Friday, February 22, 2013

STINGING REBUKE FROM APPEALS COURT IN JOLLEY v JPMORGAN CHASE BANK


deontos says:

A California Appellate Court has RULED for a homeowner in a stinging rebuke of its district Trial Court and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

A N*E*X*U*S here of GREAT import exists between the treatment of homeowners by JPMC and the PUTBACKS Controversy in the Deutsche Bank litigation. JPMC is apparently fighting a “rearguard” action against the homeowners attempting to TERMINATE them and thereby LIMIT Chase's looming putback exposure.

 Definition of 'Mortgage Putback'

The forced repurchase of a mortgage by an originator from the entity currently holding the mortgage security. A mortgage putback is most commonly required due to findings of fraudulent or faulty origination documents in which the creditworthiness of the mortgagor or appraised value of the property are misrepresented.

JPMC knows that  they cannot win against the FDIC and Deutsche Bank but they can STALL. And then LIQUIDATE the home mortgages (profitably and illegally) and use those funds to finally settle with the “900 Pounders”

By the way, when the rich f*ck the rich the little guy is still “out of luck". 

The JPMC-DBNTC-FDIC litigation is for the most part all filed under SEAL.

[02/11] Jolley v. Chase Home Finance


Summary judgment for defendants on dispute following foreclosure on construction loan agreement reversed and remanded as to defendant bank who purchased assets of the bank that entered into  the loan agreement, where:
 

1) the trial court improperly rested its holding on the terms of a shorter, disputed version of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement submitted by defendant;
2) prolonged miscommunication about a possible loan modification raises a triable issue of fact of intent by defendant bank to profit by misleading plaintiff about his loan modification prospects;
3) a triable issue of fact exists whether defendant bank has potential liability for its own conduct under a theory of promissory estoppel;
4) there is a triable issue of material fact as to a duty of care to plaintiff, which potentially makes defendant bank liable for its own negligence;
 5) triable issues of fact exists as to whether defendant bank’s conduct was fraudulent or unfair for the purposes of the unfair competition claim;
 6) a triable issue of fact exist as to the reformation claim; but
 7) summary adjudication for defendant bank on the declaratory relief and accounting causes of action was proper.
x_http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1622404.html

On Scribd:


Secret FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank 118 Page Purchase and Assumption Agreement for Washington Mutual BankNon Public Document disclosed in Sworn Testimony indicates JPMORGAN CHASE and FDIC are concealing material information regarding the JPMC purchase of WAMU. The FDIC so far REFUSES to release the document unless under a draconian protective order forbidding ANY disclosures by any of the involved parties in the court case INCLUDING the judge.\        x_http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/367505

Read more at   http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/slimin-jamie-dimon-scheming-to-stick-the-fdic-with-wamu-losses.html#comment-1100725

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39684953/PutBack_Exposure_The_Only_Thing_That_Matters

 


Investopedia explains 'Mortgage Putback'

Following the collapse of the American real estate market in 2008 and the subsequent financial crises that followed, it was found that mortgages and mortgage-backed securities had been widely dispersed throughout the financial system and that the validity of many mortgages and documents were questionable with regards to lending standards, income verification and appraisal values. Many mortgage security holders demanded mortgage putbacks by mortgage originators who had not completed their due diligence, or in some cases had blatantly defrauded the industry.


No comments:

Post a Comment