Chase loses again after trying sneaky maneuver


Neither Chase nor anyone else actually has a claim or a case against the homeowner if the premise is that either Chase or some other named “trustee” owns the loan through the magical process of “securitization”. The fact that securities were issued is not a license to lie. Using a label doesn’t mean anyone is telling the truth.

Even Chase couldn’t stomach defending a nonexistent securitization process; so it lied about something else. In this case it lied about ever receiving the note which would, in turn, have been evidence of transfer of title to the underlying debt/obligation.

Hearsay is hearsay. It is not admissible as evidence of anything. The affiant in submitting the affidavit stated only that he reviewed records and came to the conclusion that the note had been delivered, raising the presumption that the loan obligation had been purchased.

Courts are not interested in a witness’s conclusions. they are interested in the facts. And the facts are that the affiant did not attach the records about which he was testifying — in order for the court to come to its own conclusion.

The reason for all of this is that Chase never did get delivery of the note, never purchased the underlying obligation for value, and therefore did not own or control the transction that is labelled as a loan. It lied about everything, concealing the fact that a Lehman trust claimed ownership (which was also a lie).

See JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Tumelty, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 6766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

From Follow up by Bill Paatalo:

Nice mini-victory here. I’ve been assisting in this case. This goes to the heart of what we’ve been discussing and posting regarding the WaMu notes. Chase cannot overcome the obvious deficiencies. I mentioned this case on the Show and the fact that Chase admitted after judgment the loan was in a Lehman Trust.
The plaintiff asserts that it was in physical possession of the note at the time it
commenced this action. The note was not attached to the complaint. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Evan L. Grageda, an employee of the plaintiff. Grageda averred that, based on his review of the plaintiff’s records, the plaintiff took possession of the note on or about July 20, 2009, and that the plaintiff was in possession of the note when the action was commenced on September 13, 2012. There were no business records attached to the affidavit which demonstrate that the plaintiff took possession of the note on that date.
We agree with the defendant that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff lacked a
sufficient evidentiary basis to demonstrate that the plaintiff possessed the note when it commenced this action. Grageda’s averments relating to the date that the plaintiff possessed the note are inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value because they are based on unidentified records (e.s.) which were not included with his affidavit (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dennis, 181 AD3d 864; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cavallaro, 181 AD3d 688; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Carnegie, 181 AD3d 632; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197, 208-209). Since the plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). (e.s.)
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS, AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at
Please visit for more information.

4 Responses

  1. In Illinois Judges will not hesitate to conceal forged documents (Notes) from case records and not even them give it to defrauded borrowers.

    And the Higher Court will never ask where is the material evidence based on which lower Court made their decision.

    And the only “material evidence” is a robo-stamped (obvious stamp) signature of some long-defunct official – not on the Note but on a separate piece of paper.

    Blank piece of paper with a stamp = stolen property in Chicago Court.

  2. Legisman, can you please respond to Jan van eck’s comment regarding NY state’s foreclosure requirements with regard to the note?
    Jan nice to hear from you again-

  3. Readers should note that NY State is a bit of an anomaly in foreclosure law (and procedure). Current practice requirements flow from the massive abuses of the Steven J. Baum P.C. law firm, a Wild-West outfit that was shameless in its abuses of the Court. Post-Baum, NY State changed its requirements to require foreclosure attorneys to attach their own Certificate averring to the Court (under penalty of disbarment) that they had conducted their own independent review of the allegations of their Complaint, and found them accurate. The month after that requirement came in, foreclosure filings dropped to zero.

    The shameless lying of Baum had burned the Court Judges who relied on them; hence the new Rules. What you are seeing here in requirements of filing the Note as part of NY’s getting away from reliance upon some attorney (such as Baum) and upon real documents. In response the foreclosure industry went to Ricoh Corp. to develop a new gel-jet machine just for bankers, which shoots out gel drops that will flow together to form a continuous signature reproduction. The machine is uncanny; it can create a signature not distinguishable from the original, from an electronic scan, without the pesky laser-dot interruptions that you can see with a microscope on a laser-printer copy of a signature.

    With the Ricoh gel-jet machine, the foreclosure mills and the investment brokers masquerading as bankers can reproduce the destroyed notes and attach the forgeries to their Complaint, thus neatly side-stepping the Obligations imposed by the courts for that Certificate described above. You can still beat this by demanding return of the Note, cancelled by signature of a corporate officer, in exchange for the foreclosure judgment. The bank gangsters will put up a howl to derail that, but the note has to come out of commercial circulation to prevent your paying twice, so you have a right to it in exchange for the court issuing judgment against you. Then, when analyzing the Note for age, and you find it was recently printed, you have them subsequently for fraud, which I would argue is a criminal fraud, but I do not practice criminal law so don’t take my common-sense thinking on that.

    My view: sue the bums. Cheers to all.

  4. I had a favorable outcome with Chase. The payoff was $900k and they settled after 10 years of litigation for $85k

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: