Saturday, May 14, 2011


Dear Readers,
The following is a written notice prepared by homeowner, Mrs. Jane Doe, whose home is in foreclosure and who has questioned the role, if any, that Fidelity National Title Company may have played in any capacity in her situation.  When Mrs. Doe attempted to obtain a copy of the escrow file and title insurance policy for a loan transaction that took place in the fall of 2007, a vice president of the title company put up a wall of resistance that caused Mrs. Doe to closely examine all documents relative to a loan made in 2007 by the pretender lender, Washington Mutual Bank FA. Further extensive research has led to numerous other questions and concerns that impact the property rights of this person.  It is shared here in an effort to further understand the implications of the situation.  Be advised that the vice president of the title company immediately forwarded this notice to the claims department of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company to open a claim; the homeowner did not initiate the claim; the title company officer did. The obvious question is  "Why?"  And,of course, why did the homeowner meet with a wall of resistance when making a request for a copy of her escrow file and title insurance policy?


May 2, 2011

By Certified US Mail
William P. Foley, II
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Fidelity National Financial, Inc
Corporate Headquarters
601 Riverside Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32204

By Certified US Mail
Raymond R. Quirk
Chief Executive Officer
Fidelity National Title Group
601 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204

Manager, Escrow Department
for distribution to Escrow Officers and Title Officer
Fidelity National Title Company
xxxxxxxxxxx, California

To Whom It May Concern:
I hereby notice you, Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity National Title Group, and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company as to certain irregularities that I  have recently discovered in Fidelity National Title Company’s  handling of the my 2007 escrow which have created a Cloud of Title” on my property located at xxxxxx, California, my home of thirty-eight years. 

These errors and omissions may have violated my rights as defined in the Truth in Lending Act. They are affecting me personally, financially, and legally.  To date Fidelity National Title has not proffered any proof to me that FNT actually purchased a Lender's title insurance policy on my property even though they collected $1,700 of my funds for this purpose. These perceived breaches are resulting in a negative impact on my property rights and have put me in a position of long term financial and legal peril.  I am at great risk of losing my home of thirty-eight years.

Fidelity National Title Company and its employees had a fiduciary responsibility and duty to me in this transaction to accurately and truly identify entity identified as  Lender and Beneficiary and to satisfy all obligations described in the Final Statement.  Fidelity National Title may have failed to properly record the true, accurate and legal name of said Lender in all documents relative to this escrow from start to finish.

IDENTITY OF LENDER ISSUES:    California Civil Code § 1558 makes the law very clear as follows:  It is essential to the validity of a contract, not only that the parties should exist, but that it should be possible to identify them.”

The Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement prepared by Fidelity National Title identified Washington Mutual Bank FA as  Lender, which by your definition must be a person or entity.  Washington Mutual Bank FA was neither a person or legal entity at the time of this escrow and preparation of the TILA Disclosure Statement.  In all escrow documents to include the Deed of Trust, the Adjustable Rate Note, and the alleged title insurance policy, Fidelity National Title Company names Lender as “Washington Mutual Bank FA “ and variously “Washington Mutual.”  By law the Disclosure Statement must accurately identify the Lender.

Fidelity National Title Company, may have negligently or intentionally obfuscated the true and accurate identity of Lender in all documents pertinent to this contract of mortgage, this escrow and the alleged issuance of a title insurance policy. I and borrower and maker cannot identify the true lender or funder in this transaction. 

Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity National Title Group, and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (or its assigns or affiliates) in your fiduciary relationship with thousands of other WAMU borrowers across America may have negligently or intentionally misidentified Washington Mutual Bank, FA (a nonexistent entity) as a Lender/Beneficiary in countless loan and escrow transactions thus making it difficult if not impossible to establish the  true identity of the Lender.  You may have created havoc and chaos for hapless WAMU FA borrowers after 4/4/2005 and thus possibly creating a Cloud of Title on thousands of properties all across America, particularly in California and Florida.  This could result in grave consequence for homeowners across America.

During the period of my escrow in the fall of 2007, the parent corporation, Washington Mutual Inc. owned only two banks through which they could legally operate and transact mortgage loans and other bank business and are identified as Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and Washington Mutual Bank FSB.  In 2007 Washington Mutual Bank FA did not legally exist as a bank or federal savings association or federal savings bank or any other legal business entity and had not done so since April 4, 2005.  It could no longer do business, make loans or anything else as such in that name  in October 2007 or since 30 days after April 4, 2005 because the bank known as Washington Mutual Bank FA had LEGALLY recorded with the FDIC a name change to Washington Mutual Bank.

SEC and FDIC published records indicate that effective April 4, 2005 that the bank known as WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA permanently and legally changed its name to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK.  I refer you to the FDIC’s  History of Washington Mutual Bank and the SEC 10-K published 12/31/2005 as filed by WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC.  Effective 4/4/2001 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA had 30 days by federal law to conclude all operations, including making loans, in that name as it was no longer a legal entity.  As of 5/4/2005 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA could no longer legally make loans.  Washington Mutual Inc. was left owning 2 banks (not 3 banks) known as (1) Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and (2) Washington Mutual Bank FSB.  These banks were separate entities and were not interchangeable. 

Certainly when the original bank, American Savings Bank FA, changed its name in 1997 to Washington Mutual Bank FA, it ceased making new loans as American Savings Bank FA.

Let me emphasize:  WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA was nonexistent (a dead bank) after April 4, 2005, a fact known by the FDIC as evidenced by the FDIC internet publication identified as History of Washington Mutual Bank, FA (copy enclosed) and known by the SEC in an SEC 10K filed on December 31, 2005 for that year by Washington Mutual Inc. 

The FDIC records the history of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA as follows:             
Ø               Ø12/27/1988      Institution established.  Original name:  American Savings Bank, FA.
Ø  6/14/1990        Changed name to American Savings Bank, F.A.
Ø  10/1/1997        Changed name to Washington Mutual Bank, FA.  (The bank ceased   operating as American Savings Bank, FA. It made loans as Washington Mutual Bank FA and not as American Savings Bank, FA after this date.)
Ø  1/1/2005          Acquired Washington Mutual Bank in Seattle, Washington.
Ø  4/4/2005          Changed name to Washington Mutual Bank.
Ø  9/25/2008        FDIC seized the failed bank, Washington Mutual Bank.

On December 31, 2001 Washington Mutual, Inc. filed a Form 10-K (annual report) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 (copy enclosed) that specifically states the name change of Washington Mutual Bank FA to Washington Mutual Bank:    “On January 1,2005, the Company’s state savings bank, the former Washington Mutual Bank merged into Washington Mutual Bank, FA, and ceased to exist; subsequently, Washington Mutual Bank, FA changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”).”

Fidelity National Title’s escrow documents identify the Lender/Beneficiary in my escrow transaction as the nonexistent bank --  Washington Mutual Bank FA --  which factually did not exist throughout the escrow period to include xxxxxxxxxxxx 2007, key dates cited in connection with this escrow.  It is clear to me that Fidelity National Title’s title and escrow officers did not have a clue as to which Washington Mutual Inc. bank was the actual Lender as evidenced by their bandying about of names for the alleged Lender.

·         FNTG defines “Lender” as “any person or entity advancing funds which are to be repaid.”

·         The Deed of Trust dated xx xx 2007 and Adjustable Rate Note, signed xx xx 2007, specifically name WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA (the nonexistent bank) as Lender/Beneficiary in this transaction. 

·         Final Statement, page 3, states “Washington Mutual, the Lender is paying a Yield Spread Premium in the amount of $11,261.25” but does not stipulate the precise name of the bank so doing.

·         Final Statement, page 2, states that various fees are to be paid to “Washington Mutual” but again does not stipulate the precise name of the bank to which these fees are to be paid.

·         Lender’s Closing Instructions states the loan was approved by “Washington Mutual Bank FA” (a nonexistent entity).

That Washington Mutual Bank FA did not exist after April 4, 2005 and henceforth is an unalterable fact that should have been known to Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity National Title Group, Fidelity National Title Insurance, Washington Mutual Inc., Washington Mutual Bank, Washington Mutual Bank FSB, California Reconveyance Company, their employees, agents, assigns and representatives. 

No valid reason exists to make a loan in the name of a non-existent bank when at the time Washington Mutual Inc. owned and operated two perfectly legitimate banks  -- Washington Mutual Bank FSB and Washington Mutual Bank  (WMB) – through which real estate loans could be legitimately and lawfully transacted.  One must ask why a bank would make a loan in the name of a dead bank unless, of course, it was meant for personal enrichment, to frustrate a borrower seeking legal recourse and hide the identity of the true funder of the loan.  Making a loan in the name of a nonexistent bank may well constitute intentional deception, gross negligence or perhaps even fraud.

As a consumer and as your customer I put my faith and confidence in you as a reputable business enterprise and in your position of fiduciary responsibility.  I had a reasonable expectation that you would honor and uphold my interests in such an important and sizable transaction.   I had the legal right to know the true name of the Lender with whom I was contracting.  I had a reasonable expectation that Fidelity National Title was responsibly fulfilling your fiduciary duties to me in every aspect this transaction.  You had a legal duty to provide true and correct documents.

The Deed of Trust on public record with the County Recorder’s Office (Recordation #xxxxxxxx) contains deceptive information publicly identifying Washington Mutual Bank FA as the Lender/Beneficiary.  It further states that the recording was requested by the nonexistent bank Washington Mutual Bank FA  and was to be returned to said nonexistent bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA, 2210 Enterprise Drive, Florence, SC 29501.

I hereby notice you that Fidelity National Title may have violated my rights under California Civil Code §1558 which clearly states:  “It is essential to the validity of a contract, not only that the parties should exist, but that it should be possible to identify them.”

Be further advised that shortly before, on or after xxxxx 2007 that the nonexistent bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA, could not legally accept a payoff  from this escrow as the bank had ceased to exist and as no Assignment to any other bank or entity had ever been recorded.  This begs the question -- who actually cashed the payoff check for the prior loan? Where is my money?

Fidelity Title Company accepted a $1,700 payment from me for a "Lender" ALTA title insurance for $x,xxx,xxx. Recently I attempted to obtain a copy of this policy and proof of purchase through the xxxx office of Fidelity National Title Company.   Vice President xxxxxxxxxx informed me that I could not have a copy of the policy -- that I believed that I had actually purchased -- as I am not the insured.  That I paid FNT to purchase a title insurance policy carried no importance to Ms. xxxxxxxx.  She stated that I had no legal right to a copy of the policy that I allegedly purchased because I am not the “insured.”  She reluctantly identified the insured as the dead bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA.  I attempted to discuss with her that we had a problem.  She responded rudely to me.  Eventually she emailed a “Sample Policy” to me.  I obtained on xxxx 2011 a copy of the escrow file (which I had to pay $141 to receive) that did NOT have any evidence that Fidelity National Title Company EVER purchased said title insurance in 2007 or since.

Proof of the purchase of a title insurance policy has been intentionally withheld from me by Fidelity National Title Company.  As the legal purchaser of title insurance as documented in the Final Closing Statement, I am entitled to examine a true copy of  said title insurance policy for which I  paid – if in fact such policy was ever purchased from Fidelity National Title Insurance Company as stipulated it would be in the escrow documents.

I hereby demand that Fidelity National Title Group immediately provide me with my fully executed and actual title insurance policy that identifies my parcel number for my property; and that clearly identifies all parties with an interest in my Deed of Trust.  Provide this to me within 10 days of the date of this Notice.

The above issues raise other serious legal questions and concerns:
·       Transmission by wire of documents citing the nonexistent bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA as Lender/Beneficiary on any loan made after April 4, 2005 and particularly the loan in this escrow recorded October 30, 2007, may possibly constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343 which states:  “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, signs, signals, pictures or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.  If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined nor more than $1,000,00 or imprisoned not more than 30 years or both.

·         Sending documents bearing the name (as Lender) of the nonexistent bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA, through the U.S. Mail may possibly constitute mail fraud as codified in 18 U.S.C. §1341:  "There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . §  1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).

·        Misrepresenting and failing to offer proof  the purchase of title insurance in closing documents and transmitting those documents by wire or mail also raises serious questions and concerns in my mind.

TRUSTEE ISSUES:   I further notice you that Fidelity National Title NEVER notified me that California Reconveyance Company,  named as Trustee in this escrow transaction, had a preexisting personal and financial relationship with Washington Mutual Inc and its subsidiaries.  California Reconveyance Company, the Trustee, was owned by Washington Mutual.  Due to the close relationship between said Lender and Trustee, a conflict of interest exists that has led to a breach of fiduciary trust.  Failure to disclose that California Reconveyance Company was an affiliate is intentional deception violating RESPA.  Affiliates must be disclosed.

VERIFICATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE LENDER:  Jojo Ordonez is named on the Deed of Trust as the preparer of this document. Did this person or the said Lender present you with a Power of Attorney on behalf of the Lender?  What kind of identification did the Lender present to you to verify its legal identity?  I had to verify my legal identity; the lender should have been required to do so as well. 

The reality of the situation is this: 

1.    A CLOUD OF TITLE now exists on my home of thirty-eight years.

2.    In 2007 my home appraised at $x,xxx,xxx at the time of the $x,xxx,xxx loan transaction.

3.    Fidelity Title Company either intentionally or negligently deceived me as to the legal identity of the true Lender and Beneficiary in all documents pertinent to the contract/transaction.

4.    I as the Borrower and Maker cannot identity with any certainty the true Lender/Beneficiary in this transaction.

5.    I as Borrower and Maker cannot identify with certainty the entity that funded the alleged loan.

6.    I as Borrower and Maker cannot identify with certainty the legal entity that owns the alleged Note and where the alleged Note (the wet-ink original) is located.

7.    My Note has been voided and mutilated by being stamped with a blank endorsement by someone purporting to be an officer of a nonexistent bank on the Note citing as Beneficiary/Lender a then and now nonexistent banking entity.

8.    More than likely this loan was securitized before or shortly after closing and that information has been shielded from my purview.

9.    More than likely the securitized Note has been sold multiple times to multiple entities.

10.  JPMorgan Chase Bank is attempting to foreclose on my home in the name of the non-existent bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA as beneficiary.

11.  I am facing homelessness and destitution as a result of this intentional deception.  This is not what my late husband, an Army Captain and Airborne Ranger Infantry Company Commander, envisioned for me when he was killed in action in Vietnam in the service of our country.

Kindly address these issues with me within ten days from the date of this letter.  Please do not ignore this communication as these issues are grave and serious in nature.


Mrs. Jane Doe

CC:  Office of the Attorney General, State of California


  1. dear jane
    please contact me freak 4 u at comcast dot net
    we can work together
    thank you for the post

  2. jane you may want to add this link to the others


  4. On 4/5/2005 Washington Mutual Bank FA legally changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank -- a fact recorded with the FDIC and SEC. Washington Mutual Bank FA ceased to exist at that time.

    In 2008 Washington Mutual Bank was seized as a failed bank by the FDIC and taken over by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.

  5. Brenda,

    That is not true. when a person changes their name they don't cease to exist. they still do uder a different name. Same thing with WaMu. Changing the name from Washington Mutual Bank FA to Washington Mutual Bank doesn't mean Washington Mutual Bank FA ceases to exist. They still have the same lender's license, the same tax ID, etc. it is still the same entity.

    In order for Washington Mutual Bank FA to cease to exist, they would need to formally dissolve the entity and create a brand new one with a new lender's license and a new tax id number. That didn't happen, because it was never their intent to dissolve the entity.

    a name change doesn't dissolve an entity nor does it preclude it from doing business