Tuesday, June 28, 2011


Find out more about how Chase deals with foreclosures.  Go to


Tuesday, June 21, 2011


The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. And . . .

UPDATE -- June 19, 2012:
Word on the street through a lawsuit filed on behalf of Scott Jolley in California Superior Court in Marin County is that there is purported evidence possibly indicating that FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank entered into a different version of the P&A for WaMu than the 39 page version being filed in courts of law across the country.  The true copy is purported to be roughly 120 pages -- not 39 pages.  
A Murder of Crows

This murder of crows does not want the true P&A made public.  Why?  Is this Chase's Achilles Heel? 
Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011 
From the decision":
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note(See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.
From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff's residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB's history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis - Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
available for download at the Senate Subcommittee's website. 2
Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that "JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC" (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff's loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.
Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm'n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff's property when it acquired
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
- 17 -
WMB's assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff' mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff's residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff's residence. This is not a liability issue.
Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.
Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff's single family
residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff's default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB's assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.
If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.
The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff's pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.
Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.
Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender. 

The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: "Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located." (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).
Defendant asks the Court's approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff's
property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.
(A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.
Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.



Sunday, June 19, 2011


Compiled by James Kelley & Brenda Reed

If you cannot find your loan as a borrower from Washington Mutual Bank, Washington Mutual Bank FA, or Washington Mutual Bank Fsb, your loan may have been securitized as a mortgage back trust or as a covered bond, or used as collateral for a loan to the bank from the Federal Home Loan Bank.   

Your mortgage loans may have been used as collateral for a "COVERED BOND" as part of the WM Covered Bond Program.
  • Note this is a complex area and the application of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) to these transactions and the pledging of the Notes as a Cover Pool while they still remain on the balance sheet of the bank is a matter for expert legal analysis. To learn more about Covered Bonds go to the following websites:
In August 2006 Washington Mutual, Inc. pioneered the issuance of Covered Bonds in the United States through WMCBP or Washington Mutual Covered Bond Program Series 1, 2, and 3.  These covered bond securities were marketed in Europe.  

The mortgage bonds are senior obligations of  Washington Mutual Bank (WMB), which will service the interest and repay principal on the mortgage bonds. If WMB is unable to do so or the asset coverage test is breached, then WM Covered Bond Program will enforce against the assets and use the proceeds to redeem the outstanding bonds.   

WMB will pay all principal and interest on the mortgage bonds before an event of default.

Each mortgage loan must meet eligible criteria at the time it is added to the cover pool.

Washington Mutual Bank - Prospectus Supplement - November 22, 2006
"On September 27, 2006, the Issuer issued approximately $5.1 billion of Mortgage Bonds to WM Covered Bond Program, a Delaware statutory trust not affiliated with the Issuer, which in turn issued €4 billion of Covered Bonds secured by the Mortgage Bonds and by other collateral in an offering outside of the United States. The Mortgage Bonds were purchased by WM Covered Bond Program from the Issuer with the net proceeds of the Covered Bonds, after conversion into U.S. dollars and payment of related expenses. The Mortgage Bonds are senior obligations of the Issuer secured by a pool of residential mortgage loans owned by the Issuer and by certain of the Issuer's other assets (collectively, the 'Cover Pool') and would effectively rank senior to the Notes with respect to the Cover Pool collateral securing the Mortgage Bonds. The Issuer is currently authorized to issue from time to time additional series of Mortgage Bonds in an aggregate principal amount (together with the principal amount of Mortgage Bonds issued on September 27, 2006) of up to €20 billion under the existing Covered Bond Program and to pledge additional Cover Pool collateral to secure such issuances, all of which Mortgage Bonds would effectively rank senior to the Notes with respect to the Cover Pool collateral securing such Mortgage Bonds. Such authorization is subject to being increased in the future. Under the terms of the Mortgage Bonds issued by the Issuer on September 27, 2006, and any additional series of Mortgage Bonds that the Issuer may issue in the future, the Issuer will be required to pledge additional Cover Pool collateral if needed to ensure that the amount of collateral in the Cover Pool remains at or above the level required by the indenture relating to the Mortgage Bonds."
Effective October 2, 2006, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. succeeded J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, National Association under the Global Bank Note Program 
in its capacities as Domestic Paying Agent, Registrar, Calculation Agent and Exchange Rate Agent.


WM Covered Bond Program Investor Reports can be found through J. P. Morgan's corporate website for their Investment Bank the following can be found:

The WM Covered Bond Program Investor Report effective 31 July 2007 (the first report available at J.  P. Morgan) states:
Issuer                                               WM Covered Bond Program
Covered Bond Indenture Trustee     The Bank of New York
Mortgage Bond Issuer                      Washington Mutual Bank
Mortgage Bond Indenture Trustee    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

Loans in the pool:  23,730 loans with balance of $9,001,626,789 from >$100,000 - >$3,000,000
79.25% were primary residences; 6.43% were second homes; 14.32% were non-owner occupied.
27.49% were purchase money; 5.54% were permanent construction; 1.01% were property improvement refinance; 39.56% were cash out refinance; 27.40% were non-cash out refinance.  90.13% were single family residential; 9.37% condominiums; 0.50% townhouses. FICO scores ranged from 580-599 to 820 or higher with the majority over a 720 FICO score.  Cover pool documentation had 40.03% full documentation; 54.31% low documentation; and 5.66% streamline/unknown/none documentation.

THE WM Covered Bond Program Investor Report effective 31 May 2011 states:

WMCBP Series 1 had an Initial Principal Amount of €2,000,000,000 with a maturity date of 9/27/2011 at a rate of 3.875% Fixed; Swap providers are Barclays Bank PLC & RBS, Ptc.
WMCBP Series 2 had the same Initial Principal Amount of €2,000,000,000; Maturity Date of 9/27/2016; Rate 4.00% Fixed; Swap providers are Barclays Bank PLC & RBS, Ptc.
WMCBP Series 3 had the same Initial Principal Amount of €2,000,000,000; Maturity Date of 5/10/2014; Rate 4.375% Fixed; Swap provider is Barclays Bank PLC.
Parties as of 5/31/2011

Issuer --  WM Covered Bond Program
Covered Bond Indenture Trustee -- The Bank of New York
Mortgage Bond Issuer --  JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
Mortgage Bond Indenture Trustee -- Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
Product                                           Loans    Amount              %
Payment Option ARMs                   7,966    $2,975,828,640    25.43% of pool 
3/1 Hybrid ARMs                               904       $309,248,266      2.64% of pool 
5/1/ Hybrid ARMs                           1,703      $544,423,887      4.65% of pool
5/1 Interest Only Hybrid ARMs     12,615  $5,833,301,477     49.86% of pool7/1 Hybrid ARMs                                 89        $54,824,137        0.47% of pool 
7/1 Interest Only Hybrid ARMs        1,503  $1,126,419,780      9.65% of pool
10/1 Hybrid ARMs                               120       $52,955,660      9.45% of pool
10/1 Interest Only Hybrid ARMs       1,203   $802,788,796       6.6% of pool
Total                                                   26,103 $11,699,790,648   100% of pool                            

Cover Pool State Distribution
California           11,778 loans    $6,290,876,991 balance     53.77%
New York             1,616 loans     $860,671,707 balance        7.36%
Florida                  1,951  loans    $676,398,296 balance       5.79%
Washington           1,176 loans     $463,261,434 balance       3.96%
 Others (<3%)       9,582 loans   $3,408,582,218 balance     29.13%

Cover Pool Delinquency Distribution
Current or less than 30 days              25,471 loans    $11,390,913,683    97.36%
30 to 59 Days past due                            632 loans         $380,876,964     2.64%
60 Days or More                                         0  loans                     0               0
           Loan Origination Year
<= 2004    12,206 loans  36.52%
2005            3,479 loans  12.43%
2006            2,553 loans  10.03%
2007            6,536 loans  34.51%
2008            1,329 loans     6.51%

As of the end of July 2008, WMB's aggregate outstanding covered bonds were equivalent to approximately US $7.8 billion and were ultimately secured over a portfolio of U.S. residential mortgage loans of US $11.7 billion held by Washington Mutual Bank ('WMB'; rated 'BBB/F2' by Fitch), resulting in a current over-collateralization (OC) of 50.6%.
Covered bonds appeared on balance sheets as "securitizations."  In other words a "security" is created for the purpose of raising liquidity. These securities may be issued over a period of time.  Payments of principal and interest are made to the "investor" from general cash flows of the "issuer."  Prepayment of loans does not affect the investors.  A single class of bonds is issued.  In theory the securities are those of the issuer and are usually "AAA" rated.

The Covered Bond Program provided the bank with capital relief.  They were treated as on-balance sheet retail portfolio and call for regulatory capital.

US Treasury Best Practices of July 2008 required issuance by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and direct issuance by the originator.  SPV issuance requires the mortgage bond originator to take the loan from the SPV and issue a mortgage bond in lieu.  The SPB issues the securities backed by the mortgage bond.  The originators maintains the mortgage.  This provides structural enhancements at the SPV level such as facility of liquidity and independent trustees.  Investors have no recourse against the "originator."  Investors do not face prepayment risk.

Critical issues include underwriting standards and selection criteria of new loans in the pool.

The "covered pool" is comprised of mostly dynamic assets.  The borrower is allowed to manage the pool as long are the required "covers" are ensure.  There may be multiple issuances from a common pool of assets

A covered bond is a case of collateralized borrowing by the issuer.  The covered bond is backed by assets known as "cover assets" (mortgages) of a particular value.  The pool is subject to identification.

On August 8, 2008 Fitch Ratings issued the following press release and public statement downgrading Washington Mutual Covered Bond Program's (WMCBP) Series 1, 2, and 3 from "AAA" to "AA." http://www.coveredbondinvestor.com/news/fitch-downgrades-wamu-cover...

 "NEW YORK & LONDON — Fitch Ratings has downgraded WM Covered Bond Program's (WMCBP) series 1, 2 and 3 to 'AA' from 'AAA' and removed them from Rating Watch Negative.
"As of the end of July 2008, aggregate outstanding covered bonds were equivalent to approximately US $7.8 billion and are ultimately secured over a portfolio of U.S. residential mortgage loans of US $11.7 billion held by Washington Mutual Bank ('WMB'; rated 'BBB/F2' by Fitch), resulting in a current over-collateralization (OC) of 50.6%.
The drivers behind today's rating action are the current rating of WMB and the risk posed to the continuity of payments on the covered bonds in the event of a default by WMB. In Fitch's analysis this combination limits the rating to 'AA'. Furthermore the new rating is supported by the committed OC between the cover pool and the covered bonds.

Recently, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a policy statement outlining criteria for U.S. covered bonds. The criteria were designed to ensure that the highest quality mortgage loans would be used in new covered bond transactions. Covered bonds meeting the criteria would benefit from a reduced automatic stay period of 10 days in the event an issuer was to become insolvent. 

Because WMB's mortgage loans do not meet the new criteria, a 90 day stay period is required in the event WMB becomes insolvent which could delay access to the pledged collateral if a sale were required to repay the covered bonds before the end of their maturity extension period.

Approximately 79.9% of the cover pool consists of hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), with the remainder option ARM loans. The portfolio has a weighted average (WA) original loan to value ratio of 63.5%, a WA FICO score of 750, an average 37-month seasoning and a weighted average remaining maturity of 27.2 years. The pool is highly concentrated in California (48.9%), with the top five states, accounting for 68.6% of the portfolio. In its analysis Fitch considered the effect of a stressed value of the cover pool using recent market conditions. This value along with the minimum OC of 22.7% provided through the new asset percentage of 81.5%, is sufficient to fully repay the covered bonds in an 'AA' scenario.

WMB has agreed that they will maintain the asset percentage at a maximum of 81.5% of covered bonds compared to the cover pool. In addition, Fitch took into account the strength of the asset segregation through the pledge in favor of the indenture trustee; the robustness of WMB's IT systems for the management of the cover pool; and the absence of dedicated covered bonds' regulations in the U.S. Fitch will continue to monitor WMB's IDR and the mortgage cover pool, which is dynamic and may change over time.
JPMorgan & Company controls the WM Covered Bond Program.

For questions about WM Covered Bond Program, Series 1, 2 & 3, Chase gives the following email address rodd.k.specketer@jpmchase.com

Does anyone believe that Mr. Specketer will tell us if our loans are in the mortgage cover pool?

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

JPMorgan Ousts Mortgage Chief Lowman - Bloomberg

It is a great day for homeowners dealing with Chase to save our homes from foreclosure when David Lowman is ousted from Chase.  I am not one to cheer a man's loss of his job, however this man has perpetrated great evil and wrongdoing. 

It will be interesting to see what tricks and strategies that Cindy Armine, the new "chief control officer of home lending" will come up with to further defraud and steal people's homes from them.
     David Lowman's downfall was his abusive behavior towards active duty military personnel serving in war zones.  This man had to go!  Let's see what happens next.

JPMorgan Ousts Mortgage Chief Lowman - Bloomberg