The Neil Garfield Radio Show at 6pm Eastern: JPMorgan Chase operates a Racketeering Enterprise according to Plaintiffs

The Neil Garfield Show LIVE today at 6 pm Eastern/3 pm Pacific.  Join us!

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

For a copy of the LIST OF LOANS involved in the RICO lawsuit Click the following link: First Fidelity loans purchased from Chase

For a copy of this case click here: RICO Complaint – Chase

JPMorgan Chase has been accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” whose purpose was to evade legal duties owed to borrowers, regulators and Plaintiffs, among others, to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans.  Basically, JPMorgan Chase cannot provide the necessary documentation to the Plaintiff’s regarding the loans they purchased, while borrowers whose loans were sold to JPMorgan Chase cannot obtain proof regarding the ownership of their loans (likely because all documentation was intentionally destroyed). The loans are void without the proper documentation (notes, reconveyances and assignments).   It is noteworthy, that when JPMorgan Chase went to foreclose on the “loans” with no legitimate documentation,  they would use entities like Nationwide Title Clearing to create false title and paperwork necessary to foreclose or to attach to a proof of claim in bankruptcy.

This blockbuster lawsuit illuminates the fact that JPMorgan Chase was selling thousands of loans it didn’t own including loans it had previously sold to other MBS trusts!  It is alleged that Chase transferred these defective “loans” in order to avoid non-reimbursable advances and expenses.

S&A Capital Mortgage Partners, Mortgage Resolution Servicing and 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing are suing JPMorgan Chase in the Southern District of New York District court for failure to service loans in a manner consistent with its legal obligations under: RESPA, TILA, FTC violations, the FDCPA, The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act; and other applicable state and federal usury, consumer credit protection and privacy, predatory and abusive lending laws (collectively “the Acts”).  It is likely that this is not an isolated incident, but JPMorgan Chase’s normal operational standard.

The Plaintiffs complain that JPMC, rather than comply with the costly and time consuming legal obligations it faced under the Acts, the Defendants warehoused loans in a database of charged-off loans known as RCV1 and intentionally and recklessly sold these liabilities to unaware buyers such as the Plaintiffs.

To accomplish the transfer of these obligations Defendants prevented Plaintiff’s from conducting normal due diligence, failure to provide information, and changing terms of transactions after consummation; as well as failure to transfer mortgages to them. Because the Plaintiff’s did not receive the information about the loans purchased, the Defendants tortuously interfered with the Plantiff’s relationships with the borrowers including illegally sending borrowers debt forgiveness letters and releasing liens.   These actions not only resulted in specific damage to said lien’s value, but caused Plaintiffs reputational harm with borrowers, loan sellers, investors, lenders and regulators.

In reality both investors and borrowers should unite and sue JPMorgan Chase for Fraud and Fraudulent Inducement, Tortious Interference with Business Relations, conversion, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel and additional relief.

Highlights from the case include these bombshells accusing JPMorgan Chase of:

(iv) Knowingly breached every representation they made in the MLPA, including failing to legally transfer 3,529 closed-end 1st lien mortgages worth $156,324,399.24 to the Plaintiffs, and to provide Plaintiffs with the information required by both RESPA and the MMLSA so that Plaintiffs could legally service said loans.

(v) Took numerous actions post-facto that tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ relationships with borrowers including illegally sending borrowers debt forgiveness letters and releasing liens.

RCV1 Evades Regulatory Standards and Servicing Requirements

  1. Defendants routinely and illicitly sought to avoid costly and time-consuming servicing of federally related mortgage loans. Since 2000, Defendants maintained loans on various mortgage servicing Systems of Records (“SOR”) which are required to meet servicing standards and regulatory mandates. However, Defendants installed RCV1, an off-the-books system of records to conduct illicit practices outside the realm of regulation or auditing. Defendants’ scheme involves flagging defaulted and problem federally related loans on the legitimate SOR and installing a subsequent process to then identify and transfer the loan records from the legitimate SOR to RCV1. The process could be disguised as a reporting process within the legitimate SOR and the data then loaded to the RCV1 repository on an ongoing basis undetected by federal regulators.
  2. Defendants inactivated federally related mortgage loans from their various SORs such as from the Mortgage Servicing Platform (“MSP”) and Vendor Lending System (“VLS”).

 

  1. RCV1’s design and functionality does not meet any servicing standards or requirements under applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to mortgage servicing or consumer protection. Instead, the practices implemented by Defendants on the RCV1 population are focused on debt collection.

 

  1. Defendants seek to maximize revenue through a scheme of flagging, inactivating, and then illicitly housing charged-off problematic residential mortgage loans in the vacuum of RCV1, improperly converting these problematic residential mortgage loans into purely debt collection cases that are akin to bad credit card debt, and recklessly disregarding virtually all servicing obligations in the process. In order to maximize revenue, Defendants used unscrupulous collection methods on homeowners utilizing third-party collection agencies and deceptive sales tactics on unsuspecting note sale investors, all the while applying for governmental credits and feigning compliance with regulatory standards.

 

  1. In short, the RCV1 is where mortgage loans and associated borrowers are intentionally mishandled in such a manner that compliance with any regulatory requirements is impossible. In derogation of the RESPA, which requires mortgage servicers to correct account errors and disclose account information when a borrower sends a written request for information, the information for loans in RCV1 remains uncorrected and is sent as an inventory list from one collection agency to another, progressively resulting in further degradation of the loan information. In dereliction of various regulations related to loan servicing, loans once in RCV1 are not verified individually and the identity of the true owner of the note per the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is often concealed. Regulatory controls regarding grace periods, crediting funds properly, charging correct amounts are not followed.

 

  1. More specifically, a borrower sending a qualified written request under Section 6 of RESPA concerning the servicing of his/her loan or request for correction under 12 U.S.C. §2605(e), 12 CFR §1024.35 could not obtain resolution because RCV1 is a repository for housing debt rather than a platform for housing and servicing federally related loans. RCV1 contains no functionalities for accounting nor escrow management in contravention of §10 of RESPA, Regulation X, 12 CFR §1024.34.

 

In contravention of 12 CFR §1024.39, Chase failed to inform Borrowers whose loans were flagged, inactivated, and housed in RCV1, about the availability of loss mitigation options, and in contravention of 12 CFR §1024.40. Chase also failed to make available to each Borrower personnel assigned to him/her to apprise the Borrower of the actions the Borrower must take, status of any loss mitigation application, circumstances under which property would be referred to foreclosure, or applicable loss mitigation deadlines in careless disregard of any of the loss mitigation procedures under Reg X 12 CFR § 1024.41.

 

  1. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and regulatory agencies, Chase has systematically used RCV1 to park flagged loans inactivated in the MSP, VLS, and other customary SORs to (1) eschew Regulatory requirements while publicly assuring compliance, (2) request credits and insurance on the charge-offs., (3) continue collection, and (4) sell-off these problematic loans to unsuspecting investors to maximize profit/side-step liability, all with the end of maximizing profit.

 

Specifics of Defendants’ RICO Scheme and Conduct:

  1. Since at least 2000, Defendants evaded their legal obligations and liabilities with respect to the proper servicing of federally related mortgages, causing Plaintiffs damage through Defendants’ misconduct from their scheme to violate:
  • The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA);
  • The Truth in Lending Act (TILA);
  • The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC);
  • The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA);
  • The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank);
  • The Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and
  • The Fair Housing Act.
  1. After Plaintiffs acquired mortgage loans from Defendants, during the period 2011 through at least 2016, Defendants released thousands of liens related to RCV1 loans, including RCV1 loans Defendants no longer owned, to avoid detection of non-compliance with the Lender Settlements. These lien releases caused harm to the Plaintiffs and to numerous other note sale investors.

 

  1. Similarly, in September 2008, Chase Bank entered into an agreement with the FDIC as receiver for WAMU-Henderson. Chase Bank made a number of representations in its agreement with the FDIC, including that Chase Bank and its subsidiaries were in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws. However, at the time of execution and delivery of the agreement, Chase owned thousands of loans with respect to which, through its improper servicing and other misconduct relating to the RCV1, it was in violation of many federal and state laws. These circumstances created a further motive for Chase Bank to participate in the scheme to transfer thousands of noncompliant loans to Plaintiffs and others.

 

  1. Plaintiff MRS purchased loans from Chase pursuant to the MLPA that were actually Chase’s most problematic loans and mostly housed in the RCV1 repository. In March, 2009, bare notes and deeds, without the promised required loan files documenting servicing and borrower information, were simply shipped to Plaintiffs as the “loan files”. Plaintiffs also received loans for which no notes, deeds or loan files were provided at all. Nevertheless, Defendants kept promising that the complete loan files were forthcoming, with no intent of ever providing them. Without the necessary documentation, it was difficult or impossible for Plaintiffs to service and collect on the loans. And despite herculean efforts, most often Plaintiffs could not locate the necessary information to service and collect on the loans.

 

  1. Defendants’ plan to entice an existing and approved, but unsuspecting note sale buyer to purchase these toxic loans is in plain view in various recently produced email exchanges discussing Defendant’s fraudulent scheme to dump non-serviced loans with inadequate documentation on Plaintiffs from October 2008 through February 2009.

 

  1. As early as 2008, Defendants’ knew the public was becoming more aware of its the scope of its improper actions. Ultimately, in 2012, public pressure prompted the federal government and many states to bring a complaint against JPMorgan and Chase Bank, as well as other banks responsible for fraudulent and unfair mortgage practices that cost consumers, the federal government, and the states tens of billions of dollars. The complaint alleged that JPMorgan and Chase Bank, as well as other financial institutions, engaged in improper practices related to mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, and foreclosures, including, but not limited to, irresponsible and inadequate oversight of the banks’ quality control standards. Unfortunately, the complaint failed to note, and the government appeared unaware of, the Defendants’ deeper institutional directives designed to hide their improprieties (such as the establishment of the RCV1 and its true purpose).

 

  1. 48. At all applicable times, Defendants had been continuing to utilize its RCV1 database.

 

  1. However, as in 2008, the loans housed in the RCV1 repository presented a huge reputational risk and legal liability as the loans housed in RCV1 were not being treated as federally related mortgage loans, were not in compliance, were no longer being serviced as such, but were being collected upon.

 

  1. By 2012, the RCV1 database contained hundreds of thousands of federally related mortgage loans, which had been inactivated in regular systems of records and whose accounts were no longer tracked pursuant to regulatory requirements, including escrow accounting.

 

  1. Other knowing participants in the conspiracy include third party title clearing agencies, such as Nationwide Title Clearing Company (NTC), Pierson Patterson, and LCS Financial Services, who were directed by Defendants to prepare and then file fraudulent lien releases and other documents affecting interests in property. Either these entities were hired to verify liens and successively failed to properly validate the liens before creating documents and lien releases containing false information, or these entities were directed by Chase to create the documents with the information provided by Defendants. In either case, these title clearing agencies which recorded fraudulent releases of liens and related documents in the public record, had independent and separate duty from Defendants to file, under various state laws, all relevant documents only after a good faith proper validation of the liens. Instead these entities deliberately violated their duty of care by knowingly or recklessly filing false lien releases and false documents on properties not owned by Defendants.

 

  1. In many states, the act of creating these documents is considered the unauthorized practice of law. In Florida, where NTC is organized, there is a small exception for title companies who are only permitted to prepare documents and perform other necessary acts affecting the legal title of property where the property in question is to be insured, to fulfill a condition for issuance of a title policy or title insurance commitment by the Insurer or if a separate charge was made for such services apart from the insurance premium of the Insurer. Plaintiffs have not ascertained whether Nationwide Title or any other agencies created documents for Chase as a necessary incident to Chase’s purchase of title insurance in Florida.

 

  1. Chase used Real Time Resolutions, GC Services, and Five Lakes Agency, among other collection agencies, to maximize its own back door revenues on loans that were problematic and had been inactivated/“charged off” and thereby were invisible to regulatory agencies.

 

  1. At all times, Defendants directed the collection of revenue on problematic federal mortgage loans, placing them in succession at third party collection agencies. Those third party collection agencies included:

 

  1. The third-party collection agencies had a duty to verify whether the debts were owned by Chase, offer pre-foreclosure loss mitigation, offer Borrowers foreclosure alternatives, and comply with any of HUD’s quality control directives and knowingly or recklessly failed to do so. The third-party collectors knew that the debts they were collecting at Defendants’ directions were mortgage loans. They also knew they did not have the mechanisms to provide any regulatory servicing. Nonetheless, the third-party collection agencies continued collection on behalf of Chase for RCV1 loans. The collection agencies continued to collect without oversight or verification and did in fact continue collecting on debt on behalf of Defendants, despite the mortgage loans being owned by the Schneider entities. The ongoing collection gave Chase continued windfalls.

 

  1. A September 30, 2014 document shows that as late as September 30, 2014, Defendants had charged-off and ported 699,541 loans into RCV1.

 

  1. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Chase was selling non-compliant and thus no longer “federally related mortgage loans” to Plaintiff which Chase had ported and inactivated within their regulated systems of records but had copied over to a separate data repository solely for the purpose of collecting without servicing.

 

 

  1. Plaintiff MRS was not privy to Defendants’ internal communications of October 30, 2008, which clarify that Chase knew that the loans it was intending to off load onto the Plaintiff were not on the primary system of record and were being provided from the un-serviced repository called RCV1. The information in RCV1 was not complete because it was not a regulated system of record. As indicated by Chase’s communications, Chase purposefully cut and pasted select information where it could from other systems of records to the information in RCV1. Defendants’ emails discuss data from the FORTRACS application, the acronym for Foreclosure Tracking System, which is an automated, loan default tracking application that also handles the loss mitigation, foreclosure processing, bankruptcy monitoring, and whose data would have originally come from a primary system of record. Rather than a normal and customary data tape, Chase was providing a Frankenstein of a data tape, stitched together from a patchwork of questionable information.

 

  1. Despite its representation and warranty that Chase “is the owner of the Mortgage Loans and has full right to transfer the Mortgage Loans,” a significant portion of the loans listed on Exhibit A were not directly owned by Chase.

 

  1. Upon information and belief, some of the loans sold to MRS were RMBS trust loans which Chase was servicing. Chase had transferred these to MRS in order to avoid non-reimbursable advances and expenses. The unlawful transfer of these loans to MRS as part of the portfolio of loans sold under the MLPA aided the Defendants in concealing Regulatory non-compliance and fraud while increasing the liabilities of MRS.

 

  1. Chase committed, inter alia, the following violations of law with respect to the loans sold to MRS: a. Chase transferred the servicing of the mortgage loans to and from multiple unlicensed and unregulated debt collection agencies which lacked the mortgage servicing platforms to account for or service the borrowers’ loan with any accuracy or integrity.

Investigator Bill Paatalo of the BP Investigative Agency points out that allegations in this case support accusations in other lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase including that:

  1. Chase knowingly provided collection agencies with false and misleading information about the borrowers.
  2. Chase failed to provide proper record keeping for escrow accounts.
  3. Chase stripped loan files of most origination documentation, including federal disclosures and good faith estimates, thus putting MRS in a positionwhere it was unable to respond to borrower or regulatory inquiries.
  4. Chase failed to provide any accurate borrower payment histories for any of the loans in theMLPA.
  5. Chase knowingly executed assignments of mortgage to MRS for mortgage loans that Defendants knew had been foreclosed and sold to third parties.
  6. Chase circumvented its own operating procedures and written policies in connection with servicing federally-related mortgage loans by removing the loans from its primary record-keeping platform and creating an entry in its RCV1 repository. This had the effect of denying the borrowers their rights concerning federally related mortgages yet allowed Chase to retain the lien and the benefit of the security interest,
  7. Chase included on Exhibit A loans that it had previously sold to third parties and loans that it had never owned.
  8. Chase knowingly and deliberately changed the loan numbers of numerous valuable loans sold to MRS after the MLPA had been fully executed and in force. This allowed Chase to accept payments from borrowers whose loans had been sold to MRS without its own records disclosing the wrongful acceptance of such payments.
  9. Chase’s failure to provide the assignments of the notes and mortgages was not an act of negligence. As events unfolded, it became clear that Chase failed to provide the assignments of the notes and mortgages because it wanted, in selective instances, to continue to treat the sold loans as its own property.
  10. Chase converted payments from borrowers whose loans it had sold

At what point does the Federal Government take action against these fraudulent practices?  It is likely that ALL major banks are participating in the exact same racketeering enterprises so obvious at JPMorgan Chase.

Bill Paatalo, Private Investigator:
BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838
Absarokee, MT 59001
Office: (406) 328-4075
Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101

 

 

Listen now to the recorded The Neil Garfield Show: Setting your case up for Litigation, Modification or Settlement.

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Log-in to listen to archived show.

This episode will discuss setting up your case for litigation, modification or settlement.  California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss settlement framework (writ large and small), and the numerous misunderstandings regarding how settlement should or even can work.

The overwhelming majority of civil cases will settle well before reaching the trial stage of a lawsuit, nationwide. Whether we’re talking about a divorce, a car accident lawsuit, or foreclosure case parties often choose to settle their case rather than leave their respective fates in the hands of an unpredictable jury. But is settlement always more beneficial?

Settlement Basics

“Settlement” is a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge’s ruling). Usually it means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff’s signing a release of the defendant’s liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.

Benefits of Settling a Case:

  • Expense.
  • Stress.
  • Privacy.
  • Predictability.
  • Finality.

With foreclosure lawsuits a homeowner often has a personal or profound sense of right and wrong, and decides to make an important point that impacts more than the parties in the case. For cases challenging the constitutionality of a law or some other perceived fundamental unfairness, settling also doesn’t create precedent and won’t affect public policy.

If one or both parties aren’t motivated to settle, or aren’t coming to the negotiating table with a remotely realistic offer, then resolution of the lawsuit before trial may not be possible.  This is often the case in foreclosure disputes- by the time the lender is prepared to settle, the homeowner wants vengence for the harm they have sustained (justifiably).

Please contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:

California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

This program is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.

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

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

Neil Garfield Radio Show-Foreclosure: The Money Trail v. The Paper Trail and why it makes a difference

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

What is the significance of the money trail being different from the paper trial and how does that impact the presumptions that usually attach to facially valid documents? Neil Garfield will explain why it makes a factual and legal difference.

Who is pulling the strings?  Investigator Bill Paatalo will also discuss his new findings regarding reinsurance.  Paatalo has discovered that borrowers are / were unknowingly paying for Lender Paid Mortgage Insurance (LPMI), for the likely purpose of  “reinsurance,” through higher interest rates being charged on “combo” second liens. None of this was being disclosed under HOPA.

This is a violation of the Home Owners Protection Act of 1998 which requires full disclosure.

Other topics that will be covered include:

·  Insurance

·  Why the debt is not merged into the note and there are two different parties — originator and investor

·  Setting up your case for litigation and/or modification or settlement.

·  A recent decision that statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may or may not be raised. However, it is not a proper subject for a motion to dismiss.

Investigator Bill Paatalo- BP Investigative Agency

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com
Office: (406) 328-4075

 

Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.

San Diego, California

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

 

Neil Garfield

Phone: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Email: info@lendinglies.com

Blog: www.livinglies.wordpress.com

 

Live Now! The Neil Garfield Radio Show 6pm Eastern: Charles Marshall-the Decision to Appeal or not to Appeal

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

To Appeal or not to Appeal: That is the Question.

In this episode California Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss the pros and cons of filing an appeal.

Trial courts are not perfect institutions. They can and do make serious mistakes. And sometimes, trial courts are faced with unsettled areas of law, so that no matter what a judge decides, the losing side will have plausible grounds to appeal.

An appeal can be an opportunity to obtain justice when it was earlier denied. However, an appeal may not always make sense even if you believe that the trial court was in error. The first step in the appeals process is to decide what you hope to accomplish and whether the benefits justify possible drawbacks.

A successful appeal may not end your legal battle
Some successful appeals do provide the complete and final resolution of a dispute. However, this is by no means always true.

Many successful appeals result in the case being sent back for further proceedings in the trial court. This could result in a completely new trial. Although the Court of Appeal’s decision might result in that trial being conducted on ground rules more favorable than the first, there is no certainty that the bottom-line outcome will be any better. In fact, it could be even worse.

That said, a victory in the Court of Appeal could put you in a strong position to settle your case on favorable terms without having to go through a new trial. Often, the losing side in an appeal doesn’t have the stomach for a new trial and proves willing to compromise.

In fact, merely filing a notice of appeal can lead to a settlement that is better than the result obtained in the trial court. A significant number of civil cases settle during the course of an appeal — often, before the briefs are written. The other party may not want to go through the risk and expense of the appellate process and could be willing to give something up in order to achieve closure. If you hire an appellate specialist to handle an appeal, you send a strong signal that you are taking the process seriously — this increases the pressure on the other side.

The costs of continuing to litigate
Entering the appeals process means prolonging the emotional stress of litigation. The average civil appeal can last over a year. Federal appeals are especially slow — often taking about two years.

In addition, of course, there is the cost. Appeals can be one of the less expensive parts of the overall litigation process. Nonetheless, the appeal will add to your legal bills and, if the case then goes back to the trial court, the costs will increase further. This has to be weighed against what you stand to gain by appealing.

In addition, civil litigants will have to post a bond or other security if they want to stay the enforcement of many types of trial court judgment while an appeal is ongoing, including those involving money damages. And a defendant that loses an appeal will also have to pay interest on money that is at issue. The judicial interest rate is steep, 10 percent.

It may be beneficial to weigh the cost-benefit decision easier by having an attorney quote flat rates to handle appeals. While there is never any certainty about the outcome of an appeal, some certainty about the cost is helpful.

Evidence and appeals
Perhaps the most fundamental question to ask is how strong a chance you have of obtaining a reversal. As is shown elsewhere on this Web site, most appeals do not succeed.

One of the reasons is that the Court of Appeal does not reweigh the evidence heard by the trial court or — with very rare exceptions — consider new evidence. If the trial judge or jury believed evidence that “the light was red,” the Court of Appeal will not listen to an argument that “it was really green” — even if there was a lot more evidence pointing to that conclusion. Its job is solely to review whether the law was correctly applied to what the trier of fact in the trial court considered to be the facts and whether proper procedures were followed. An appeal is not a second trial.

That is not to say that an appeal does not provide any type of chance to challenge the evidence that was considered at trial. The Court of Appeal can decide whether certain evidence that was excluded should have been admitted, and whether evidence that was admitted should have been excluded.

In addition, the Court of Appeal can determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a trial court outcome. But that can be a tall order on appeal — in general, an appeals court will uphold a decision based on facts if there is any evidence in the record that supports it.

The need to show “prejudice”
Even if you can point to legal error by the trial court, that does not of itself mean that you will succeed on appeal. The error must be “prejudicial.” The meaning of that term is itself a subject for argument, but one interpretation is that an error is prejudicial if there is a “real chance” that it made a difference to the outcome.

The need for prior objections
Another obstacle is that the Court of Appeal will not generally consider issues that were not initially raised in the trial court. If a trial lawyer did not object to a particular ruling or piece of evidence, for example, that issue most likely cannot be raised on appeal. It will generally have been waived. That said, an appellate lawyer may be able to introduce new arguments concerning an issue — although there can be gray areas between raising a “new issue” and merely improving upon the presentation of an issue already raised.

There are some ways around the waiver rule. For example, an often-overlooked exception is that a litigant may raise for the first time on appeal a pure question of law that that is presented by undisputed facts. In addition, litigants are not required to “preserve” an issue at trial if it would severely compromise their interests to do so — for example, a defendant at trial does not need to point out required evidence that the other side has omitted.

The risk of creating a bad precedent
Some litigants — particularly businesses — should consider whether or not they want to create a binding precedent in the disputed area of the law. Trial court decisions are not binding on other courts. Once a case goes to appeal, however, a legal precedent may be set that will be binding on trial courts faced with the same issue in the future. (Not all appeals do result in binding precedents — this depends on whether the Court of Appeal decides to “publish” its decision. A large majority are not “published.”)

In some situations, therefore, a party that loses at trial may be better off swallowing the result rather than risking an unsuccessful appeal that will have precedential effect. In other cases, however, a litigant may be eager to get the law settled once and for all.

The risk of cross-appeals
Keep in mind that if you appeal, the other side might “cross-appeal” — in other words, your opponent may try to reverse aspects of the trial court proceeding that were favorable to you. Therefore, even if you succeed in reversing one aspect of the trial court proceeding, the benefit could be offset by a less welcome reversal of another.

Conclusion
Winning on appeal is not easy. And a good appellate lawyer will always counsel a client about the pros and cons. But despite all the hurdles, many litigants do file appeals — and a significant number do go on to succeed. With civil appeals in the state courts, roughly one in five results in a complete reversal — and that doesn’t include appeals that result in some modification short of a reversal.

It is important that every potential litigant does consider the possible drawbacks of appealing. But if you have a good case, the battle can be well worth fighting — providing it is fought well.

For more information on California foreclosure litigation please contact:
Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101

The Neil Garfield Radio Show LIVE at 6 pm Eastern: The Statute of Limitation

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Q and A: Statute of Limitations

In this episode I will be discuss two states with drastically different interpretations of Statute of Limitations.  In Florida the Bartram decision ruled that every time a homeowner misses a payment, the statute resets.  In stark contrast is a New York case called Costa v. Deutsche Bank that clarified that statute of limitations will be enforced.

The Bartram decision created a bad precedent where Pretender lenders (or any other Plaintiff) can look to Bartram as support for taking a pot luck shot at getting a foreclosure judgment and sale, followed by eviction. If they fail they can try again.

The application of res judicata, statute of limitations and Rooker Feldman don’t apply to the banks.

This creates a double standard.  The ambidextrous treatment of homeowners versus the financial sector is exactly what the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution (and, the Florida Constitution) says cannot occur under guarantees of equal protection under the law.

In stark contrast to Bartram was a New York decision last week called Costa v. Deutsche Bank.

The court was asked whether the statute of limitations applies. It did and according to NY Law it was too late for the pretend lender to take action.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 or https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE.

Contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101

The Neil Garfield Show Tonight at 6pm Eastern: The Illusion of Ownership: JPMC cannot prove ownership of WaMu Loans

 

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

         The WaMu-JPMorgan Illusion Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

 

Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud, and recent foreclosure trends.

Bill Paatalo, a dogged investigator of the WaMu transfer of “loans” to JPMC has discovered recently 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.

JPMC claims to own these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans-even within their servicing platform.  It is likely that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008.

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?

Paatalo states that Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.”  Paatalo continues, “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.”

Homeowners and Attorneys may want to ask Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”

If you have a WaMu/Chase loan or foreclosure issue, and need answers about your loan- we recommend that you contact Bill Paatalo and order a report so that you will have a better understanding of your situation.

To read the rest of Bill Paatalo’s article please go to: http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/who-is-private-investor-ao1-jpmorgan-chase-refuses-to-reveal-the-identity-of-this-investor/

 

Bill Paatalo- Oregon Private Investigator

Office: (406) 328-4075
www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Attorney Charles T. Marshall- Serving all of California

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

LIVE NOW at 6 pm Eastern-The Neil Garfield Radio Show- Window into a Lawsuit: Pretrial, Motions and Appeals

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Consultations: 202-838-NEIL (6345) or email us at info@lendinglies.com for assistance.

Tonight’s episode is a continuation of last week’s discussion.  California attorney Charles Marshall will join Neil Garfield to discuss the strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign (both are mostly similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side) with strategic litigation planning.

Last week’s show covered:

– pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;

– filing of lawsuit;

– demurrers/mtd;

– discovery;

Today’s show will cover:
– motions for summary judgment;
– pre-trial prep and motions (Neil had some particular angles to this to impart)
– trial;
– appeals;
– post appeal judgment options 

_______________________________________________________________________

About our Guest:  California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.

Charles Marshall practices throught California and can be contacted at:

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall

Email:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

Fax 866.575.7413

The Neil Garfield Show LIVE at 6 PM Eastern with CA Attorney Charles Marshall: Window into the Life-Cycle of a Lawsuit

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

This episode discusses strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign, which is somewhat similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:

– pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;

– filing of lawsuit;

– demurrers/mtd;

– discovery;

– motions for summary judgment;

– pre-trial prep and motions;

– trial;

– appeals;

– post appeal judgment options

 

California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.

Charles Marshall can be contacted at:

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101

The Neil Garfield Radio Show Tonight 6 pm Eastern: Foreclosure Settlements and Negotiations

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

At a time when approximately two percent of legal disputes are ended by a trial, the walk-up to trial itself is often a game of negotiation and posturing. The strategy is to stick with an improbable “we’ll see you in court” message for as long as possible in order to bring the other side around to your settlement demand.  However, this is often a mistake and creates resistance and a stale-mate.

A better strategy is to conduct your pre-trial research. What are typical settlement values for similar cases?  Evaluate what the strengths and weaknesses are of your case and lay out a realistic window regarding what you are willing to settle for prior to litigation.

California Attorney Charles Marshall joins us this evening and can be contacted at:

415 Laurel Street, Suite 405 San Diego CA 92101 US

+1. 619.807.2628.

Email:       Charles@MarshallLawCa.com

Website:  http://www.marshalllawca.com/home.html

Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show: Have a Foreclosure Question? Ask Neil Garfield tonight at 6 pm Eastern

radio

Call in at (347) 850-1260!

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345). Get a Consult! Or contact us at info@lendinglies.com

Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general questions about foreclosure.  This is not legal advice and is for information purposes only.  Please keep questions simple and not state specific.

Please note that conversation does not form any type of attorney-client relationships through conversation and lawyers are prevented from giving specific legal advice.

By posing questions you agree to our disclaimer which can be viewed at: http://www.lendinglies.com/#!legal-disclaimer/hcb4h

%d bloggers like this: