Here, the Court decided that no reasonable jury could conclude that Javaheri's Note had been sold as part of a securitized trust. The pool number was only a partial entry of what was written in the margin of the Deed of Trust, and the only possible connection to some heretofore unnamed private investors is that the number entered into "Pool Talk" corresponds with a CUSIP number that had a Preliminary status in 2011—several months after the lawsuit was originated and at least two-and-a-half years since the Note was allegedly sold as a securitized trust. While the number written on the Deed of Trust bears a striking resemblance to a number associated with a securitized trust, Plaintiff simply fails to produce sufficient evidence to establish that this is anything more than a rare coincidence. The Court therefore found that Javaheri failed to establish that JPMorgan does not own his Note and Deed of Trust.
In sum, Javaheri failed to establish that JPMorgan is not the owner, holder, or beneficiary of the Note or that it lacked the authority to foreclose, and he lacks standing to assert his robo-signing contentions.
The Court therefore granted JPMorgan's Motion on Javaheri's wrongful foreclosure claim as it pertains to his Wellworth Property.
A couple of questions on the finding of robosigning.
Does the Deed of Trust which is a contract govern the Substitution of Trustee on Washington Mutual Bank, FA Deeds of Trust? Does the robosigning on the Substitution of Trustee and Notice of Default a violation of the contract law? So if this is pleaded as a contract violation, can it defeat the Court's finding of lack of standing argument because the borrower has standing as signatory to the Deed of Trust contract?
"24. Substitute Trustee. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successortrustee 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. The instrument shall contain the name of the original Lender, Trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this Security Instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee. Without conveyance of the Property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution."How can WMBFA authorize substitution of trustee when it does not exist as corporation?
Next, the Court made an implicit finding that Washington Mutual Bank FA was a federal saving association at the time the loan was made. After April 4, 2005, WMBFA certainly did not exist as a federal Saving Association according to the 10K filed for 2005 by Washington Mutual Inc. So what is going on with this finding?
The order relates to Daryoush Javaheri's Wellworth property, Case # 10-8185. A companion case regarding foreclosure of Javaheri's Wilshire property, Case #11-10072, is set for jury trial on January 15, 2013. Research indicates that the Wilshire loan was sold to an investment trust before Chase took over WaMu.At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that only a jury can determine whether Chase is a Lender or Beneficiary authorized to foreclose, because the case raises the following factual issues:
1. Chase cannot produce the original promissory note or the collateral file containing the original signed documents relating to the loan, raising an issue as to whether the loan was sold or transferred to a third party;2. Either the Assignment of Deed of Trust or the Notice of Trustee's Sale bears a forged signature of Deborah Brignac, President of CRC, based on the analysis of handwriting expert Laurie Hoeltzel; and,3. The declaration of Jeffrey Thorne states that the true Purchase & Assumption Agreement between FDIC and Chase consists of 118 pages, not 44 pages, as alleged by Chase, and states that Chase assumed WaMu's liabilities when it purchased WaMu's $300 billion in assets from the FDIC for merely $1.9 billion.There are 47 documents filed in connection with the Summary Judgment motion.Plaintiff has 30 days to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
THE COURT'S DECISION:
DARYOUSH JAVAHERI, Plaintiff,