Livinglies's Weblog

Anyone who knows such a lawyer please send an email with contact information to info@lendinglies.com and a copy to Neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

This involves complex civil litigation and what I call legal proctology — cleaning up a mess created by a pro se litigant. Some things might not be subject to cleanup but there are, in my opinion, still defenses and claims that can be raised. These people are in over their heads. The prospective client has sufficient funds to pay an attorney. I spent 90 minutes on the phone vetting this prospective client.

This case involves a WAMU loan, JPM Chase (of course) and China Trust Bank. There were interim settlements. The case involves a large business loan on which they are being charged interest for the payoff on the business loan. The business lender used part of the proceeds to “Payoff” the WAMU loan on the homestead. Highly probable that at the time of the payoff WAMU was not entitled to the payoff — and the prospective clients report that they never agreed to the use of proceeds of the business loan being applied to pay off WAMU. The loan was personally guaranteed and the prospective client did execute a mortgage (second mortgage) as additional collateral.

In the BKR there was an adversary proceeding that resulted in a judgment of $600,000+. Someone tried to domesticate that as a “foreign judgment.” I had very few documents in front of me.  One of the questions is who sued whom and for what? The business loan was for a much higher amount and may or may not be in default but it is covered by another property on which the business loan was approved. The business property appears to be worth far more than the business loan.

There are pending actions in federal court (almost over), and state court, with a prior Chapter 11 BKR in which the Adversary proceeding resulted in a judgment.

Statute of limitations might apply along with possible res judicata and collateral estoppel issues.

Although I performed no case analysis as yet, it appears as though WAMU took payment for satisfaction of a mortgage it didn’t own,  having sold it into the secondary market into the realm of false securitization claims. It is probable that WAMU was not the lender even though it was the originator. JPM might still own servicing rights from the Purchase and Acquisition Agreement with the FDIC. While that agreement does refer to loans it does not set forth a schedule of loans, nor was there any payment for loans, hence the

JPM might still own servicing rights from the Purchase and Acquisition Agreement with the FDIC. While that agreement does refer to loans it does not set forth a schedule of loans, nor was there any payment for loans, hence the conclusion that JPM never purchased any loans (probably because there were no loans in inventory). No assignment of loans nor any endorsement exists in which the BKR Trustee in the WAMU bankrupty or the FDIC receiver sold WAMU loans to Chase.

No referral fee or other compensation is required for me, but I stand ready to assist with drafting and editing pleadings, motions and memos of law. While the prospective client has adequate resources it would, in my opinion, be wise for the attorney to apply a hybrid fee schedule involving payment of fees plus a reasonable contingency fee.

Filed under: foreclosure |