The West Coast Radio Show: Chase Admits it does not have Wire Transfer Receipts


Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Valbuena v. Ocwen 2015-b256378(1)

Investigator Bill Paatalo will share a bombshell that confirms what Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield has always suspected: There is a COMPLETE disconnect between the Trust, the Servicer and the Borrower and there is NO WAY to prove, through verifiable accounting, that the alleged investor ever receives the payments from the Homeowners.

On February 23, 2018 JPMorgan Chase filed an emergency motion seeking clarification and an in camera review. (See: Proodian-V-Chase-Order1).  The Order specifically orders Chase to produce “(1) wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and forwarded to Wells Fargo, or any other entity, via wire transfer.  However, Chase admists that it is not in “possession, custody or control of the documents”.

Chase continues to assert that its records will show that: Plaintiff’s loan is part of the pool of loans; and (2) that Chase makes one large lump sum payment to Wells Fargo each month for that pool, regardless of whether it receives a payment from Plaintiff’s.

This is insane! Chase is admitting that it sends millions of dollars each month to Wells Fargo on behalf of a pool of loans, but can’t break down that lump sum to show the origins and sources of these payments!  This is the epitome of a Ponzi scheme!


Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights that became effective on January 1, 2013, that was enacted “to ensure that, as part of the nonjudicial foreclosure process, borrowers are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation options, if any, offered by or through the borrower’s mortgage servicer, such as loan modifications or other alternatives to foreclosure.”

Among other things, HBOR prohibits “dual tracking,” which occurs when a bank forecloses on a loan while negotiating with the borrower to avoid foreclosure. HBOR provides for injunctive relief for statutory violations that occur prior to foreclosure and monetary damages when the borrower seeks relief for violations after the foreclosure sale has occurred.

In Vilbuena a 2015 Appeal case, Ocwen raised the issue of tender, a common action in non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions out West. The court addressed how, why and when servicers can take a property to sale while reviewing a loan modification application.  In California where loan mods are part of the procedural path during a lawsuit, Vilbuena could potentially provide new defenses.  Nothing in the language of HBOR suggests that a borrower must tender the loan balance before filing suit based on a violation of the requirements of the law. Indeed, such a requirement would completely eviscerate the remedial provisions of the HBOR statute.

Bill Paatalo, Private Investigator –

BP Investigative Agency, LLC


Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall



Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: