Chase Found Guilty (AGAIN) for Fabricating and Uttering False Documentation: CA Appeals Award $250,000+ Attorney Fees

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

This article is not a substitute for a legal opinion from an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. Get a lawyer.



In January Patrick Giunta and I won a case against US Bank, Chase and SPS. The basis was simple. The Trust never acquired the loan. Thus US bank failed to establish standing. The Plaintiff was US Bank as trustee for the certificate holders, but the real player was Chase who then slipped in SPS as a “Successor” to the “Servicing” of the a loan in which there were no servicing duties. At trial they tried coming up with new fabricated documents and the Judge refused to admit them into evidence. Not only were the documents fabricated but also the “business records” showing a mixed bag of tricks with reversals of payments received and money going in and out of escrow that clearly could not be reconciled. The robo-witness could not come up with a default date nor could he reconcile the amount demanded for reinstatement with any terms of the loan.

Why was Chase operating behind the scenes creating these bogus claims? Also a simple answer. They wanted to stop making “servicer advance” payments, get the foreclosure and the sale and then eat up all the proceeds of sale with their false claims for fees, “recovery” of servicer advances and other claims.

In this case, reported by housing, there are many similarities:

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) created and recorded false documentation that showed the bank owned the mortgage of two California residents in order to foreclose on their home, the California Court of Appeals stated in a ruling Monday.

The Kalickis sued WaMu in 2009, alleging that the bank wrongfully foreclosed on their property in 2008. In 2010, Chase was granted a motion to intervene because it had purchased WaMu’s assets and held the interests in the loan.

The Kalickis amended their complaint to add Chase as a defendant and dismissed WaMu from the suit. In the complaint, the Kalickis alleged that Chase claimed ownership of their loan based on fraudulent documents.

In September 2012, a trial court in California ruled in favor of the Kalickis, stating that they owned the property and quieted the title in their favor.

The court also found that Chase had executed and recorded false documentation that showed that the ownership of the Kalickis’ mortgage was transferred to Chase. The court also ruled that a Chase executive created a document that “fraudulently represented that a prior assignment had been lost and that Chase owned the Kalickis’ mortgage.”

The lower court ruling voided all of the fraudulent documents and prohibited Chase from recording any false or misleading documents representing that it owned the Kalickis’ mortgage.

The court later found in the Kalickis’ favor and awarded them “reasonable” attorney fees in the amount of $255,135, stating the amount included feeds for reviewing and replying to Chase’s opposition briefs. Chase appealed that ruling, which led to the ruling Monday in the California Court of Appeals.

9 Responses

  1. MBS GMAC Mortgage Corporation Series Reports Shelf Documents
    this shows all that is in my trust. hahahah. wait to you see whats in it. and the name it is under isnt even on
    any doc, or at regestry of deeds . but really doesnt matter, as all traunches are for. home equity loans.
    go to this site, , once there my user name is , davidbel password- is Congess12$,
    then go to the g’s and under gmac mortgage corporation. click on series reports, once on the next page, go to
    2006 – J1 08/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 10:00AM EDT
    click on the 2006-j1, once there start going through all tabs, but look at the tax reporting. this is were you will see what type of trust it is. once in tax reporting, it will come up showing all 1099’s
    that the trust is reporting on, all traunches reporting on. click on them, they will show you what type of trust, and name of the trust. its not mine, as they think it is. hahahahah.they say my trust is this name.
    Seller, Servicer and Sponsor
    Issuing Entity
    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
    GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1
    GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust
    Series 2006-J1 REMIC
    9062 Old Annapolis Road
    Columbia, MD 21045

  2. Must be nice, to be able to afford to fight for the
    ………… right to keep what’s already yours ……………..
    attorney fees in the amount of $255,135

    Anyone that can afford that kind of attorney fees has to have deep pockets. Of course the court granted the fees paid, but still I doubt, in my honorable opinion, that the fees are pro bono fees.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  3. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Great news! A California Court of Appeal has just ruled in a unanimous unpublished decision that Chase created false documents purporting to give it an ownership interest in a homeowner’s loan and deed of trust. The California Court of Appeal also upheld an award of over $255,000 against Chase.

  4. i would love to take a big bite out of them

    E-everything from you

    hopefully soon they will be history for me also
    stand strong
    keep fighting

  5. @ elexquisitor (or Phred Maldonado)

    Yes, you did call it correctly. Personally, I thank you for those posts and tracking of cases in Kalifornia.

    While you are correct that Kalicki can not be cited, it can be artfully referenced for persuasion of a point.

    This is a second request to please make contact: glass-half-full

    Then: outlook

    Here in the Bay Area.

  6. BTW, my request to have the publication issue of Kalicki reviewed as part of my case was denied review by the CA ‘supreme’ court.

  7. Look! Real law! I presented this case nearly a year ago to this forum. Both the trial judge and appalling justices noted the felonies committed by Chase. Despite unopposed motions to publish the decision the justices denied publication, or reference as a legal precedent to any other cases. So the case cannot be judicially noticed by any other case to show a pattern of criminal activity, and the justices responsible hide behind their ‘judicial immunity’. Expect the same behavior by the courts over Glaski.

  8. Someone got tired of the games … The Cheaters.
    Went for the Jugular!
    Taking a Big Bite Out of Crime.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: