Friday, January 31, 2014

JOLLEY v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC | Leagle.com

JOLLEY v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC | Leagle.com

Unconscionable and Negligent Conduct in Loan Modification Practices | Livinglies's Weblog

Unconscionable and Negligent Conduct in Loan Modification Practices | Livinglies's Weblog

Big Win For Homeowners – California Supreme Court Depublishes Aspiras v. Wells Fargo

 

By Deborah Gutierrez January 28, 2014 – Posted in: Foreclosure

On August 21, 2013, the California Court of Appeal issued a negative ruling against homeowners in an area homeowners thought they were winning.
The story begins in February 2013, when the California Court of Appeals (the First District), issued a groundbreaking decision in Jolley v. Chase, which found that mortgage servicers could be held liable for negligence if they mishandled the loan modification process and caused foreseeable harm to affected homeowners. This ruling was a significant win for homeowners who had long sought to hold mortgage servicing companies accountable for fraudulent, unfair, and deceptive conduct when reviewing people for and negotiating loan modifications. The ruling was also a watershed moment for homeowners since most of the case law prior to this ruling found that banks could never be held liable for negligence in the loan modification context—no matter how egregious their conduct.
Prior to  Jolley, most judges based their decisions on the holding of Nymark v. Heart Fed, Savings & Loan Assn, a 1991 appellate case in which the court decided that Heart Federal could not be held liable for negligence in the context of the origination of mortgage loan.  Although the court in Nymark was clear that the specific facts of each case must be analyzed according to a 6-factor test to determine if a duty of care existed, most courts simply assumed, based on the Nymark holding that no bank could ever be held negligent in any context involving mortgage loan banking.
The excitement and apparent progress made in Jolley lasted a few months, when, in August 2013, the Fourth District issued its decision in Aspiras v. Wells Fargo, which directly contradicted the holding in Jolley and found, as court had so many times before, that banks could never be negligent in their handling of a loan modification application.  The Aspiras holding created a “split” in authority and was expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court so that the highest court in California could settle the issue.
As expected, the plaintiffs in Aspiras filed a petition for review on October 29, 2013, asking that the California Supreme Court review the appellate court’s order and overturn its findings.  Chase filed its response to that petition in opposition to the plaintiffs’ request. Soon after, Kent Qian, of the National Housing Law Project (“NHLP”) filed a letter asking the court to depublish the Aspiras case, a move which would essentially negate the case’s precedential value and limit is binding effect on any other court.  The letter seeking depublication is a brilliantly written analysis of (1) why Aspiras was wrongly decided, (2) how public policy favors the outcome in Jolley, and (3) why Nymark had been so wrongly understood. The letter can be read here.
It worked! The California Supreme Court denied review of the case, but granted the NHLP’s request to deplublish  Aspiras. While no one can be certain why the Supreme Court did what it did, the outcome is undoubtedly a big win for homeowners.  The Jolley ruling, together with the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights, and plain-old negligence principals should now be sufficient to hold servicers accountable for engaging in negligent conduct, when they do things like repeatedly lose documents, misrepresent facts during the loan modification process, dual-track into foreclosure, renege on promises to modify, and wrongly deny people for modification.
_________________
  "Aspiras v. Wells Fargo"


The UCL Practitioner: Supreme Court depublishes UCL "unfair ...

www.uclpractitioner.com/.../supreme-court-depublishes-ucl-unfair-prong...
Jan 17, 2014 - This week, the Supreme Court depublished the Court of Appeal's opinion in Aspiras v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 219 Cal.App.4th 948 (2013), 
...

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Arizona Appeals Court Reverses Direction: Dismissal of Borrower’s Claims Reversed | Livinglies's Weblog

Congratulations to Attorney Barbara J. Forde!!


HIGHLIGHTS: Steinberger v Hon. McVey/OneWest

¶95 However, Count Eleven also alleges that part of the loan has already been paid by the FDIC under a “Shared-Loss Agreement,” and Steinberger attached a copy of a Shared-Loss Agreement to the complaint. While it is not clear whether this agreement in fact applies to Steinberger’s loan, the agreement does appear to provide that, in exchange for OneWest’s assumption of IndyMac Federal’s loans, the FDIC would reimburse OneWest at 80% for any default in payments on those loans. Steinberger alleges that this agreement, combined with insurance coverage and/or other sources of reimbursement “has on information and belief resulted in OneWest’s either being paid in full for the Note, or having received at least 80% of the payments due on the Note.”

¶96 While the alleged insurance payments are indeed speculative and unsupported, the assertion that the FDIC has already reimbursed OneWest for Steinberger’s default is not unsupported, based on the fact the Shared-Loss Agreement does appear to authorize such reimbursement. Under A.R.S. § 47-3602, “an instrument is paid to the extent payment is made by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the instrument and to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.” Thus, if it is true that the FDIC has already reimbursed OneWest for all or part of Steinberger’s default, OneWest may not be entitled to recover that amount from Steinberger.


Discharge of Debt
money that OneWest received from FDIC to pay off loss on loan discharges
the debt. If it is true that the FDIC has already reimbursed OneWest
for all or part of [the borrower's] default, OneWest may not be entitled
to recover that amount from [the borrower}. This corroborates what
we have been writing in this blog regarding third-party payments and the
existence of co-obligors. To the extent that third party payments have
been received by the creditor this court is saying that nobody can
collect those same payments from the borrower.




Unconscionability: Procedural and Substantive:
Unfair surprise and fairness, respectively, are the main elements. This
opinion raises the possibility of bringing claims that might have been
barred by the TILA Statute of Limitations. Pleading requirements are
strict. But if you read the decision you can tell that there is room for
borrowers to oppose enforcement of contracts that produced sticker
shock and other unfair surprises.




Quiet title: This
Court concluded that you can’t quiet title based upon the weakness of
someone else’s claim. You must allege your right to title and that the
parties served have no claim.




Negligence Per Se:
Opening a whole new area for litigation this Court concluded that
negligence and negligence per se, were valid causes of action for
damages and other relief in connection with the handling of modification
and other requests. . . . .



READ MORE AT    Arizona Appeals Court Reverses Direction: Dismissal of Borrower’s Claims Reversed | Livinglies's Weblog

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Florida Foreclosure Mill ALAW (Albertelli Law) Acquires CRC and Moves into California



ALERT:    Florida foreclosure mill, ALAW aka Albertelli Law, acquired California Reconeyance Company, a California based trustee firm, from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA in December 2013.  Albertelli has put Deborah Brignac, a notorious robosigner, in charge of running ALAW's west coast operations.  CRC wrongfully foreclosed on thousands of homes in California and Arizona using robosigned documents.  Distressed homeowners need to stand ever in the ready as to what may lie ahead with the convergence of ALAW and CRC.  I see trouble ahead.

Foreclosure Mill Albertelli Law - Scribd

www.scribd.com/doc/34790499/Foreclosure-Mill-Albertelli-Law
Jul 24, 2010 - Foreclosure Mill Albertelli Law - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text file (.txt) or read online for free. FORECLOSURE FRAUD.


  1. Liars, Crooks and Thieves - Foreclosure Fraud
    4closurefraud.org/.../liars-crooks-and-thieves-fraudclosure-another-accid...
    Jul 2, 2012 - Albertelli Law: We will leave this “as is” so just execute the affidavit, Linda .... (Ours)The Bank's Foreclosure Mill.filed a suit on us for foreclosure ...
  2. Anonymous Foreclosure Mill Attorney Responds to the FL Bar Ethics ...

    4closurefraud.org/.../anonymous-foreclosure-mill-attorney-responds-to-t...
    Jul 19, 2011 - Your Local Neighborhood Foreclosure Mill Attorney .... swear this was Erin Mae Rose Quinn from the fraudclosure mill Albertelli Law – to a tee!
  3. Law Firms Cash In On Foreclosures - Tampa Tribune

    tbo.com/.../bz-law-firms-cash-in-on-foreclosures-...
    The Tampa Tribune
    Apr 1, 2008 - One foreclosure lawyer, Jim Albertelli of Tampa-based Albertelli Law, ... "I don't ever think of it the foreclosure mill nickname as bad or not bad," ...


Albertelli Law, Daniel Consuegra, and Kahane & Associates Investigated — The Florida Foreclosure Fraud Weblog

The investigation into Florida’s foreclosure mills just doubled in size (almost) as the scope widens to include three new law firms under examination for fraudulent foreclosures.


Shannon Behnken of the Tampa Tribune reports:


Tampa firms Daniel C. Consuegra and Albertelli Law, as well as Plantation-based Kahane & Associates, received letters of inquiry in early December from the Economic Crimes Division of the attorney general’s office.  The letters say the office has received complaints of “unfair, deceptive and unconscionable practices” by the firms.

JPMorgan Gives Criminal CEO a 74 Percent Pay Raise - Ring Of Fire Radio: Robert Kennedy Jr, Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder



JPMorgan Gives Criminal CEO a 74 Percent Pay Raise

The board at JPMorgan Chase elected to give company CEO, Jamie Dimon, a 74 percent raise
this year following a 2013 filled with billions in fines for company
malfeasance. The pay increase is angering to financial reform advocates
because the man whose company committed many financial crimes not only
avoids any government prosecution, but gets more money.

Dimon’s salary was cut
in 2011 from $23.1 million to $11.5 million, which includes his base
salary of $1.5 million plus bonuses. The board-approved pay raise is
$18.5 million in restricted stock which will vest over the next three
years. The board attributed the raise to Dimon’s “stewardship” and
“sustained long-term performance” in the wake of the bank’s turbulent
legal issues. Essentially, Dimon got a raise for “
handling it well.”



READ MORE AT:

JPMorgan Gives Criminal CEO a 74 Percent Pay Raise - Ring Of Fire Radio: Robert Kennedy Jr, Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Banker plunges to his death from JP Morgan's London headquarters in Canary Wharf | Mail Online

Banker plunges to his death from JP Morgan's London headquarters in Canary Wharf | Mail Online



 Tragedy: IT executive Gabriel Magee has been found dead today after jumping from the top of JP Morgan's headquarters in Canary Wharf, London, and landing on a surrounding roof


 P Morgan name man who plunged to his death from Canary Wharf headquarters as technology chief Gabriel Magee

  • Mr Magee was found on the ninth floor roof of skyscraper at 8am today
  • The executive had worked for JP Morgan for 10 years - 7 years in London
  • He was a vice president in corporate & investment bank technology team
By
Martin Robinson



|



A bank executive who died after
jumping 500ft from the top of JP Morgan's European headquarters in
London this morning has been named as Gabriel Magee.


The
American senior manager, 39, fell from the 33-storey skyscraper and was
found on the ninth floor roof, which surrounds the Canary Wharf
skyscraper.


He was a vice president in the corporate and investment bank technology department having joined in 2004, moving to Britain from the United States in 2007.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547275/BREAKING-NEWS-Man-30s-dies-plunge-JP-Morgan-headquarters-Canary-Wharf.html#ixzz2rixWoCyp

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

BROTHER SHARIF' "THE FORECLOSURE AND DEBT COLLECTOR EDUCATOR!!" 11/26 by YusefEL | Education Podcasts

BROTHER SHARIF' "THE FORECLOSURE AND DEBT COLLECTOR EDUCATOR!!" 11/26 by YusefEL | Education Podcasts

Robosigning Pays: Deborah Brignac Promoted to Senior Vice President of ALAW upon its Acquisition of CRC

Who says crime does not pay!

Robo-sign documents to steal people's homes and get promoted to Senior Vice President in charge of stealing more homes.


Notorious California Reconveyance Company  robo-signer extraordinaire, Deborah Brignac, will now head up ALAW's west coast operation as Senior Vice President as ALAW now expands its national operation into California and Arizona after its acquisition of CRC from JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.  Brignac's name is all over foreclosure documents used in wrongful foreclosures throughout California.

See:   http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/california-reconveyance-is-suspect-for-many-reasons/


ALAW a.k.a.  Atonelli Law, a reputed Florida foreclosure mill, acquired California Reconveyance Company's assets and operations from JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and is keeping its 80 member staff who will continue its questionable foreclosures as ALAW with Deborah Brignac at the helm citing ALAW's strong relationship with Chase.


 Our plan is to support these employees – under the continued leadership of Deborah Brignac – and to grow the business to serve additional clients and states from the West
Coast. The operations’ top performance track record along with Chase’s commitment to the people, will support the ongoing opportunity tocontinue representing Chase and now other top servicing clients —seeking the same superior trustee services previously limited to Chase.”  . . . . .

 "Deborah Brignac will continue to lead operations as SVP of ALAW West Coast, following nearly 20 years in that role at CRC for JPMorgan Chase."    

Read more at:  Albertelli Law ALAW Acquirers JPMorgan Chase Subsidiary CRC
 More Information:
  1. Deborah Brignac's Changing Signature

    stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/.../deborah-brignacs-changing-signature/
    Jun 10, 2011 - Who is Deborah Brignac? BREAKING: Sarah Palin, Your New AZ Home Robo-Signed… Again, Meet Deborah Brignac.
  2. [PDF]

    Deborah Brignac Forgeries - MSFraud.org

    www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/Brignac-Forgeries.pdf
    RECORDING REQUESTED BY - @7-8037772. CALTFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY *ft: of”: Feed .00. , a e O. " AND WHEN RECORDED MA||_ To ...
  3. [PDF]

    Brignac_Deborah.pdf - What Signature

    whatsignature.com/files/Brignac_Deborah.pdf
    Apr 5, 2010 - K~Q§£rsfao> "C/. Deborah Bn'gnac, Vice Presfdflf ... Debm'ah Brignac, Vice Freud g. g. , mwfisnammm ... Deborah Brignac, Vica/Pr/ dent. U.
  4. [PDF]

    Brignac, Deborah.1 - What Signature

    whatsignature.com/files/Brignac_Deborah.1.pdf
    Nov 13, 2010 - Deborah Brignac, "Vice President" of California Reconveyance ... recently obtained an image of your Brignac "signature" along with all ninety ...
 

Monday, January 27, 2014

JPMorgan's Dimon gets 74% pay hike despite legal woes - Jan. 24, 2014

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

JPMorgan
Chase boss Jamie Dimon got a 74% pay hike for last year, even though the
bank was forced to pay billions in fines and settlements last year.

In a government filing Friday, JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500)
said Dimon would receive $18.5 million worth of restricted stock that
will vest over the next three years as his 2013 bonus. That's up from a
$10 million bonus for 2012. His $1.5 million base salary remains
unchanged.



 Read more  JPMorgan's Dimon gets 74% pay hike despite legal woes - Jan. 24, 2014

Mike Rooney Law Office | Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States







Mike Rooney Law Office | Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

SHENANIGANS ABOUND -- WAMU'S ENDORSEMENT OF THE NOTES



Thousands of Washington Mutual Bank FA (WMBFA)  mortgage Notes were endorsed in blank within days of when their mortgage loans closed, in the Note Review Department within WAMU's Secondary Delivery Operations.  Thousands of WMBFA notes were stamp endorsed in blank allegedly by Cynthia Riley, a.k.a. Cindy Riley, as Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.  

  • Did Cynthia Riley actually endorse the notes?
  • Or did robo-stampers endorse the Notes?
  • Was Riley in a position of authority to endorse Notes at the time your Note was endorsed?
  • Was Riley an employee of WaMu or its affiliates overseeing Note Review at the time your Note was stamp endorsed in blank?  
  •  Is this another bank scheme to steal your home?

Thousands of Washington Mutual Bank FA (WMBFA)  borrowers have learned through various discovery methods to include customer requests and subpoenas that the Note for their mortgage loans were at some time, immediately after their mortgage loans closed, were stamp endorsed in blank by Cynthia Riley, a.k.a. Cindy Riley, as Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.  See the example below photographed from a WMBFA Note that closed in late 2007. To see other examples go to this document.


"The Deposition of Cynthia Riley" reveals more shenanigans by WAMU and JPMorgan Chase Bank and raises more legal questions.  Riley was deposed in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A v. Eduardo Orazco, case No: 09-29997 CA (11), Fla. 11th Circuit Court, taken January 15, 2013 in Jacksonville, Florida.  This blogger obtained the deposition through PACER as recorded in the US Bankruptcy Court in San Jose, CA in the adversarial proceedings of James Madison Kelley v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA.  This deposition is a matter of public record.

Riley had given two prior depositions, one in Florida (Tavares) and in an unidentified case in New York.    On August 29, 2011 as Cynthia A. Riley she gave a deposition in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor Washington Mutual Bank v. Sherone D. Waisome & Verna Waisome; Lake County, Florida Circuit Court Case No. 2009 CA 005717.  This Riley Deposition was filed under seal on December 8, 2011.This deposition in Chase v. Orazco was her third deposition. (Pages 5, 6)

Cynthia A. "Cindy" Riley claims to have been "with Chase or Chase affiliates for 25 years."  She included prior institutions that Chase or WAMU had acquired. (Page 4).  She stated that she had worked in the Secondary Delivery Operations at Washington Mutual Bank whose purpose was to prepare, endorse and deliver loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, Ocwen, Bayview, GMC, and private investors who bought the loans.  (Source:  pages 23, 36, 39, 41, 42, 47 and 48.)

Riley testified under oath that began her banking career in approximately 1987 with American Savings Bank in Stockton, California as a supervisor in the records area. [Note that the bank was not founded until 12/27/1988.]  She supervised a team of employees responsible for tracking credit files as they were shipped in and out. (P. 12,13).  After one year she became a trainer under the supervision of Karen Moran.  After another year or year and a half she became a supervisor in the customer service call center (P. 16) after which she became a tax and insurance supervisor (P. 17).  Then she moved to purchase servicing, a team that coordinated the service transfers and bringing them on board to the servicing systems.  Her job "as purchase servicer was to get those loans on board." (p. 18)  Riley was involved in Purchase & Servicing until November 2006 (p. 22).  

Riley 's servicing responsibilities evolved over time. "I stayed in a department.  It was -- became secondary delivery operations.  The purchase and movement of whole loan sales and so on occurred in that department. (p 23).  "Then I took on, in Stockton, the note review unit and was also involved in special projects outside of those functions." (p 24).  She worked as to the movement of whole loan sales meaning that the loan file was sold along with the servicing.  The files would be collected.  The collateral would be collected and shipped to servicers, purchasers of that.

Riley indicated that she was involved with note review in Stockton, supervising the unit that performed note review. (p 25)  "We got electronic data. . . And we had the note."  The origination centers input the electronic data.  The notes were endorsed in Stockton and shipped to the custodian in the same building. (p 28)  When pressed she stated she was "the supervisor for that unit sometime 2001. (p 29) She reviewed data and endorsed the notes in blank with an endorsement stamp bearing the signature of Jess Alamanza (VP secondary delivery operation) on the endorsement stamp. (p 30, 31)  Riley supervised a 10 - 12 person team using the endorsement stamp. "around 2002, 2004 to then." (p 31, 32)  Riley indicated that she was not personally endorsing those notes nor was she herself using the Jess Alamanza stamp to endorse the notes. (p 33)   Prior to June 2004 when the operation moved from Stockton, California to Jacksonville, Florida the Jeff Alamanza stamp was used to endorse notes at the Stockton facility.

Riley did not remember when WaMu took over American Savings as "it was seamless to me.  I had the same job functions." (p 26)  [This occurred in October 1997.] The notes that were originated were brought to Stockton (p 26).

In January 2004 Washington Mutual Bank FA [WMBFA] acquired Washington Mutual Bank [WAMU]. Then on April 4, 2004 WMBFA changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu).  In June 2004 Riley left WaMu in Stockton and relocated to WaMu in Jacksonville, FLorida.  Her manager 1st VP Brenda Brendle had requested Riley make the move; Brendle does not work for Chase.  WaMu Stockton closed. WaMu moved its headquarters from Stockton, California to Henderson, Nevada.

Circa June 2004 Riley was promoted to Vice President and served as the department manager for Secondary Delivery Operations for WaMu in Jacksonville, Florida. As department manager she supervised 30 to 40 people from June 2004 to November 2006.(p 37, 38). The department "delivered on the deals that were made by secondary marketing. "The bulk of our work was sold to Freddie and Fannie." (p 41)  Other entities included Lehman, Ocwen,  Specifically between June 2004 and November 2006 Riley managed the WaMu Note Review Unit in Jacksonville, Florida, at which employees reviewed the notes for accuracy, endorsed the notes, then moved them to the custodian.  ( p 46)

Riley's staff of 10 - 12 people in the note review department endorsed the notes using the facsimile stamp (p 48). actually "multiple stamps, nine to ten stamps" bearing Riley's signature.  Riley provided her signature to the bank for the stamps. ( p 49).

Security procedures were established for safekeeping the stamps.  "The stamps were in a secured location requiring card access only by the collateral note review people."  "they were in a locked cabinet.  The lead manager of that unit would unlock the cabinets.  The lead manager of that unit would unlock the cabinets.  In the morning the stamps would be checked out on a log. They would be used as the representative needed to do during the day.  At the end of the night they were checked back in and logged back in to the secured cabinet.  And, again, the room that the note review occurred in was a secured access only."  "I had a manager over that team.  She had a lead." (p 50) Riley did not know what the process was for making the stamps.  She never inspected the stamps to ensure that the signatures on the 9 - 10 stamps were different or the same. (p 56)

Riley stated that once the notes were endorsed in the note review department that they then sent the Notes to the custodian who stored them in the vault.  One vault was in Jacksonville, Florida.  For a short period of time after June 2004 notes were shipped to Stockton.  Other notes were shipped to Vernon Hills, Illinois. "A vault was built in Florence, South Carolina.  (p 53)

Employees of the note review department stamped the notes within days after closing the loan as a matter of business practice.  (p 83).


Riley attested that she "never put an endorsement stamp on the notes." (P 57, 58)  Her team endorsed 200 to 300 notes per day of the 2,000 to 3,000 notes that she stated were coming in per day. The team compared certain data on the note to what was in the system. (p 58) 

Riley managed her team to productivity. They also had quality control checks.  Pat Eyles was the manager of the note review unit; her lead was Karen Woodward. (p 68)

In November 2006 Riley left [was laid off from] the Secondary Delivery Operations Department. (p 52) when the department in Jacksonville closed and moved to Florence, South Carolina.  Riley did not relocate to Florence; she stayed in Jacksonville. (p 60, 61) From November 2006 to about November 2007 Riley "did project management work for about 12 months . . . involved with was helping to move the custodial vault from Stockton  to Florence, South Carolina."   (p 62)  She coordinated meetings and activities.  {The deposition was murky as to whether or not she was an actual employee of WaMu or a contractor for the period November 2006 to November 2007 or what she did between November 2007 and January 2009.)  No secondary delivery operations were going on in Jacksonville by the end of 2006.  (p 64)


Riley never supervised any employees or oversaw endorsement of notes in Florence, South Carolina. Riley's counterparts performed those functions in Florence, South Carolina . (p 78)  She did not herself endorse notes with a stamp. (p 79)  Florence had its own secondary delivery operation and note review department.

In the Riley Deposition under oath and penalty of perjury, Cynthia Riley stated that she was laid off by Washington Mutual Bank (a.k.a. WMBFA) in November 2006.  It seems that she was no longer a vice president of either Washington Mutual Bank or Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. at the time that blank endorsements would have been made on the mortgage note in question.  (Pages 64 & 65 of the Riley Deposition.)  

Legal questions abound as the stamped blank endorsements on the WAMU and WMBFA notes produced by JPMorgan Chase in countless foreclosure cases could not have been made nor authorized by Riley on mortgages that closed after November 2006.  

Are these Notes endorsed in Cynthia Riley's name after November 2006 fake or a possible act of  fraud on the Court in foreclosure lawsuits across America?  

Does JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. have any standing whatsoever?
How is it that thousands of WaMu and WMBFA notes made after November 2006 came to be endorsed by Cynthia Riley when she was no longer employed as a Vice President in WaMu's Secondary Delivery Operations or Note Review?  Did WaMu ship the endorsement stamps bearing Riley's signature  to the Florence facility where unidentified individuals continued using them to endorse WaMu notes? Note that per her deposition that in November 2006 Riley was "laid off and subsequently got a job back with JP Morgan" in January 2009 working in the default division in MIS, management information systems, where she provided information to the auditing agencies (Moody's, S&P, Fitch.)  (p 65). Riley was not a vice president of Washington Mutual Bank or Washington Mutual Bank FA in September 2008 when the FDIC took over WaMu and sold the assets to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.  As of the date of the deposition Riley was still at MIS at JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. (p 67) 

TIMELINE 
  • 1987 or thereabouts Cynthia Riley allegedly went to work for American Savings in Stockton, CA.
  • December 27, 1988 American Savings was established and headquartered in Stockton, CA
  • October 1, 1997 Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.acquired American Savings.
  • April 4, 2004 Washington Mutual Bank FA changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank after WMBFA acquired it in January 2004; it became known as WaMu and moved its headquarters from Stockton, CA to Henderson, NV.
  • June 2004 WaMu promoted and transferred Cynthia Riley, as a VP of Secondary Loan Operations in the Note Review Department, from Stockton, CA to Jacksonville, Florida.
  • November 2006 WaMu laid off Cynthia Riley and moved its Secondary Loan Operations and the Note Review department from Jacksonville, FL to Florence, SC.
  • November 2006 - circa November 2007 Riley did contract project work for WaMu; she was no longer Vice President at Washington Mutual Bank or affiliates.  Riley was not transferred nor was she ever employed by WaMu in Florence, SC.

  • As of November 2006 Riley was never again employed in the Note Review Department of WaMu nor at JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA.

  • November 2006 to about November 2007 Riley "did project management work for about 12 months . . . involved with was helping to move the custodial vault from Stockton  to Florence, South Carolina."   (p 62)  She coordinated meetings and activities. 

  • September 25, 2008 the FDIC as Receivor took over WaMu and on that same date entered into a whole bank purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • November 2007 - December 2008 Cynthia Riley's employer, if any, is unidentified in the Riley Deposition.
  • January 2009 JPMorgan Chase Bank NA hired Cynthia Riley to work in default operations in Management Systems Operations.



Consult with a qualified attorney about your situation and how 
this may impact your foreclosure cases.