Chase Loses on Assignment and Assumption Argument with WAMU

A purchase and assumption agreement was not enough to prove JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s legal standing in a foreclosure case before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
For a description of our services  click here:




Congrats to Attorney Ricardo Corona, Esq., the one who won this case.

On the road today.

I just wanted to point out that what I had testified 8 years ago in a class action is pretty much well-settled now, despite the nagging naysayers that always emerge when confronted with an observation that conflicts with their assumptions. WAMU originated around $1 trillion in loans. Any cursory overview of their financial statements would show that they could not possibly have loaned even a substantial fraction of that amount. It follows that all of them were pre-funded through conduits of conduits who were illegally using investor money obtained under false pretenses.

For most of the loans, therefore, WAMU never owned them because they were never the lender. The rest were “sold” (without ever receiving one cent of consideration) into the secondary market where they were subject to false claims of securitization. The financial equivalent of a house of mirrors.

Any three year old understands that if you give away that tasty apple you don’t have it anymore. So when the FDIC took over WAMU, who had virtually no assets, and then combined with the US Trustee in bankruptcy to sell the servicing rights and other services of WAMU, Chase was the buyer of everything EXCEPT the loans. No assignments exist because none were executed. I spoke to Richard Schoppe the FDIC Trustee who directly confirmed this to me years ago.

It therefore makes sense that the paperwork used in court is fabricated, forged or irrelevant to ownership, authority or even balances. In a case Patrick Giunta and I won about a year ago, a veteran Judge ruled that the Trust never owned the loan, that the transfer  documents were meaningless, that the “new servicer” had no right to service the loan, and that Chase probably owed our client money for fooling around with the escrow account. Lawyers for US Bank as trustee for the inactive REMIC Trust tried using all kinds of documents including brand new powers of attorney that said nothing of value.

The “WAMU” notes, by the way, were mostly destroyed. Almost all of the notes you see today and represented as originals would not survive a real forensic examination. Many of the loan documents were printed and mechanically signed within hours or days of being presented in court as the originals signed by the homeowner. That is why I always caution against admitting the signature — it usually isn’t the original signature but it sure looks like it. Now Chase is walking this practice back because the executives wish to avoid civil and maybe other prosecution. So they are using “substitutes” for the notes.

“Because they didn’t have possession of the note, they had to rely on the purchase and assumption agreement, which the Fourth DCA found insufficient,” said defense attorney Ricardo M. Corona Jr. of the Corona Law Firm in Miami.

7 Responses

  1. can anyone recommend an attorney in Jersey? I am looking for foreclosure defense in a Wamu mortgage original was nvestor Fannie Mae and since transferred to Chase as both servicer and investor. Title work still shows Wanu and we never signed a new mortgage with Chase. They closed our home equity line of credit without warning and damaged and ruined our credit which began our credit decline so much so we claimed bankruptcy. If anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate it. Thank you.

  2. Congratulation, this is great for you. I too had fought WAMU/Chase for 8 years, I have a very good case to win. Will lave you with point of contact

  3. I have been jumping up and down about forensic examination.
    Most important, a copy of the original, is not the same size of the original and the examiner will determine as soon as the examination begins. Size is used to detect ‘copies’ of counterfeit money!

  4. and….. Where does this leave the millions of us that were defrauded?

  5. They had their dirty hands in our escrow cookie jar too…
    $5000 worth of fooling around they did do …

    My Cookie Jars
    Standing on the sidelines.

  6. Excellent!

  7. Well, here we are again looking at the obvious, and facts that we have known all along. This does not bode well for American jurisprudence.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: