move (bearing in mind the difference between the word ‘move’, which is a verb denoting action and ‘stunt’ which is a noun that doesn’t)

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-of-america-offers-principal-reductions-to-200-000-homeowners.html

  41. Uhh, the CFPB is under the direct oversight of a private bank, The Federal Reserve Corp. Any decision will be without agency recognition and thus mute. This is a glaring example of the fox watching the hen-house.

  42. Though the services usually offer indemnity to the investor banks and non-banks as part of their servicing agreements, it does open the door to unwanted litigation for them. When in doubt, sue everybody!

  43. Regulation of loan originators: the rules set out below seem to state that the primary test of eligibility to be a loan broker is how much money he has on tap.

    “To receive a transitional loan originator license from the second state, an
    individual must meet either a net worth or surety bond requirement, or pay into a
    state fund, as required by the second state’s loan originator supervisory authority,
    consistent with Regulation H and the SAFE Act. In this respect, the SAFE Act
    and Regulation H do permit state reciprocity with respect to transitional loan
    originator licensing.”

    This is somewhat better than nothing unless its simply a device to make the regulation look real. And certainly if there are limits on what these people can do–the surety provisions are necessary—-but what Im looking for is the ability of prior victims to make comments on the individuals’ application. So although we know exactly who some of the most egregious brokers–the guys that altered our info to get bigger fees—that made us look like we were defrauding banks by changing loan applications—-that called up an offered “teaser rates” to leave a safe loan and get into one of the awful predatory situations—these guys can go right out and get licenses and do it again—-why do we have no right to comment?

    They got away with it before and should at least have to stop –not jump back in using their stolen money and connections–do we really believe that they will stop? its nice to have rules—but unless you have some of these guys subject to public scrutiny—-the only sufferers for teir last go round are predated ex-homeowners—-they cannot prevent abuse by printing more forms—–these guys know very well that they abused forms blatantly–whats different? wheres the example held up to the others—assets seized–no job–reputation destroyed—none—those benies are left to the deadbeats that got suckered into the deals

  44. I fail to see how this is helpful. Can anyone enlighten me on this? Thank you.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: