Friday, September 20, 2013

Linda Zimmerman v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA: Appelee JPMC's Confession of Error

 
Foreclosure fighters beware!  Chase is employing yet another legal tactic to steal homes not only in Florida but other states as well. Chase wants a second bite at the apple while keeping its dirty little secrets under the carpet. 

Nobody ever said that foreclosure was fair or just or equitable. The evil Chase Bank is stooping to a new low to steal homes and deceive the Court by utilizing the tactic of filing a Confession of Error.  But where is the priest and what is their confession? What is their error?  So when is a confession not a confession?  When employed by Chase and their murder of crows.

Confession of error is a party's admission, express or implied, made on appeal, that the court below committed an error in his favor, or prejudicial to the rights of an adverse party. The following is an example of a case law referring to confession of error: A confession of error by a litigant is an important factor to take into account in studying a record. It may disclose an intervening decision on a question of law that undermines the lower court's conclusion; it may disclose perjury by an important witness or newly discovered evidence; it may disclose other factors which weaken the conclusion of the lower court; or it may disclose a maneuver to save one case at the expense of another. [Casey v. United States, 343 U.S. 808, 811-812 (U.S. 1952)].
The saga of foreclosure fighter, Linda Patricia Zimmerman in the Fourth District of Florida Court of Appeal demonstrates just how far JPMorgan Chase Bank NA will go to steal Zimmerman's home through a wrongful foreclosure in which Chase most likely has no legal standing to foreclose. At a time when Zimmerman is fighting for her life. she must continue to battle the megalithic Chase Bank for the restoration of her home.  She has been intrepid in her fight.  She is once more mustering her energy and forces for her response to Chase's efforts to get a second bite at the apple through their so-called, half-assed "Confession of Errors."

Zimmerman is seeking reversal of the trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure and dismissal of the underlying foreclosure action. JPMorgan agrees with Zimmerman that reversal is required for another summary judgment hearing.  Chase believes that the Court should “reverse the judgment of the court below upon the ‘confession of Errors' without expressing any opinion as to the extent of the error.” 

JPMorgan does not agree that dismissal upon reversal is proper. Chase wants to take aim at Zimmerman again by fixing their so-called errors.

Chase has requested that the Court reverse the decision below with instructions to set aside the judgment and to proceed in a manner consistent “with the law and rules of practice governing such causes.”


See Chase's Confesssion of Error below.   
This blog will continue to publish updates as they occur.


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CASE NO: 4D12-2190
LT CASE NO: 502009CA004918XXXXMB

LINDA PATRICIA
ZIMMERMAN, et. al.,

Appellant,

v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Appellee,
/


APPELLEE'S CONFESSION OF ERROR

Appellee, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan”), by and
through its undersigned counsel and in lieu of filing an Answer Brief, hereby
confesses error on the authority of Rule 1.510(c) , Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 251, 253–54 (Fla. 2d DCA
2012), and Venture Holdings & Acquisitions Group, LLC v. A.I.M. Funding Group,
LLC, 75 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

JPMorgan does not agree with Appellant's argument that it did not have
standing to file and proceed with the subject foreclosure action, or that it did not
properly establish its status as holder of the subject note. See e.g. I.B. at pgs. 12-17.
JPMorgan filed the original note, endorsed in blank, prior to the entry of summary


CASE NO: 4D12-2190

judgment. See R. 172-180. JPMorgan also does not agree with Appellant’s
argument that the Notice of Acceleration sent to Appellant prior to commencement
of the subject foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of paragraph 22 of the
mortgage. See I.B. at pgs. 16-17. A review of the Notice of Acceleration and
paragraph 22 of the mortgage conclusively demonstrates JPMorgan’s compliance
and the lack of merit in Appellant’s assertion. See R. 151-53 and 194.

However, Appellant has also raised procedural issues relating to the entry of
summary judgment despite the lack of evidence in the record to establish that
JPMorgan had standing at the time it filed the foreclosure action. See e.g. I.B. at pg.
17-18, 22. As to those arguments, Appellant is correct. Rule 1.510(c) , Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure, Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 251,
253–54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), and Venture Holdings & Acquisitions Group, LLC v.

A.I.M. Funding Group, LLC, 75 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
JPMorgan is confident that it will ultimately prevail in this action by properly
establishing it had standing at the time the foreclosure action was filed.
Nevertheless, in this instance that does not render Appellant’s arguments moot.
Spradley v. Kemp, 596 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (the fact that the
“appellant [will] not prevail” does not obviate the need for a reversal).

Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure and
dismissal of the underlying foreclosure action. See I.B. at pg. 23. JPMorgan agrees

2



CASE NO: 4D12-2190

that reversal is required for another summary judgment hearing, and the Court should

“reverse the judgment of the court below upon the ‘confession of Errors' without

expressing any opinion as to the extent of the error.” Gulf Power Co. v. Illinois-

Florida Land Co., 132 So. 109, 110 (Fla. 1931). JPMorgan does not agree that

dismissal upon reversal is proper.


Appellee, JPMorgan, requests that the Court reverse the decision below with

instructions to set aside the judgment and to proceed in a manner consistent “with the

law and rules of practice governing such causes.”
Gulf Power Co., 132 So. at 110.


/s/ Shayna A. Freyman
Thomas H. Loffredo, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 870323
Jeffrey T. Kuntz

Florida Bar No. 26345
Shayna A. Freyman, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 84993
Gray Robinson, P.A.
Counsel for Appellee
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, 10th Flr.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 761-8111; Fax: (954) 761-8112
tom.loffredo@gray-robinson.com
shayna.freyman@gray-robinson.com
jkuntz@gray-robinson.com
















1 comment:

  1. No homeowner in court actions are relying on the following as proof against Chase Bank's standing claims as far as Washington Mutual originated note are concerned. Article III, Section 3.3 of the infamous purchase and assumption agreement specifies that the FDIC issue a receiver's deed to transfer notes purchased by Chase from the FDIC. The company named Stewart Title was apparently involved in issuing title insurance on behalf of Chase as to the notes and trust deeds purchased. Stewart, in an internal memo states that two deeds are required where Chase purchased a WAMU note then sold the note to another. The first deed transferring the note from the FDIC to Chase, and the second deed transferring the note sold by Chase to another.

    Secondly, all court causes brought by a homeowner against Chase based on its claim of being a successor in interest in a note it purchased from the FDIC, are preempted under 12 U.S.C. 1821(d). The statute preempts court actions. It requires homeowner plaintiffs to access the FDIC's administrative claims apparatus rather than initiating a court action. IN OTHER WORDS, NO COURT CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION OF A CASE WHERE CHASE IS CLAIMING TO HAVE PURCHASED THE NOTE AT ISSUE FROM THE FDIC. Any case once filed where Chase appears as a willing defendant, means Chase's tacit admission of not have acquired the note at issue from the FDIC. The FDIC in the purchase and assumption agreement (page 76 or 77) admits not taking the inventory of assets Chase purportedly purchased, as it normally does. The FDIC's misplaced rationale, as admitted in the P&A agreement, was that since Chase was purchasing all of WAMU's assets, there was no need to take and report an inventory. The problem is the dishonesty of Chase, and the notes WAMU got rid of prior to receivership. A case in New York that resulted in a 5 billion settlement against Chase substantiates the massive number of notes WAMU got rid of prior to receivership. Chase's scheme being practiced all over the nation has resulted from Chase's acquiring information about the notes WAMU sold before receivership. Chase is trying to double dip on those notes despite WAMU having already been paid for the notes.

    ReplyDelete