Friday, July 24, 2015

CFPB, 47 States and D.C. Take Action Against JPMorgan Chase for Selling Bad Credit Card Debt and Robo-Signing Court Documents


CFPB, 47 States and D.C. Take Action Against JPMorgan Chase for Selling Bad Credit Card Debt and Robo-Signing Court Documents

Chase Ordered to Overhaul Debt Sales and Halt Collections on 528,000 Consumers’ Accounts
WASHINGTON, D.C. –

Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Attorneys General in 47 states and the District of Columbia took action against JPMorgan Chase for selling bad credit card debt and illegally robo-signing court documents. The CFPB and states found that Chase sold “zombie debts” to third-party debt buyers, which include accounts that were inaccurate, settled, discharged in bankruptcy, not owed, or otherwise not collectible. The order requires Chase to document and confirm debts before selling them to debt buyers or filing collections lawsuits. Chase must also prohibit debt buyers from reselling debt and is barred from selling certain debts. Chase is ordered to permanently stop all attempts to collect, enforce in court, or sell more than 528,000 consumers’ accounts. Chase will pay at least $50 million in consumer refunds, $136 million in penalties and payments to the CFPB and states, and a $30 million penalty to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in a related action.

“Chase sold bad credit card debt and robo-signed documents in violation of law,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today we are ordering Chase to permanently halt collections on more than 528,000 accounts and overhaul its debt-sales practices. We will continue to be vigilant in taking action against deceptive debt sales and collections practices that exploit consumers.”
Chase Bank, USA N.A. and its subsidiary Chase BankCard Services, Inc. are based in Newark, Del. and provide consumers with credit card accounts. From 2009 to 2013, when consumers defaulted on debts, Chase attempted to collect by contacting consumers, filing collections lawsuits, and selling accounts to third-party debt buyers. When Chase sold accounts, it provided debt buyers with an electronic sale file containing certain basic information about the debts from Chase’s internal databases, which the debt buyers used to collect on the debts. Chase was also responsible for preparing affidavits to verify debts when it or its debt buyers filed lawsuits to collect on defaulted credit card debts.

The CFPB found that Chase violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. Chase sold faulty and false debts to third-party collectors, including accounts with unlawfully obtained judgments, inaccurate balances, and paid-off balances. Chase also sold debts that were owed by deceased borrowers. Chase also filed misleading debt-collections lawsuits against consumers using robo-signed and illegally sworn statements to obtain false or inaccurate judgments for unverified debts. Specifically, the CFPB and states found that Chase:
  • Sold bad debts to third-party debt buyers: Chase sold certain accounts that had already been settled by agreement, paid in full, discharged in bankruptcy, identified as fraudulent and not owed by the debtor, subject to an agreed-upon payment plan, no longer owned by Chase, or that were otherwise no longer enforceable. Chase also sold debts with missing or erroneous information such as whether the debt had been paid and the amount owed.
  • Assisted third-party debt buyers in deceptively collecting debt: By selling inaccurate or uncollectable debts, Chase subjected certain consumers to debt collection by its debt buyers on accounts that were not theirs, in amounts that were incorrect or uncollectable. Chase knew, or should have known, that third-party debt buyers would seek to collect these faulty debts. Therefore, by providing inadequate or incorrect information, Chase assisted debt buyers in deceptive collection activities.
  • Robo-signed affidavits to sue consumers for unverified debt: Chase filed more than 528,000 debt collections lawsuits against consumers and provided more than 150,000 sworn statements to debt buyers for their collections lawsuits against consumers, often using robo-signed documents. In doing so, Chase systematically failed to prepare, review, and execute truthful statements as required by law. Chase also made calculation errors when filing debt collection lawsuits that sometimes resulted in judgments against consumers for incorrect amounts. Chase failed to notify consumers and the courts once it learned of these problems.

Enforcement Action

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions or individuals engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices or that otherwise violate federal consumer financial laws. Chase suspended collections litigation in 2011 and stopped selling debts in 2013. The CFPB and state actions provide relief for injured consumers, prohibit Chase from reviving its unlawful practices, and impose penalties for Chase’s law violations. Specifically, the order requires Chase to:
  • Cease collecting on 528,000 accounts: Chase cannot collect, enforce in court, sell, or transfer debts for consumers whose Chase credit card accounts were sent to collections litigation between January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014. If Chase previously obtained a court judgment requiring consumers to pay the debt, Chase will notify the consumer that they will not try to collect, enforce, or sell the judgment. Chase will also contact the three major credit reporting companies to request that the judgments not be reported against consumers. These accounts had an original face value estimated at several billion dollars when Chase sent them to collections litigation. The actual market value is now estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Debt relief of this kind permanently protects consumers from any further collections and judgments on these accounts.
  • Pay at least $50 million in cash redress to consumers: Chase will pay cash refunds to consumers against whom collections litigation was pending between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, for amounts paid above what the consumer owed when the debt was referred for litigation, plus 25 percent of the excess amount paid.
  • Prohibit debt buyers from reselling accounts: Chase must require by contract or agreement that debt buyers cannot resell debts purchased from Chase, unless to sell back to Chase.
  • Confirm debt before selling to debt buyers: Chase cannot sell debts that have been paid, settled, discharged, or are otherwise uncollectable. Prior to sale, Chase must provide account-level documentation to debt buyers confirming that the debts are accurate and enforceable. For a minimum of three years after selling the debt, Chase must make certain additional account information available to debt buyers including agreements, statements, and dispute records.
  • Notify consumers that their debt has been sold and make their account information available to them: Chase must notify consumers when their account is sold and reveal who purchased the account, the amount owed at the time of sale, and that consumers can request further information about their accounts at no charge.
  • Not sell zombie debts and other specified debts: Chase may not sell debts that do not have the required documentation, have been charged off for over three years or where the consumer has not paid for three years, are in litigation, are owed by a servicemember, are owed by someone who is deceased, or where the debtor has a payment plan.
  • Withdraw, dismiss, or terminate collections litigation: Chase will withdraw, dismiss, or terminate all pre-judgment collections litigation pending at any time after January 1, 2009.
  • Stop robo-signing affidavits: Declarations must be signed by hand, must reflect the actual date of signing, and must be based on the direct knowledge of the person signing and their review of Chase’s business records. Supporting documents submitted for debt collection litigation must be actual records of the debt, verified to be accurate, and not created solely for litigation.
  • Verify debts when filing a lawsuit: When filing collections lawsuits, Chase is required to submit specific information associated with the debt including the name of the creditor at the time of the last payment, the date of the last extension of credit, the date of the last payment, the amount of debt owed, and a breakdown of any post-charge-off interest and fees.
  • Pay $30 million civil penalty: Chase will pay a fine for its unlawful debt sales and robo-signing practices.
Chase must also implement policies, procedures, systems, and controls to ensure compliance with federal consumer financial laws when selling and collecting debts.

The Bureau is joined by 47 states and the District of Columbia in today’s action. The Bureau also worked in coordination with the OCC, which entered into a related agreement with Chase in 2013. The total relief to consumers includes debt relief associated with halting collections on more than 528,000 consumers’ accounts and at least $50 million in refunds. The amount of penalties and payments to states includes a $30 million civil penalty paid to the CFPB, a $30 million civil penalty paid to the OCC on the related matter, and $106 million in payments to states.

A copy of the consent order can be found at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order-chase-bank-usa-na-and-chase-bankcard-services-inc.pdf

###
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov.

JPMorgan Chase Order to Stop Illegal Debt Collection Practices

We’re ordering JP Morgan Chase to refund $50 million and stop collecting on 528,000 accounts

By
 
Today we’re ordering JP Morgan Chase to stop illegal debt collections practices. Along with the Attorneys General in 47 states and the District of Columbia, we found that Chase sold credit card accounts to debt buyers that included amounts that were inaccurate or debts not owed by the consumer. Debt buyers then sought to collect the faulty debts it purchased from Chase. We’re ordering Chase to reform its debt sales practices to prohibit it from selling certain types of debt, like old or disputed debts, and “zombie debt” which are debts that debt collectors repeatedly attempt to collect, even when it’s not collectible. Chase will also have to provide specific documentation to debt buyers when it does sell debts, and must prohibit its debt buyers from re-selling debts they buy from Chase.

Chase also filed more than 528,000 lawsuits against consumers to collect on debts, often using sworn documents that were “robo-signed” and not verified for accuracy. As a result, Chase must refund at least $50 million to consumers, stop collecting on all of these accounts, and include specific information when filing debt collection lawsuits in the future. Chase must also pay $136 million in penalties and payments to the CFPB and states.

Chase has already begun compensating consumers and will contact you if you are eligible for payment. If you have questions about your eligibility for your refund, or to find out if Chase is prohibited from collecting on your account, you can contact Chase.

Debt collection complaints remain high

Of all of the complaints we receive from consumers, debt collection is one of the largest categories.
If you don’t recognize a debt from a debt collector, you have certain rights to verify debt. You can send a letter to the debt collector to request more information. If you have a complaint about debt collection, you can submit a complaint online or by calling us at (855) 411-2372.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Burke v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA - First Amended Complaint

Below is the First Amended Complaint in Burke v JPMorgan Chase Bank -- US District Court, ND




​_________________
                    SUMMARY



​_________________
                     BLOOMBERG REFERENCE

​_________________

                     Assignment of DOT


****************
FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiffs provide significant detail regarding the process through which
WaMu
 allegedly sold their loan. See id. ¶¶ 12-19.
*****************



Washington Mutual Bank FA's Veil of Secrecy Lifted in Burke v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Decision


"This decision finally brings the real issue to the forefront: who, if anyone, actually has the legal status of creditor or the right to claim ownership of the debt, loan, note or mortgage? In this case the Court correctly centered on the real issue: if WAMU had ALREADY sold the loan before it "sold" the loan to a trust or anyone else, then the entire chain is not just defective, or corrupted, it is void. And then you have quiet title, wrongful foreclosure and probably RICO although that does not seem to be in the pleadings for this case."  Neil Garfield, Living Lies

DEBORAH BURKE and SEAN K. BURKE, Plaintiffs,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR JPMORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES Defendants.

Case No. 13-4249 SC.United States District Court, N.D. California.May 11, 2015.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

****************
FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiffs provide significant detail regarding the process through which
WaMu
 allegedly sold their loan. See id. ¶¶ 12-19.
*****************

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that on or before August 22, 2008, their mortgage loan was contributed to a mortgage backed security ("MBS") identified as JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 2008 R-2 Pass-through Certificates Series 2008-R2 ("JPMMT 2008-R2"), of which Wells Fargo is the trustee. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs allege that WaMu sold their mortgage loan temporarily to the depositor of the JPMMT 2008-R2, but that the sale failed to assign the DOT. Id. ¶ 16. As Plaintiffs, put it, "[t] his was the first sale of the Plaintiff's mortgage loan, but without effectively assigning the [DOT] and indorsing the underlying original Promissory Note to the interim loan purchaser. . . ." Id. Next, JP Morgan Acceptance Corporation "sold and securitized the pooled mortgages (including Plaintiffs' mortgage loan) into the JPMMT 2008-R2 Trust" on or before the trust's "closing date" on August 22, 2008. Id. Plaintiffs allege that this sale, too, failed to properly assign the DOT or original note. Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

Though Plaintiffs' FAC is verbose, unclear, and at times appears internally inconsistent, Plaintiffs now allege, at the very least, that:
WAMU irrevocably sold all right, title and interest in Plaintiffs' mortgage loan, for value received, to the JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 2008-R2 Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2008-R2 ("JPMMT 2008-R2"), a private label mortgage-backed securities trust with a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit election and continuing qualification.
FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiffs provide significant detail regarding the process through which WaMu allegedly sold their loan. See id. ¶¶ 12-19.
Plaintiffs now sufficiently allege that WaMu not only had no beneficial interest in the Loan, but that it was no longer the mortgagee when JPMorgan purchased its assets. Because Plaintiffs now allege that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan, the facts render plausible the possibility that Defendants lack standing to foreclose on the mortgage. See, e.g., Subramani, 2013 WL 5913789, at *4Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CV10-08185 ODW FFMX, 2011 WL 2173786, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) ("the above mentioned [similar] facts regarding the transfer of Plaintiff's Note prior to JPMorgan's acquisition of WaMu's assets raise Plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level").  . . . .
. . . . It is true that "[t]here is no stated requirement in California's non-judicial foreclosure scheme that requires a beneficial interest in the Note to foreclose. Rather, the statute broadly allows a trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or any of their agents to initiate non-judicial foreclosure." Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Grp., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2010). However, Plaintiffs now sufficiently allege that WaMu not only had no beneficial interest in the Loan, but that it was no longer the mortgagee when JPMorgan purchased its assets. Because Plaintiffs now allege that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan, the facts render plausible the possibility that Defendants lack standing to foreclose on the mortgage. See, e.g., Subramani, 2013 WL 5913789, at *4Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CV10-08185 ODW FFMX, 2011 WL 2173786, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) ("the abovementioned [similar] facts regarding the transfer of Plaintiff's Note prior to JPMorgan's acquisition of WaMu's assets raise Plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level"). The Court proceeds to discuss the effect of this finding on each of Plaintiffs' claims in turn.

A. Wrongful Foreclosure

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' first cause of action must be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not allege any irregularity or illegality in the foreclosure process. As discussed above, however, the Court finds that Plaintiffs now sufficiently allege that WaMu ceded any interest upon which it might foreclose when it sold the Loan in 2008. To the extent that Plaintiffs allege wrongful foreclosure because Defendants were not the "trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents," Plaintiffs state a claim and Defendants' motion is DENIED. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1).

B. Quiet Title

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claim for wrongful foreclosure must be dismissed because "the allegations concerning the `holder of the note' have been invalidated." Mot at 5. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants are not the holders of the note, this argument fails. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' second claim, to the extent that claim is premised on the allegations that Defendants do not have any interest in the note as a result of WaMu's sale of the Loan.

E. Cancellation of Instruments

Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs' cancellation of instruments claim should be dismissed is again premised on the assumption that Plaintiffs fail to allege WaMu's sale of the loan. See Opp'n at 8-9. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs now adequately allege that their loan was sold, this argument fails. Defendants' motion is DENIED as to the cancellation of instruments claim.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All of Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent they are premised on deficiencies in the securitization process. Plaintiffs' claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, cancelation of instruments, violation of Section 2923.5, and unjust enrichment survive to the extent that they are premised on the theory that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan in 2008.
Plaintiffs' claims for slander of title, fraud, and unfair competition are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs may amend those claims to add allegations sufficient to allege fraud under the standards set out by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). If plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint to add such allegations, they must do so within thirty (30) days of the signature date of this Order. Failure to amend within thirty days may result in dismissal of those claims with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] Plaintiffs also allege that Washington Mutual Bank, FA changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank in April of 2005. See id. Plaintiffs apparently assert that WaMu therefore ceased to exist as a legal entity and that JPMorgan knew it could not buy any assets (including Plaintiffs' loan) from WaMu. Plaintiffs in foreclosure cases like this one have repeatedly advanced that theory, and courts have repeatedly rejected it. See, e.g., Lanini v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 2:13-CV-00027 KJM, 2014 WL 1347365, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) ("Plaintiffs have cited nothing to support their claim that the bank's change of name means the bank itself ceased to exist."). The Court agrees with the numerous other judges who have rejected this theory and holds that Plaintiffs' claims regarding JPMorgan's chain of title to the mortgage and Defendants' knowledge of their lack of interest in the Loan may not be premised on WaMu's name change in 2005.
[2] It is unclear why Defendants make this argument only in opposition to Plaintiffs' Section 2923.5 claim and not all of Plaintiffs' claims. Regardless, some of the Court's reasons for rejecting Defendants' argument apply to all of Plaintiffs' claims.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With Complaint Against Chase, WAMU, Citi and two law firms by Neil Garfield


See Eric Mains Federal Complaint
see Mains – Table of Contents.petition 2 transfer

On Monday Eric Mains resigned from his employment with the FDIC. He had just filed a lawsuit against Chase, Citi, WAMU-HE2 Trust, Cynthia Riley, LPS, WAMU, and two law firms. Since he felt he had a conflict of interest, he believed the best course of action was to resign effective immediately.

His lawsuit, told from the prospective of a true insider, reveals in astonishing detail the worst of the practices that have resulted in millions of illegal foreclosures. Some of his allegations cast a dark shadow over claims of Chase Bank on its balance sheet, as reported to the public and the SEC and the reporting of both Chase and Citi as to their potential liability for wrongful foreclosures. If he is right, and he proves these allegations, much of what Chase has reported as its financial condition will vanish from its financial statements and the liability side of the balance sheets of both Citi (as Trustee) and Chase (as servicer and “owner’) will increase exponentially. This may well have the effect of bringing both giants into the position of insufficient reserve capital and force the government to take action against both entities. Elizabeth Warren might have been right when she said that Citi should have been broken into pieces. And the same logic might apply to Chase.
He has also penned the phrase “wild goose Chase” referring to discovery of the true creditors and processing of applications for modification of loans. And he has opened the door for RICO actions against the banks and individuals who did the bidding of the banks as well as the individuals who directed those actions.

Read more at https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/fdic-employee-quits-and-goes-public-with-complaint-against-chase-wamu-citi-and-two-law-firms/