Investigator Bill Paatalo: Why Are The Oregon Courts Ignoring Its Own Rules Regarding The “Surrender And ‘Tender’ Of ‘Original’ Negotiable Instruments?”

 https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-are-the-oregon-courts-ignoring-its-own-rules-regarding-the-surrender-and-tender-of-original-negotiable-instruments/
This is the Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rule regarding the surrender of negotiable instruments before the entry of a judgment. Oregon is typically a non-judicial foreclosure state. However, the bank servicers have been increasingly choosing to go the judicial route. My sources are telling me that the clerks in the Oregon courts who have been asked about this rule have either said, “we aren’t doing that,” or they provide an expression like that of a “deer in the headlights.” Apparently, the Oregon Court Rules don’t apply to the banks if deemed inconvenient.
2.060 ENTERING JUDGMENT ON FACE OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
(1) In all cases when a judgment is to be based on a negotiable instrument, as defined in ORS 73.0104, the party obtaining judgment must tender the original instrument to the court before the entry of judgment, unless the court has found that such party is entitled to enforce the instrument under ORS 73.0309, and the court must enter a notation of the judgment on the face of the instrument.
(2) The trial court administrator shall return the original instrument only after filing a certified copy of the instrument.
Bill Paatalo
Private Investigator – OR PSID 49411
bill.bpia@gmail.com

LIVE NOW! 3pm Pacific/ 6pm Eastern: The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Attorney Charles Marshall, Investigator Bill Paatalo and former FDIC team-member Eric Mains

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase: Nardolillo v. Chase

This session of the Charles Marshall’s West Coast Foreclosure Show features former FDIC team leader Eric Mains who will discuss FOIA strategies in regards to the LPS/BlackKnight consent judgment.  Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA BlackKnight LPS concept during the August 3, 2017 broadcast here.

Mains urges listeners to immediately contact their state AG offices to obtain information about the LPS/Black Knight consent judgment in your state, and to demand answers why LPS is not in compliance with the judgement.  The information you discover may allow you to file suit on a prior foreclosure, or provide an opportunity to obtain information that will help you in current litigation.  See articles here and here.

Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase, a northern California case scheduled for trial in April 2018.  JPMorgan Chase’s Motion to Dismiss was recently denied based on its failure to demonstrate ownership of the note and Deed of Trust.  Chase relies exclusively on a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) as proof of ownership, but the court has stated that the PAA does not by itself, “establish as an incontrovertible fact that Chase is entitled to enforce the note.”  Nardolillo alleges that the Note and DOT were already securitized prior to the FDIC receivership of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), and therefore WaMu could not convey what it did not own.

Attorney Charles Marshall serves the state of California.  Please contact him to discuss your foreclosure issue:

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency can be contacted at:

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838, Absarokee, MT 59001

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Office: (406) 328-4075

info.bpia@gmail.com

 

 

Nardolillo V. Chase – Northern District of California: Motion to Dismiss Denied

By J. Guggenheim/www.lendinglies.com

Note: Our ongoing gratitude to Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency for keeping us updated with significant developments in nationwide foreclosure defense cases.  Paatalo is the preeminent investigator regarding WaMu/JPMorgan Chase “merger” issues.

See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase Nardolillo v. Chase

Analysis by Neil Garfield:  Although Nardolillo’s case has merit, unfortunately he may lose because he already alleged that the loan was sold to a specific securitized trust.  We already know the loans weren’t transferred to the trusts, so Nardolillo has already compromised his own case by making erroneous presumptions.

Without an amendment to his pleadings, he will be forced to prove the trust bought the loan which is impossible because the trust didn’t buy the loan and therefore there is no evidence to support the allegation.

The flip-side is that if Nordolillo had not identified who the loan was sold to, the court would have likely gone the other way on the motion to dismiss.

If he amends to not be specific on the “sale” of the loan, there is a risk that the court will dismiss the action.  The real problem really is that not only did the trust NOT buy the loan, but NOBODY did.

That is because the only movement of money that actually occurred in the real world was to fund loans originated by WAMU. Thus he is right that WAMU didn’t own it but he is citing the wrong reason. WAMU never owned the loan in the first place. Thus there could be no sale.

Chase relies on the complexity of its scheme to confuse and overwhelm the bench. This is the principal reason that I have been hammering at the idea of using a CPA as an expert witness because the numbers don’t lie. Banks lie, servicers lie, and lawyers lie; but in the end, the numbers on the general ledger as audited by one of the big auditing firms tell the real story. You will likely never find a single one of these loans on the balance sheet of any of the players pretending to foreclose.

___________________________________________________________

Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase is scheduled for trial in April in California’s liberal North District Court.  This case includes illegal substitutions of trustees by Chase, if they were not the beneficiary per the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA).  Nardolillo alleges wrongful foreclosure, violations of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, and dual-tracking violations in regards to a pending loan modification.  Nardolillo is not the first to allege that JPMorgan Chase is playing an ownership shell-game (see Fox).

WaMu was taken under receivership by the FDIC in 2008 when it became insolvent.  JPMorgan Chase then entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) with the FDIC to acquire “certain” WaMu assets.  Plaintiff Gary Nardolillo alleges his Note and Deed of Trust were not among the assets Chase acquired through the PAA and that they were “possibly” sold or securitized years earlier.

This is business as usual for JPMorgan Chase who typically has no note or assignment demonstrating ownership in regards to the WaMu loans it claimed to have acquired.  Therefore, without resorting to manufacturing the documents or having a ‘bank representative’ file a sworn affidavit they have personal knowledge of the loan (when they don’t), JPMorgan Chase simply relies on a substitute trustee to compensate for Chain of Assignment deficiencies.

On March 14, 2011, Chase claimed to be the beneficiary of the DOT and directed the California Reconveyance Corporation (CRC), as trustee, to record a Notice of Default against the subject property.  CRC recorded a Notice of Default, stating the amount due as of March 11, 2011, was $36,304.16.

On October 20, 2014, in a recorded “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust,” Chase purported to act as “attorney in fact” for the FDIC and transferred all beneficial interest in Nardolillo’s DOT to itself.   Nardolillo alleges this was a void assignment because: (1) Nardolillo’s DOT was never among the assets received by the FDIC from WaMu and transferred to Chase; and (2) Chase was not authorized to serve as the attorney in fact for the FDIC at the time it executed and recorded the Corporate Assignment.

Chase then began its usual game of what Investigator Paatalo refers to “whack-a-mole” and on April 17, 2015, it recorded a Substitution of Trustee, substituting former-defendant Trustee Corps in place of CRC as trustee under the DOT. Nardolillo alleges that this substitution is also void.

Chase directed Trustee Corps to record a Notice of Trustee’s Sale against the Subject Property on July 7, 2016. Around July 22, 2016, Nardolillo submitted his first loan modification application to Chase, but the defendants have continued to notice trustee’s sale dates on the Property.  He claims that chase violated California Civil Code when it conducted the July 2016 Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded, as Chase had no right to foreclose because Chase never acquired rights to the DOT and Note from WaMu.

Assuming these allegations are true, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale would not be “accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” Cal. City Code§ 2924.17/a).   Chase argues Nardolillo’s argument isn’t sufficiently supported by facts, but only by insufficient bare conclusions.  Nardolillo is at the mercy of Chase who likely doesn’t have the necessary proof but relies on the complicity of the bank to get away with fraud.  The relevant allegations in the Complaint are:

—Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that WaMu sold Plaintiff’s DOT and Note to a mortgage – backed securitized trust.
—Plaintiff’s securitization audit indicated Plaintiff ‘ s loan was possibly sold to the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-AR12 trust – a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
—Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that his Note and DOT were not among the assets acquired by Chase through the PAA, having been sold and securitized to a trust pool a few years prior.

Chase relies on the PAA, that claims Chase acquired WaMu’s “assets” from the FDIC in 2008, as well as the recorded “Corporate Assignment,” showing that plaintiff’s DOT and Note were transferred to Chase by Chase (as the attorney in fact for the FDIC as receiver for WaMu).  Relying on JPMorgan Chase’s word is like believing Kevin Hart is a committed family man- despite the Vegas photos.

Chase claims these judicially noticeable documents and the absence of notices recorded by any other entity with respect to the Property establish that Chase “is of record with respect to the Property.”  Plaintiff has correctly objected to any attempt to take judicial notice of the facts contained in these public records as true. He argues that the “truth” of whether Chase was entitled to sign the Corporate Assignment and whether plaintiff’s Note and DOT were included with the scope of the PAA are contested and cannot be established through a request f0r judicial notice.  Neil Garfield writes about the perils of not objecting to judicial notice here.

Chase’s arguments are not well-taken on a motion to dismiss.  The PAA does not expressly cover plaintiff’s Note and DOT.  Chase fails to point to any portion of the PAA that demonstrates that WaMu-funded REMICs (like the one Nardolillo contends owns his Note and DOT) were “WaMu assets” transferred to Chase for servicing or for any other purpose.  The court noted that although Chase has been an entity causing notices to be recorded with respect to the Property, is significant, it does not by itself establish as an incontrovertible fact that Chase is “of interest” or otherwise entitled to enforce rights to the Note and DOT.

Investigator Bill Paatalo has proof that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase $615 billion in WaMu loans.  See article here:

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-jpmorgan-chase-did-not-purchase-ownership-of-615b-worth-of-wamu-loans-in-three-simple-steps/

Paatalo has long discussed the questionable use of using “Substitution of Trustees” in order to create the illusion of ownership and to further complicate the ownership issue in a court of law.  Paatalo discovered that WaMu entities have never been dissolved and still exist.  The loans did not go through the FDIC, therefore Chase executes assignments from the FDIC in order to substitute trustees.  Paatalo demonstrates that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase ownership of $615 billion in Washington Mutal loans in three simple steps.

Paatalo presents a “3-step Analysis” to show that “ownership” of at least $615,000,000,000.00 (over half a TRILLION Dollars!) of WaMu loans were not purchased by JPMorgan Chase from the FDIC.

STEP 1:

The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions.

See:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senate-investigations-subcommittee-releases-levin-coburn-report-on-the-financial-crisis

 

Pg. 116 –

From 2000 to 2007, Washington Mutual and Long Beach securitized at least $77 billion in subprime and home equity loans. WaMu also sold or securitized at least $115 billion in Option ARM loans. Between 2000 and 2008, Washington Mutual sold over $500 billion in loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, accounting for more than a quarter of every dollar in loans WaMu originated.

 

Pg. 119 –

“WaMu Capital Corp. acted as an underwriter of securitization transactions generally involving Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. or WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. Generally, one of the two entities would sell loans into a securitization trust in exchange for securities backed by the loans in question, and WaMu Capital Corp. would then underwrite the securities consistent with industry standards.

STEP 2:

See: Page 2. – PAA – (click here: FDIC-Chase – PAA)

“Assets” means all assets of the Failed Bank purchased pursuant to Section 3.1. Assets owned by Subsidiaries of the Failed Bank are not “Assets” within the meaning of this definition.”

STEP 3:

In the case of Fox v. JPMorgan Chase, a specific REMIC Trust is named in the action. To prevail on its argument that the loan was sold and transferred to the Trust, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee, both admitted / “stipulated” that the loan contained both investor codes “AO1″ and “369” in the loan transfer history, which means the loan was sold by Washington Mutual Bank to the subsidiaries prior to those subsidiaries transferring the loan into the Trust. AND, it was stipulated that the loan was NOT PURCHASED FROM THE FDIC.

(Click here: Chase Stipulated Fact – AO1 – WMAAC)

Stipulated Facts:

“8. Investor Code AO1 in the Loan Transfer History File represents WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.”

“9. Investor Code 369 in the Loan Transfer History File represents Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation.”

“10.  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not purchase the loan from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.”

In the Fox case, “JPMorgan Chase” and “U.S. Bank as Trustee,” have taken a position that universally applies to all $615B of these securitized loans.

Each one of these loan transactions will show either the investor code “AO1,” “369,” or both somewhere in the “Loan Transfer History” screenshots within the servicing system, and as such, the loans were not purchased from the FDIC.

To date, Chase has relied upon presumptions in order to maintain its position in thousands of foreclosure proceedings that: (1) it acquired the loans through the PAA, and (2) the assignments of beneficial-ownership interests to the loans unto itself is valid.

Please visit Bill Paatalos’s informative blog at http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com.  Paatalo has investigated and exposed the fraudulent WaMu/FDIC/JPMorgan Chase fraud and is one of the most talented foreclosure fraud investigators in the country.

 

 

 

 

The Neil Garfield Show at 6pm EST: Contrived complexity from the usual suspects: MGIC master insurance pools

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Tonight California attorney Charles Marshall hosts the show and is joined by Investigator Bill Paatalo.  Paatalo recently stumbled upon an insurance policy that was issued for loans in a trust, but discovered that the trust no longer existed due to a payoff of all loans within the trust years before by Mortgage Guarantee Master Policy (MGIC). However, that didn’t stop BNY Mellon “as Trustee” from filing a foreclosure complaint on behalf of the dissolved trust.

The insurance agreement is a “treasure trove” of insight as to the secret workings between the servicers (who are named as the “Insured”) and MGIC.

The Plaintiff not only ceased to exist due to a merger, but the trust itself was terminated with all loans paid off long before the filing of the complaint.

Bill Paatalo and California attorney Charles Marshall believe that MGIC issue is yet another example of contrived complexity by lenders/’trusts’/purported trustee’s and ‘beneficiaries’ in mortgage transactions, particularly when recording documents pursuant to taking properties to sale, or when subverting the credit bidding rules at sale.

It is likely that the insurance carrier is calling the shots with modifications and foreclosures because the policy states approval must be provided by the insurer.

Is this another sham wherein the instructions from the banks are filtered through yet another layer of complexity?  Homeowners should inquire if there is an insurance policy on the purported trust that claims to own their loan.  Radian and AIG also offer policies like MGIC.

 

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838

Absarokee, MT 59001
Office: (406) 328-4075

bill.bpia@gmail.com

http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Our Services:  https://livinglies.me/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

Investigator Bill Paatalo: “Who Is Private Investor ‘AO1?” JPMorgan Chase Refuses To Reveal The Identity Of This Investor.”

Evidence-Puzzle-via-TouroLawReview

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/washington-mutual-bank-sold-these-67529-toxic-loans-and-not-one-single-foreclosure-by-the-investors/

In relation to my previous article, let me continue a bit further. More and more cases continue to come across my desk showing that WaMu loans claimed to be owned by JPMorgan Chase, through the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” with the FDIC, were in fact sold by WaMu to “Private Investor – AO1” prior to the FDIC’s Receivership. Here is an excerpt from a recent affidavit I produced:

———————————————————————

“Private investors own the subject loans, and their identity is being concealed.

Attached as Exhibit 5, p.1 is a servicing system screenshot titled, “3270 Explorer” which was provided to me by Plaintiff through discovery efforts. This screenshot is dated 03/02/2009 and refers to “Loan Number [“REDACTED”] which is associated with the [“REDACTED”] mortgage. This document shows an investor code “AO1” directly beneath the top line. The same investor code “AO1” is shown on the servicing screenshot for this loan on 12/31/2005 (Exhibit 5, p. 2). Exhibit 5. P.3 is the servicer screenshot for the [“REDACTED” mortgage (“Loan Number [REDACTED]”) dated 12/31/2005 which also shows the same investor code “AO1.”

From experience, I have seen and reviewed JPMC’s servicing records for WMB originated loans within JPMC’s “3270 Explorer” servicing platform. This system / platform contains a specific screenshot which shows the “loan transfer history” (Screen: “Explorer 3270 – LNTH”) for these loans.

From experience, I have seen complete LNTH screenshots for these WaMu loans provided by JPMC, but usually they are produced with great reluctance and through motions to compel. When produced, these LNTH screens tell an entirely different story about the loans; specifically, all the sales and transfers conducted prior to the FDIC’s receivership.

Attached as Exhibit 6 is a “3270 Explorer: Loan Loan Transfer History (LNTH)” screenshot provided by JPMC in a very similar case which I have been involved captioned Kelley v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. BK CT, ND CA, Adv. Case No. 10-05245. Like the [REDACTED]loans, the Kelley loan was also originated by Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Exhibit 6 shows the entire LNTH from origination through the FDIC receivership. The beginning “Investor Code” at the inception of the loan is “030” on 08/07/07. The loan is then sold and transferred to a “New/Inv” (new investor) on 09/01/07 with the “Investor Code – AO1”: the same code for both [REDACTED] loans on 12/31/2005. It can be logically deduced from this evidence that the same originator code of “030” should also exist on the [REDACTED] loans if WMBFA was the originator.

A deposition of JPMC employee “Crystal Davis” occurred in the Kelley case on August 13, 2014. A copy of the Davis Deposition Transcript was filed in the PACER System and a copy is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 is a glossary of codes exhibit provided by JPMC in that deposition. Crystal Davis explains the investor codes on p.42 as follows:

(In reference to Exhibit 4).

Q. Now if you look to the right of that, it states that the claim – the investor IDs begin with an A through V; is that correct?

A. In the current MSP platform, yes, indicates private investor loans.

Q. And what would X,Y,Z indicate?

A. Those would indicate bank-owned assets.

It is very likely that the complete LNTH screenshots for both subject loans, if ever produced, will show similar sales transactions from WMB to “New/Inv – AO1.” The identity of investor “AO1” has not been disclosed and is being concealed from the Court and the Plaintiff. I believe this is intentional.”

————————————————–

What also appears to be intentional is the fact that when JPMC is now pressured to produce these “LNTH” screenshots per my findings and recommendations to counsel, JPMC or the servicer comes back with incomplete LNTH histories for the loans; the LNTH screens begin AFTER September 25, 2008. What this means is, not only was no schedule of assets ever produced in association with “Schedule 3.1” of the PAA, but now in some of my current cases, JPMC takes the added position that it owns these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans within their servicing platform.  So, my opinion that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008 becomes a bit more difficult to rebut.  The question to ask any Chase representative in a deposition is this, “If no schedule or inventory of WaMu loans has ever been produced, and there are no servicing records in existence from WaMu showing whether or not the loan was ever sold or securitized, could it be possible the loan(s) were sold by WaMu prior to September 25, 2008?” (As a reminder, few if any Chase witnesses have any personal knowledge of WaMu’s business practices.)

Bottom line – Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.” With the LNTH screenshots now appearing with no pre-receivership sales and transfer activities entered by WaMu, it is almost too much to believe that one of the largest banking institutions in the world, would not have tracked the loans it originated and sold into the secondary market within its servicing systems.

C’mon Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”

 

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID#49411

Bill.bpia@gmail.com

(406) 328-4075

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/who-is-private-investor-ao1-jpmorgan-chase-refuses-to-reveal-the-identity-of-this-investor/

 

 

Bill Paatalo Investigations: Washington Mutual Bank Sold These 67,529 Toxic Loans, And Not One Single Foreclosure By The Investors?

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/washington-mutual-bank-sold-these-67529-toxic-loans-and-not-one-single-foreclosure-by-the-investors/

 Having investigated the WaMu/FDIC/Chase fact pattern for nearly seven-years now, and having investigated hundreds of foreclosure cases where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” (PAA) with the FDIC, one fact is now well established – no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists, or has ever been produced or disclosed. The reason for this fact is that the vast majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through WaMu’s “Off-Balance Sheet Activities,” meaning WMB sold their loans prior to the FDIC Receivership. Many of these prior sales transactions by WMB to private investors went undocumented, and were kept outside the prevue of regulators, the borrowers, and the general public. For roughly the past 8-years, Chase has been foreclosing on thousands of these previously sold WMB loans in its own name as mortgagee and beneficiary of the security instruments, when by Chase’s own admissions to numerous borrowers, the loans were sold to private investors.

Chase Admits, Then Denies

In cases I have reviewed all across the country, borrowers have made and continue to make, inquiries to their servicer “Chase” for the identity of the beneficial owners / investor(s) of their WaMu loan(s) only to be told,

“Your loan was sold into a public security managed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and may include a number of investors. As the servicer of your loan, Chase is authorized by the security to handle any related concerns on their behalf” (See:   Chase Private Investor Letters ).

In both cases involving these two disclosure letters, after having made these admissions to the borrowers, JPMorgan Chase reversed itself in court by taking the position that it was the sole owner of the loans by virtue of the PAA, and there were no investors associated with these loans because “WaMu never sold or securitized the loans.”

But now Chase has tripped itself by disclosing an actual investor in complete contradiction of its publicly recorded assignment. (See:   Chase Discloses Investor WaMu 2007-FLX1 but assigns deed to itself in 2012.)

Here, Chase executes this self-serving assignment to itself from the FDIC declaring beneficial rights to the deed of trust even though they disclosed to the borrower that the owner of the loan is “Deutsche Bank Nat Trust Co as Trustee for WAMU 2007-FLEX1.” This particular investor trust was the subject of litigation within the Washington Mutual, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding (See:  WaMu Inc Investor Complaint 2010.)

According to the complaint, the WAMU 2007-FLEX1 was a part of three asset trusts set up by Washington Mutual Preferred Funding, LLC (WMPF), who purchased the assets from WMB in 2006 and 2007. The following asset trusts were labeled “Preferred Trust Securities”:

ASSET TRUST I, ASSET TRUST II, & ASSET TRUST III

(Washington Mutual Home Equity Trust I)

(WaMu 2006-OA1)

(WaMu 2007-FLEX1)

 

Per the Complaint:

16. On September 26, 2008, as a result of the FDIC’s takeover of Washington Mutual Bank and the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, Inc., Plaintiffs’ investments in the Preferred Trust Securities automatically converted into preferred stock of Washington Mutual, Inc., and thereby rendered worthless.  

260. Upon seizing WaMu, the FDIC immediately sold off WaMu’s assets and bank deposits to the highest bidder. (WaMu’s debt and preferred equity securities obligations, such as those owned by Plaintiff, were not part of the transaction.)

Very little information is available regarding these “Preferred Trust Securities” outside of this “Confidential Offering Circular.” (See:  Asset Trusts Offering Circular.)

However, one thing is crystal clear. WMB sold “67,529” of these toxic loans totaling “$10,947,602,313.00” to WMPF, and was reimbursed for the sale of these assets. WMPF then sold all assets backing these “67,529” loans to investors in these securities. (See: “Appendix E” of Offering Circular.)

Combined Asset Trust Data 67529 loans

These loans were some of the worst, fraud-laced loans originated by WMB, yet my initial investigation has yet to find a single foreclosure action (judicially or non-judicially) in the name of any of these investor trusts. How can this be, you ask? Simple, because JPMorgan Chase has decided to claim ownership of these loans, and continues to foreclose and harvest these assets in its own name by concealing these facts, and denying in Courtrooms that WMB ever sold or securitized these loans. This fraud story, which Chase and its attorneys continue to stick to, is no longer believable or sustainable based on the cumulative evidence compiled in the public domain. I can pretty much assure that all 67,529 of these loans have a non-existent and fatally defective chains of title.

But here’s something even more dubious and suspicious. In “JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s” 10-K filings with the SEC for fiscal years 2009-2013, “Washington Mutual Home Equity Trust I,” “WaMu 2006-OA1,” and “WaMu 2007-FLEX1” are all listed as subsidiaries of the company, but vanished as subsidiaries beginning in 2014. What I suspect is that these 67,529 loans, or whatever is left of them, were sold by Chase in hedge fund debt purchases in 2014, along with the non-existent chains of title. I’ll save that for another article.

These trusts were set-up as Delaware Statutory Trusts with REMIC status. In virtually all PSA agreements for DST’s that are visible, to which the DST’s are irrevocable and elect REMIC status, they are required to maintain complete separateness from any other person or entity. Chase’s naming of these trusts as subsidiaries certainly smells “fishy.” At best, Chase acquired servicing rights to these loans, but even this should not be assumed. How a servicer can take control of a REMIC Trust and claim it as a subsidiary on its 10-K is beyond me, but I’d sure like to see the documentation granting this authority.

In the meantime, someone explain to me how tens of thousands of foreclosures have been conducted in the names of private MBS REMIC trusts since the crash in 2008, and not one foreclosure appears to have occurred within this toxic group of 67,529 loans in the name of Deutsche Bank as Trustee for these trusts. The odds are virtually impossible.

 

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

Bill.bpia@gmail.com

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: