The Great Chase-Wamu Deception!
Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show
Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays
Why? Because on September 25, 2018 acquired WAMU and before that WAMU was seized which means that WAMU as a separate entity ceased to exist on the date of seizure (when it became the FDIC) and the date of bankruptcy when the bankruptcy estate became the entity. No WAMU endorsement or assignment after those dates could be valid because WAMU, as an independent entity, did not exist.
Bill Paatalo is back on the West Coast Foreclosure Show to discuss a recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which going forward will deny Chase the right to use bankruptcy preemption rules to deny homeowners pursuing claims against Chase due to endorsements of notes from WAMU, when those ostensibly legal (not!) endorsements occurred after September 25, 2008.
Sounds complicated let’s unpack matters for you: When WAMU went into bankruptcy receivership after going broke in September 2008, the FDIC took over its assets in receivership, using that receivership to transfer the WAMU assets to Chase Bank. Meanwhile, the FDIC set a ‘claims bar’ date of December 30, 2008, which had the effect of limiting and sometimes preventing homeowners from pursuing lawsuits against Chase based upon note endorsements from WAMU, when those endorsements happened while the FDIC had WAMU in receivership. Since many of those WAMU to Chase note endorsements occurred after the FDIC receivership ended, the bankruptcy preemption rules Chase has been using to stifle lawsuits will no longer be available to Chase to shut down those same lawsuits against them over illegal note endorsements.
And all of this by the way in a TILA rescission lawsuit. The 10th Circuit ruling of Pembroke Living Trust v. US Bank National Association concerns principally a TILA rescission claim, which the 10th Circuit shot down. While issuing that ruling, the Court formally addressed the bankruptcy preemption claim issue highlighted above.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Clearly, neither Garfield, nor Paatalo understand the holding of the case at bar. However, once again another Cir. Ct., the 10th Cir., shot down Garfield’s ridiculous rescission arguments.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-05/colorado-eviction-courts-overwhelmed-housing-crisis-unfolds
TYPO: I meant “particularly WHERE there was no purchase” — not “were”.
@ Charles Reed
As to WELLS acting as the purported servicer of accounts for the other GSE’s, e.g., Fannie, Freddie, etc., that were transferred from WAMU to WELLS (not FDIC/JP Morgan), would there be any reason the same circumstances would not apply, particularly were there was no purchase of the debt?
Any thoughts, cases or evidence to pursue?
it is good to see that the 10th circuit based their ruling on their lack of jurisdiction in part from another case here in the Midwest in the 7th circuit…
“As the Seventh Circuit explained in another case involving Ms. Riley and WaMu, “Any of Riley’s acts or omissions as an employee or agent of WAMU taken before the FDIC receivership would be attributable to WAMU for purposes of liability, and FIRREA bars a court from considering this claim against WAMU . . . in the absence of administrative exhaustion.” Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 679 (7th Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 227 (2017).
You got to remember that on Jul 31, 2006, Wells Fargo Bank (Wells) purchase the servicing rights to 1.3 million Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) Ginnie Mae pooled FHA & VA loans that they took physical possession of those files being the custodian of records for the Notes endorsed in blank and relinquished to Ginnie Mae.
These loans were never assigned or included to JPMorgan because the remote bankruptcy UCC3 procedure is used on every single pooled loan. This procedure is used in the event that a bank becomes defunct as WaMu did on Sept 25, 2008.
These loans were kept in the ex-WaMu mortgage center in Milwaukee WI as Wells purchased the building and hired the staff until they closed it down in Jul 2015, in what I believe is to hide the loans that the customers are in belief that when the loans started being serviced in 2008, that Wells purchased the loans.
No one could purchase these already pooled loans because the Notes have been made invalid so that the lender cannot run off and sell the loans or that a bankruptcy court could get ahold of them and determine a rightful debt holder. However, in all the WaMu Ginnie pooled loan doesn’t have a debt holder because WaMu not the owner of the Notes and Wells, JPMorgan or Ginnie did not purchase the debt
So Wells has used law firms like Kozeny & McCubbin to create forged Assignment and gaining control illegally to foreclose. Having the Fed Gov purchase stolen properties while paying false claims to the FHA PMI and VA Guaranty Funds.
This is my SEC Whistleblower claim from Feb 10, 2012!
Its actually turned into a Ponzi scheme because on Sept 25, 2008, WaMu could not pay its bills and the Ginnie MBS actual were in default as no other entity could just start paying the investors who purchased MBSs not mortgage loans. So Wells is illegally taking mortgage payments passing them through as if WaMu was alive and applying for the payment then passing through what WaMu owned the investors, however as the servicing agreement stop existing when the bank stop existing if not earlier because of the physical transferring of the blank Notes!
Wells that had its name and issuer number place on the Ginnie files with Ginnie, yet the MBS stop existing but the borrower monies that are no longer owed to and cannot be challenged in court for a debt due because there is not WaMu to approach a court! Under UCC9 the non-originator of a loan must present proof of purchase.
Wells lost the case judged by a Judge not jury that neither Wells or Freddie Mac had proof that they owned the debt in Holm v. Wells & Freddie Mac when Wells foreclosed on Holm. The used Kozeny & Mccubbin the forger to represent them in the Holm lost!
Pretending that you have a valid MBS and using funds you can only receive in being the lender or servicer when a lender stop existing stop any relationship with that ex-bank so this claim that MERS has a right to judge anything is not a fact as MERS does not have a financial interest nor are they working for an existing bank!