#JPMC

  Thank you, JPMC for giving me no choice but to put another lawyer on the payroll. LOVELY.



Chase what Matters?  ugh...No thanks.

#JPMC Please Meet Fannie Mae LOVE YOU

 The lovely women at Fannie Mae agrees that we should lock all of you in a room, and sort this out, yes...the verdict is in JPMorgan Chase, they said "this is just stupid"  I told them, well...it is YOUR loan...wanna help me out?? "OMG, 16 months, they are just stupid" "Can't have it both ways"

BAM. Good Luck.

Here are the guidelines from Fannie Mae's site, for your informational viewing. Enjoy.
*******************************************************************************

The Subservicing Option for Fannie Mae Lenders
For a variety of business reasons, a Fannie Mae lender may elect to have a subservicer fulfill some or all of its mortgage loan servicing obligations specified in the Fannie Mae Servicing Guide.
Subservicing Overview
Subservicing is a servicer’s use of another organization to perform some or all servicing functions on behalf of the servicer, while the servicer remains contractually responsible to the noteholder for all function(s). The subservicer and the servicer may or may not be affiliated companies. Subservicing does not refer to the use of a computer service bureau for accounting and reporting functions or to the transfer of servicing from the originating lender to another servicer.
Subservicing Benefits
Subservicing allows originating mortgage lenders to establish a direct-delivery relationship with Fannie Mae without the resource and operational commitment mortgage servicing requires. It also avoids the sale of the servicing asset to another servicer or investor, allowing the originating lender to leverage the opportunity for enhanced borrower relationships through the ongoing borrower communications that servicing entails. Finally, servicers may find it economically beneficial to use subservicers by retaining a share of servicing fees paid by Fannie Mae to the servicer in excess of fees paid out to the subservicer.
Highlights of Subservicing Requirements

The servicer and any subservicer both must be Fannie Mae–approved servicers in good standing.

The lender does not have to submit a subservicing arrangement for Fannie Mae approval. The servicer and subservicer negotiate the servicing fees and terms of the subservicing agreement.

Each subservicer must establish custodial accounts for all Fannie Mae mortgages it subservices for a master servicer. If the subservicing arrangement is a new one, the subservicer must submit the applicable Letters of Authorization (Forms 1013 and 1014) to Fannie Mae. Accounts must be separate from any other accounts it maintains for mortgages it services directly for Fannie Mae or any other investor.

The servicer’s written arrangement with any subservicer must acknowledge Fannie Mae’s right to rescind recognition of the subservicing arrangement if Fannie Mae decides to transfer the servicer’s portfolio for any reason.

The servicer must confirm any subservicing arrangements via Form 582 on an annual basis.

The servicer and its subservicers may negotiate the servicing fees that the subservicers will receive. The servicer’s and the subservicer’s rights to receive the servicing fee will be terminated should Fannie Mae have to transfer the servicer’s portfolio for any reason. In some cases, Fannie Mae may transfer the portfolio to a new servicer that is willing to continue the existing subservicing arrangement. If the servicer does not retain a servicing spread, however, most transferee servicers will have no incentive for agreeing to continue the arrangement (or, at least, to continue it without reducing the subservicer’s servicing fees).

Jamie Dimon and a Stellar Decision Making Team

Loss Stains JPMorgan’s Chief, One of Banking’s Top Risk Managers

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG

Jim Young/ReutersJamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.

Days before revelations of JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion trading loss rocked Wall Street, the company’s always-confident chief executive, Jamie Dimon, was his usual exuberant self.
When the bosses of six of the largest banks gathered at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in downtown Manhattan to meet with a top Fed governor, the others used the underground garage and avoided the cameras. Mr. Dimon came and went through the front door, and even chatted with a CNBC reporter.
It was a stance familiar to Mr. Dimon. He had steered his bank successfully through the financial crisis, and was known as Wall Street’s best risk manager, not to mention the most influential banker in the country when it came to writing new regulations in Washington.
He was so well regarded by the administration that the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was even tapped to appear at the bank’s board meeting back in 2009 before the appearance was scuttled. More recently, Mr. Dimon has visited Washington numerous times, seeing both allies and sparring partners like Representative Barney Frank.
Now, though, Mr. Dimon’s reputation and possibly his influence have been cut down to size.
The trading loss disclosed late Thursday is a rare misstep by a man who prides himself on having his fingers on the pulse of his 270,000-employee company, and it suggests his vaunted confidence edged toward hubris.
Mr. Dimon said in an interview on Friday that he got a call from the company’s chief risk officer about the trading problem in late April. He had been briefed about once a quarter on the complicated credit derivatives position and more recently had been looking into the size of the credit bet after press reports in early April.
“Of course I was angry,” he said in an interview Friday. “I said, ’Stop, let’s learn and get the other people involved,’ ” he recalled.
“We were meeting constantly,” he added. “Believe me, for the past couple of weeks, it was the primary thing going on in my world.”

In a statement, Mr. Frank said that JPMorgan “has lost, in this one set of transactions, five times the amount they claim financial regulation is costing them.”And that reality may cost Mr. Dimon in Washington. He has been marshaling the firm’s considerable resources to help sway the regulators who are writing many of the rules in the Dodd-Frank banking reform bill passed in 2010. So far this year, JPMorgan has spent $1.92 million on lobbying. In 2010, it topped the industry in lobbying dollars with $7.41 million.
Mr. Dimon has also been a frequent visitor to Washington to further make his case to lawmakers. According to the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, he has made 10 visits to regulators over the past two years to discuss Dodd-Frank, principally at the Treasury Department.
Known as a blunt executive not afraid to raise his voice, Mr. Dimon has been one of the few bankers who still commanded respect from analysts and investors as well as regulators. Mr. Dimon routinely grills executives to make sure they are prepared for a variety of contingencies, according to employees at the New York bank.
New York born, Mr. Dimon was the heir apparent at Citigroup, where he was mentored by Sanford I. Weill. But, in 1998, he abruptly left in a management shake-up by Mr. Weill. It was that move that catapulted him to Chicago, where he took over the top job at Bank One in 2000, then a midsize bank considered a basket case. Under his leadership, the bank’s health improved sharply, and he merged it with JPMorgan Chase in 2004.
Since then, JPMorgan Chase’s shares have vastly outperformed those of troubled giants like Bank of America and Citigroup. In 2011, Mr. Dimon’s overall compensation totaled more than $23 million, an 11 percent increase from 2010.
Mr. Dimon was also known for warning how dangerous one misstep could be. In April 2007, just as the first signs were emerging of what would become the subprime mortgage crisis, Mr. Dimon had a message for 200 new managing directors assembled at the company’s headquarters at 270 Park Avenue.
“One deal doesn’t make or break us,” he said, according to one banker who was present. “But the implications of one bad deal on our franchise are significant.”
And while the mortgage mess helped take down Bear Stearns and Lehman, once formidable rivals, JPMorgan Chase largely sidestepped the worst.
So while other bank executives emerged from the 2008 market turmoil more chastened, Mr. Dimon became more confident, emboldened by his successful navigation of the financial crisis, rival bank executives said.
Former JPMorgan employees said that Mr. Dimon’s swagger was infectious. “It made everyone more confident,” a former JPMorgan trader said. “Maybe too confident because there might not be as much neurotic double-checking of everything.”
Just weeks before the blowup, that confidence was evident. Doug Braunstein, JPMorgan’s chief financial officer, dismissed concerns about the trading that would later blow up in the bank’s chief investment office. In an interview, Mr. Braunstein said he was “very comfortable with the positions we have.”
Under Mr. Dimon’s leadership, the chief investment office — which was responsible for the outsize credit bet — was retooled to make larger bets with the bank’s money, a former employee said. Bank executives said the chief investment office expanded after JPMorgan Chase’s 2008 acquisition of Washington Mutual, which added riskier securities to the company’s portfolio. The idea behind the strategy was to offset that risk.
One part of that expanded strategy — the losing credit derivatives bet — was starting to go against the bank by early April, but it wasn’t until after quarterly earnings were released on April 13 that the magnitude of the problem became apparent.
Immediately, Mr. Dimon assembled an eight-person team under John Hogan, the company’s chief risk officer, to assess the risks and defuse what had become a ticking time bomb. “I said, ‘Let’s go get the A-Team.’ ”
While he was aware of the broader intent, he said he was not aware of the intricacies of the complicated and ultimately dangerous bet until then.
Mr. Dimon has been a prominent critic of elements of the Volcker Rule, which would impose strict limits on the kind of trading risks banks are permitted to undertake with their own money. The measure, passed in 2010, is now being completed.
With a seat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, Mr. Dimon had a strong voice in the rule-making process.
Now Mr. Dimon, a skilled master of relations with the media, is having to do some fancy footwork. He taped a segment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Wednesday, one day before he revealed the disastrous trade. On Friday, he went back to apologize again for the losses. In recent days, he has been characteristically blunt but unusually contrite.
“We never said we never make mistakes,” Mr. Dimon added Friday. “Hopefully, the smaller the better, but this one is not so small.” Despite the trading blowup, many of the same regulators Mr. Dimon has tangled with over the years were quick to defend him.
Sheila Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said “even very good management can miss stuff.” She added that Mr. Dimon did have “a very stellar record of good decision-making.”

**************************************************************************

Sure, stellar record of good decision making....really spectacular. 

Chase Stops Suing Consumers Over Debt

In a move that will most certainly not be permanent, JPMorgan Chase is reported to have stopped suing consumers over debts.
The American Banker is reporting that almost overnight, suits to collect debts by Chase have nearly stopped.
A rumor exists that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is looking into issues surrounding Chase consumer debts. Those actions, if true, may result in actions like we’ve seen over other robo-signing issues.
The American banker article states:

In a sign that Chase acted with urgency, numerous regional collections teams were fired in mid-2011 at the order of the New York bank’s headquarters, according to people familiar with the events.
“Nobody told anybody anything. It was very traumatic,” says a former Chase attorney who asked to remain anonymous because of a nondisclosure agreement. “I think there were investigations by the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and other government entities. If we’re not there, we can’t be interviewed.” – Source

What is not known is if Chase has been or will be selling off these debts to debt buyer for collections and passing the buck on to someone else to deal with.
An interesting turn of events for sure.

Get Out of Debt Guy


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Interesting....but not true, they are suing me....but refuse to acknowledge that I exist. So......off to work I go, whistling all the way :)

OMG Chase Employees Admit to $4.8 million tax fraud

Chase employees admit to $4.8 million tax fraud

Former bank workers used customers’ identities to file fraudulent tax returns

By Ashley Post

August 14, 2012 • 

Three former JPMorgan Chase & Co. employees will soon pay the price for trying to get away with identity theft.
Yesterday, three women—Katherine Torres, 52; Rosalind Smith, 41; and Judith Fulgencio, 32—who worked at two separate New York Chase branches pleaded guilty to using the identities of some of the bank’s Puerto Rican customers to file fraudulent tax returns. Manhattan federal prosecutors charged all three women in January with orchestrating two tax fraud schemes between 2006 and 2007. Their schemes amounted to $4.8 million in losses for the Internal Revenue Service and the state.
The women face up to five years in prison.
Read Thomson Reuters for more about the tax fraud.
Meanwhile, other banks continue to be embroiled in various legal scuffles. Just last week, news broke that a proposed $7.2 billion settlement between a class of retailers and Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and more than a dozen major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc.—would continue to move forward. The plaintiffs claim the credit card companies and banks conspired to fix credit and debit card use fees. If approved, the deal would be the largest antitrust settlement in U.S. history.

Hostile Attack

My therapist says #JPMC has put me under hostile attack.

Agreed.

News Crew will be ready if eviction comes. Oh, and loopholes are good, looks like there are three, I've decided turn about is fair play.

No one really likes to be ignored. Lawyers have all filed the proper paperwork.


Good Luck

Mortgagees See Benefits in Bank Plan

 (not me ofcourse, but then JPMC would HAVE TO TALK WITH ME!!! RIGHT?!?!?!)

 

Mortgagees See Benefits In Bank Plan

By SHAILA DEWAN

Published: August 29, 2012

More than 130,000 homeowners have received $10.5 billion in relief under the national settlement over foreclosure abuses, according to a preliminary report issued Wednesday by the settlement monitor.

Under the settlement in February, reached in response to evidence that the foreclosure process had been riddled with fraud, the country’s five largest mortgage servicers promised $25 billion to help stem the tide of homeowner losses. About $20 billion of that was to be in relief to homeowners, primarily through various forms of debt forgiveness. Although it may seem that banks have already satisfied more than half of their commitment, only a portion of the $10.5 billion will count, because of the way the relief is tallied.

The banks — Ally Financial, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — reported that the bulk of the help so far had come in the form of short sales, in which lenders allow homeowners to sell for less than what they owe. Many homeowners have been stuck in their homes because they have lost so much value. The banks reported $8.7 billion in debt written off through short sales.

But far less progress has been seen under the central provision of the settlement, reducing the principal owed on homes. Banks reported a total of only $750 million in principal reduction, and Bank of America, which has the highest obligations under the settlement, reported none.

Still, Joseph A. Smith, the independent monitor, said, “I think this is a good first step.”

When it was announced, the settlement, initially described as $26 billion, was expected to help roughly one million homeowners get their mortgage debt reduced by lenders or obtain refinancing at lower rates. An additional 750,000 who lost their homes to foreclosure from September 2008 to the end of 2011 were to receive checks for about $2,000.

The information in Wednesday’s report was submitted by the banks and was not verified. In November, the banks will make state-by-state reports, and in the spring, the monitor will submit his first review of their performance to the courts.

Short sales are among the simpler forms of relief to provide because banks already have systems in place to handle them and homeowners who want to sell are motivated to seek them out. Principal reduction, on the other hand, requires banks to engage delinquent borrowers who may or may not be able to pay even a reduced amount, and for willing borrowers, it requires paperwork as well as a successful three-month trial period before banks can count them toward the settlement.

The settlement is aimed at encouraging principal reduction through a series of quotas and credits, and banks earn more toward their commitments through principal reduction than through short sales, which earn at most 40 cents on the dollar. So even though homeowners have received $10.5 billion in benefits, that does not mean that $10.5 billion of the settlement has been satisfied. Those whose principal was reduced got an average of $106,000 off their balance, substantially more than some critics of the agreement predicted.

Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Bank of America, said the bank had made significant progress after the period covered by the report, March 1 through June 30. As of Aug. 21, he said, the bank had granted $600 million in principal reduction and had tripled the number of households in the trial period, to 16,000.

“We’re confident that we’re going to meet or exceed all of our commitments under this agreement within the first year,” even though the bank has three years to do so, Mr. Frahm said.

In California, some 43,000 homeowners have received relief from the five banks in the form of principal reduction on their mortgages or home equity loans, short sales and lowered interest rates, among other measures. In New York, 2,160 homeowners have been helped.

Shaun Donovan, the secretary of housing and urban development, said the settlement would provide “the most significant principal reduction that we’ve seen since the housing crisis began.” He said it was already demonstrating that debt forgiveness was a useful tool that did not lead to widespread default by homeowners who could still pay their mortgages, and said banks were increasingly using it as part of their loan modifications.

The progress report also provided a breakdown by state and subject of some 1,400 complaints already received by the monitor through a Web site, primarily about faulty modifications or failure to modify, or about the banks’ customer service.

Asked if she had seen improvement, Marietta Rodriguez, the national director of homeownership and lending for NeighborWorks America, an affordable-housing group, said bank behavior varied widely, with some affiliates reporting continuing problems like lost documents or poor communication and others saying banks were more receptive to modifying loans.

Ms. Rodriguez applauded the monitor for issuing the report. “I’m pleased that results are being shared broadly in a report like this,” she said. “I think it’s a positive sign that this is real, that they’re holding servicers accountable to results.”

#JPMC Find that Paperwork Yet?

Wells Fargos Take on JPMorgan Chase

Went to Wells Fargo this morning to cash a check...their eyes were all a gape when I told them about how special my bank is... they seem pretty darn friendly over there.


When you get a "that doesn't surprise me at all, you are dealing with JPMorgan Chase" I have to wonder....

WTF

is going on???????????????

Has everyone lost their minds???

Fox in the Hen House #Jpmc #JamieDimon #FederalReserve

Bankers an asset on Fed's regional bank boards -Kocherlakota

Analysis & Opinion

By David Bailey

MINOT, N.D. | Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:00pm EDT

Aug 15 (Reuters) - Allowing bankers to serve on the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks poses no conflict of interest and indeed gives policymakers access to critical economic information as they weigh future action, a top Fed official said on Wednesday.
Members of the regional Fed boards, bankers or otherwise, have no say in the Fed's supervision of banks, Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota said in remarks prepared for delivery to a group of businesspeople in Minot, North Dakota.
Kocherlakota did not air his views on monetary policy or the economic outlook in his prepared text.
His remarks come against the backdrop of proposed U.S. legislation to bar bankers from serving on the boards of the Fed's 12 regional banks. The bill's sponsors say the practice poses dangerous conflicts of interest that are highlighted by regulators' failure to detect a huge trading loss at JPMorgan Chase & Co earlier this year.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's chief executive, is a board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which regulates his bank. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent and one of the bill's sponsors, at the time called Dimon's position a clear example of "the fox guarding the hen house."
"Supervisory matters are not a part of the business of the board of directors," said Kocherlakota, who this week is taking his board - including three bankers - on a fact-finding tour of North Dakota's booming oil patch.
Bankers' participation on the regional Fed board is valuable because they can speak to credit conditions and general business conditions, "precisely the kind of information that policymakers need to do their job, whether under extraordinary or normal economic conditions," Kocherlakota said.

#JPMC #FANNIEMAE #COMMUNICATE

Lawyers all drafted up documents so the bank will talk with me.
Thank you, JPMC for continuing to make me spend money to just talk with you.


We all know what you are doing Chase, you are trying to drowned people out, because normal people do not have the resources to fight you.


I may not have the resources, but Fannie Mae is quite concerned...gosh, wonder why???


LOVE YOU

JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit #Hamp

JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Continues
By Matt O'Donnell

A federal judge has ruled that JPMorgan Chase must face a class action lawsuit that claims it defrauded New Jersey residents who applied for the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, a federal program designed to help homeowners in danger of defaulting on their homes.

Chase opted into HAMP through Fannie Mae shortly after the plan was implemented in 2009. The plan is designed to lower homeowners' monthly mortgage payments to sustainable levels, but New Jersey homeowners say they never got the benefits of the program. Instead, they say, Chase took the federal money designed to bail out homeowners and systematically rejected HAMP applications based on false claims that homeowners did not provide the appropriate documentation, even though many homeowners claim they did.

Lead Plaintiff Johny Thomas claims in the JPMorgan Chase mortgage fraud class action lawsuit that in October 2009, he and his wife were struggling on their home mortgage loan and requested a HAMP modification. Later than month, he claims Chase sent them a letter telling them they were eligible, but that they should sign up and pay for a trial-period plan.

Thomas says he and his wife made these trial payments for about six months, until they received a letter from Chase stating their application was declined because it did not meet an unspecified requirement, even though Thomas says he met all the requirements necessary. Chase then refused to apply several of the payments Thomas made before foreclosing on their home on August 2, 2010.

A second Plaintiff, Johnny Fields, makes the same allegations in the Chase HAMP class action lawsuit, saying that, just like Thomas, he applied for a HAMP modification on his mortgage in December 2009 and made trial payments. Just as in Thomas's case, Chase eventually declined his application, citing inadequate documents, which Fields says he field. A year later Chase sent him a notice of intent to foreclose.

Thomas and fields filed separate class action lawsuits but later joined forces in a consolidated case against JPMorgan Chase in February, charging 10 separate claims. Last week, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed eight of them, but ruled that JPMorgan Chase must stand trial for counts of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and engaging in negligent misrepresentation.

The JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit case is Johny Thomas and Johnny Fields, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chase Home Finance, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-08993, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Read more at http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/1345-jpmorgan-chase-mortgage-fraud-class-action-lawsuit-continues#RQF077mCeE7fH7Dt.99

JPMorgan Chase Foreclosure Lawsuit: Wrongful Death

Harry Engel's Death Caused By JPMorgan Chase Foreclosure, Lawsuit Claims

Mon, 2012-07-09 09:32 — Mortgage News Ticker  A Texas woman is suing JPMorgan Chase, claiming that the bank’s eviction caused the heart attack of her husband, a retired minister.
Wanda Jo Engel alleges that JPMorgan’s wrongful home foreclosure and eviction created so much stress that it "overwhelmed" her husband, Harry Engel, ultimately triggering his death. She and her children, Steve, Debra and Josh, are suing the bank for wrongful death and wrongful foreclosure and eviction among other claims, according to a lawsuit filed in Dallas County Court...

Please read the full article on The Huffington Post

 

 *******************************************************************

 

I can understand completely how this happens. Chase doesn't acknowledge me when I call up, but are suing me as owner of my home, however the stress takes its tole.

 

I've signed up for a boxing class . I'm now more angry than hurt

Oh, and I'm not going anywhere :)

 

Someone has to stop this maddness, thinking a trip to the big apple might be in order, what would Jamie Dimon say about all of this?

 

My mind wonders.

The Beat Goes On #JPMC Sued

Chase Sued AGAIN Over Mortgage Modifications Gone Wrong

Posted on May 6, 2010

Three frustrated homeowners in New York City are suing JPMorgan Chase over the bank’s failure to permanently modify their mortgages under the Obama administration’s plan to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
The complaint, filed in federal court in New York, says the plaintiffs, who are represented by attorneys with the nonprofit Urban Justice Center, relied on promises by Chase that they could have their loans modified if they made reduced payments per the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Despite making payments on time, they’ve received foreclosure threats but no modifications.
One of the plaintiffs, Alex Lam, a 35-year-old restaurant manager, alleges Chase told him to actually stop making payments in order to be eligible for help. In early 2009, Lam contacted Washington Mutual (since absorbed by Chase) about a modification after his adjustable-rate mortgage blew up in his face. He was told he didn’t qualify for help because he was current on his payments.
“Mr. Lam was specifically told that if he stopped making payments for several months, he could be considered for a modification,” the says the complaint.
The next big surprise came in December, when, after making trial payments of $1,568 for the previous six months, Lam was told he owed the bank $12,000. When he protested, Chase relented and told Lam to apply once again for a mod, this time under HAMP. He made his payments until March, when Chase told him he’d failed HAMP’s opaque “Net Present Value” test, meaning the bank determined the investors who owned the loan would make more money via foreclosure than modification. Lam alleges Chase used bogus inputs for the NPV test and that Chase refuses to show its work.
Lam called the situation “very upsetting” in an interview with HuffPost. “I trusted them because they’re a big bank. I did whatever they asked me to.”
HuffPost asked Lam what he wanted from suing Chase.
Three frustrated homeowners in New York City are suing JPMorgan Chase over the bank’s failure to permanently modify their mortgages under the Obama administration’s plan to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
The complaint, filed in federal court in New York, says the plaintiffs, who are represented by attorneys with the nonprofit Urban Justice Center, relied on promises by Chase that they could have their loans modified if they made reduced payments per the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Despite making payments on time, they’ve received foreclosure threats but no modifications.
One of the plaintiffs, Alex Lam, a 35-year-old restaurant manager, alleges Chase told him to actually stop making payments in order to be eligible for help. In early 2009, Lam contacted Washington Mutual (since absorbed by Chase) about a modification after his adjustable-rate mortgage blew up in his face. He was told he didn’t qualify for help because he was current on his payments.
“Mr. Lam was specifically told that if he stopped making payments for several months, he could be considered for a modification,” the says the complaint.
The next big surprise came in December, when, after making trial payments of $1,568 for the previous six months, Lam was told he owed the bank $12,000. When he protested, Chase relented and told Lam to apply once again for a mod, this time under HAMP. He made his payments until March, when Chase told him he’d failed HAMP’s opaque “Net Present Value” test, meaning the bank determined the investors who owned the loan would make more money via foreclosure than modification. Lam alleges Chase used bogus inputs for the NPV test and that Chase refuses to show its work.
Lam called the situation “very upsetting” in an interview with HuffPost. “I trusted them because they’re a big bank. I did whatever they asked me to.”
HuffPost asked Lam what he wanted from suing Chase.
Story continues below
“Just to get a modification, that’s all I’m asking for,” he said. “Since day one, that’s all I’m asking for.”
HAMP lawsuits have been flying. Last week a 91-year-old veteran of three wars named Peter Ruplenas sued Bank of America over mortgage mod malfeasance in West Virginia.
In April, Faiz and Khadija Jahani of California sued Chase for reasons similar to Lam’s — the bank told them to stop making payments to qualify for help, then foreclosed. A similar case is brewing in Seattle.
Homeowners are supposed to be eligible for HAMP mods if they’re having trouble making monthly payments, owe less than $729,750, took out the loan before January 2009, and if their payment on their first mortgage is more than 31 percent of their income. In theory, if homeowners make reduced payments (typically $500 cheaper) for three months, they are put in “permanent” modifications that last for five years.
But the banks voluntarily participating in HAMP have given permanent mods to just 230,000 homeowners in the program’s first year, a far cry from the three to four million officials said HAMP would help. Meanwhile, frustrated homeowners’ stories of lost paperwork, dishonesty, and incompetence by banks are piling up.
A Chase spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit.

A Piece of JPMorgan...? Gotta Fight for It. 20% Can Be Yours.

Class-Action Lawyers Fight For Piece Of JPMorgan Case

The strange world of class-action securities litigation has entered a new realm in the lawsuit over JPMorgan Chase’s multibillion-dollar trading losses. The New York bank is still trying to calculate how much money its “London whale” lost by betting against, oh, every hedge fund in the universe. Meanwhile class-action lawyers are trashing each other in an effort to grab a bigger piece of the inevitable settlement when JPMorgan figures out what happened.
Alison Frankel at Reuters covered the infighting earlier this week. Two firms at the top of the class-action trade, Grant & Eisenhofer and Robbins Geller, have proposed very different approaches toward representing shareholders who were unlucky enough to buy stock in JPMorgan when the world thought Jamie Dimon was smart and sold after the world discovered he wasn’t so smart. G&E represents a collection of state pension funds that think the swindle began back in February 2010 — which, conveniently enough, would maximize the amount of money G&E’s clients lost trading JPMorgan shares. With clever enough counting, they say they lost $52 million.
Robbins Geller thinks the window should open in 2012. That would put the pension funds at a disadvantage, Robbins Geller says, since during that period they collectively sold 615,000 shares for a $25 million profit. It doesn’t say how far underwater the pensions are on their total JPMorgan holdings, but that’s part of the strangeness of securities class actions: It doesn’t matter. The lawsuit is on behalf of investors who bought shares inflated by a swindle and sold them after the swindle was exposed. The truth is there is a seller for every buyer, so any big pension fund is just as likely to have made money off of a swindle as the other way around. The settlement, therefore, simply shifts dollars from the winners to the losers, with lawyers slicing 20% or so off the top.

JPMorgan Suits Accuse Dimon Of Fraud -- For Doing What, Exactly? Daniel Fisher Forbes Staff

The fun part in this battle is how viciously the law firms are sniping at each other. Robbins Geller accuses G&E of recruiting a “professional plaintiff,” the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“LMPRS” in the trade) to file a lawsuit extending the class period. That would, according to some interpretations of past cases,  give the advantage to the G&E team since some judges have presumed the lawyers with the longest class period represent investors with the biggest losses. The charge against LMPRS has some merit: The pension fund, with about $1.4 billion in assets, is either the unluckiest or most litigious investor in America. It has filed 49 securities lawsuits over the past two years, sometimes at a rate of two or three a week, making a mockery of provisions in the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act that prohibits any entity from serving as a lead plaintiff in more than five cases in a three-year period.

Class-Action Lawyers Fight For Piece Of JPMorgan Case

Robbins Geller doesn’t come to the game with an entirely clean reputation, however. The predecessor to the San Diego firm was founded by Bill Lerach, the convicted felon whose practice of paying plaintiffs kickbacks in securities cases led to the provision above. More recently, a federal judge in Washington disciplined one of the firm’s lawyers for submitting grossly inflated expenses that another Robbins Geller partner failed to correct. Those expenses, including first-class airfare and fancy dinners, would have been paid for by the very shareholders Robbins Geller claims to represent.
And the plaintiff in Robbins Geller’s case, the Operating Engineers union, hasn’t been shy about filing securities suits, either. I count more than 40 since 2003. The fact is, class-action lawyers cozy up to union pension funds — at the very least, their politics seem to be congruent — and install software that alerts them to any losses in their portfolios that might come in useful when it’s time to file a class action. Robbins Geller hit the courthouse with the first complaint on May 14, four days after Dimon disclosed the trading losses. Judge Jed Rakoff called the practice of portfolio monitoring a “shocking conflict of interest” in 2009, but he seems alone in that opinion.
It’s up to U.S. District Judge George Daniels to decide who will be in charge of this litigation. Looking at a JPM chart, the one thing that is certain is anybody who bought and sold the stock over any period in the last two years was just as likely to have made money as to have lost it. The stock plunged 33% from its high of $46 in late march to a low in June. Last year it ranged between $47 and $29. Right now it’s trading at $34 and change — up 15% from June and about where it started the year. Some fraud.

JPMorgan #LondonWhale Blows Hole in Profits

|

8/09/2012 @ 9:02AM |878 views

JPMorgan Formally Restates Q1 After London Whale Blows Hole In Profits

+ Comment now

(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

When JPMorgan Chase issued its second-quarter earnings July 13, the bank detailed the multi-billion dollar hit it took from an ill-fated trading strategy out of the the London branch of its Chief Investment Office.
At the time, JPMorgan said the CIO losses lowered its previously-reported first-quarter profit by some $459 million, and the bank formally restated those results Thursday. As expected, the blow reduced net income for the January-March period to a shade over $4.9 billion. Second-quarter net income was just under $5 billion. (Read JPMorgan’s SEC filing, which includes the restatement, here.)

Jamie Dimon Opens Wallet For JPMorgan Shares Steve Schaefer Forbes Staff

JPMorgan Profits Withstand $4.4B Trading Loss Steve Schaefer Forbes Staff

 

In the earnings supplement detailing the restatement in July, the bank also said certain traders may have been attempting to pretty up the marks on their positions to avoid showing the full amount of losses in the first quarter, and that its investigation was ongoing.
Shares of JPMorgan Chase are still well below their levels before Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon disclosed the so-called “London Whale” trading losses in May, but have also recovered from their lows. Shares were down 0.7% at $36.89 in pre-market trading Thursday.
While the CIO trading losses turned heads and renewed the debate over how to regulate the biggest U.S. financial institutions, there has been no shortage of banks behaving badly in the headlines over the past few months. The Libor-fixing scandal that cost Barclays chief Bob Diamond his job continues to fester, and just this week a New York financial services regulator alleged that British bank Standard Chartered conducted thousands of illegal transactions with Iran to the tune of at least $250 billion.
Follow @SchaeferStreet on Twitter, or on Forbes at the top of this post. Subscribe to updates on Facebook.

The Devil Is Hard at Work

 Comfort in the Masses, I'm Not Alone
Oh, P.S. Chase...I wonder....when will my checks show back up in my mailbox?
I'm seeing a theme here.



Another Government Avoided Inconvenient Truth!!!
Chase Home Finance is Destroying America. There are Tens of Thousands of us all over the country EVERY MONTH, (This number is going up exponentially) that are being unjustly forced into Foreclosure. I myself represent just one of the many that have had TWO or MORE house payments HELD, or "LOST" as they put it, and used as a means for FORECLOSURE. CHASE Foreclosed on me 12/04/2007, and they found my 3 payments on 12/06/2007. HOW CONVENIENT. Seems my payments went from Phoenix, AZ to Los Angeles, CA to Columbus, OH then back to me UNDEPOSITED. They said they were returned because there was no Account# listed on the MEMO line. Well, my 8 digit Loan# was in plain site on the Memo line. And the letter was opened by my Attorney, so there is the proof that I'm not lying, because I took the letter straight to him, and we opened it together.
( JP Morgan / Chase Home Finance) needs to be investigated for FRAUD, Fraudulent Practices, and Flat-Out Discrimination. This is not just CHASE from what I am hearing, and this kind of FRAUD is not limited to just them. DEFRAUDED out of the American Dream, sad to say, but very true. Tens of Thousands of us are being mistreated for the greed of a corporation. And not a single Attorney I have talked with, and provided the proof to, is willing to take this Monumental Case because of the size of JP Morgan, owner of Chase Home Finance.
When are Corporations too large?? I'll tell you when; it's when the Attorneys refuse to stand up to them, with proof in hand, and take them down!!
I think its time we "Took Back our Country" If you feel the same, put your story on here and lets make some change!!! Pass this web address around to EVERYONE, it is time we stood up, said we aren't going to take it any more, and ACT AS ONE VOICE.

                      ************************************************************

Someone from Hortonville, WI writes:

We have tried to work with this uncareing and no common sence bank for two years. We have filled out and faxed hundreds of papers. We wanted to get currant and make our mortgage payments with the help of a local bank and they laughed at us on the phone and said we would never get help from any financial institution. We told them we were working with the vice president of the bank and all the information they needed to send to them and we would have had everything all taken care of a year and a half ago. They just keep dragging this on and on so it gets to the point with all the penalties and interest and everything they charge you they rob you blind of the home God gave you the blessing of designing and building with your own blood,sweat,and home equity just like our president wanted.Now after thirteen years and fighting cancer and paying lawyers we will be broke.Now a friend stopped and said he saw the sheriffs sall for March in the paper,and Chase or our lawers have sent us any notifaction.You would think that would be ellegal.I know there is so many of you out there,thanks for hearing me I will pray for us all.Mostly for Chase for being such crooks and the government for letting them get away with it,

 

 

 

 

 

Paul and Kathy B. from Kennesaw, GA writes:

WE have applied for the "Obama Plan" 3 times. Once they claim it was lost. Then, they claim we make too much, and finally we don't make enough. They want us to be late on our payments. Then they increased our house payment due to tax assessment increase when it actually decreased. I do not know where they got these numbers because they are different than any of my previous tax assessment records. How does this differ from stealing? They wanted to charge us over $2,000 and "any additional fees" for the Hardest Hit Program in the state of Georgia. IT was just another loan for them to charge more interest. It is time to stand up to these billionaire crooks.

 

 

 

Carl P. from Alhambra, CA writes:

Same thing like every one on here can some one plz help they are saying that they are going to forclose I have been going back and forth with no help from chase I have been trying to get help with the obama plan and the paper work gets lost or never reaches the proper people what's going on with chase? They seem like the are trying to play me stupid out of my house and are winning because I don't know where to turn... Any body plz help! 626-347-9651 I'm battling kidney failure and have been for the last 7 yrs and am dying with stress with the thought of no where to live... Some one plz help!

 

 

Cheryl K. from Oak Harbor, OH writes:

I was laid off in 2009. I called Chase immediately to see what I could do. They said there was nothing they could do to help me. I then fell 3 months behind and borrowed the $ due from family and mailed it in. After that, to avoid foreclosure, we rented the house out. The renter sent in monthly payments even though Chase stopped sending statements. He entered the account # on the memo. Next thing I know, I'm told I'm one month behind. My renter faxed a copy of the check he sent to them and we never heard back. I call a few months later to check into a modification program so I could move back in, as I had found a job that would support the payments but I didn't want to get in over my head. If a modification could be worked out, GREAT! (I'll get to that later) I was informed that I was then 6 payments behind. WHAT??? I hadn't received anything from them stating this, not even a phone call. I call my renter and again, he goes to the bank to get copies of his checks. I keep fighting them on this and in the mean timecontinue with the modification. Then, after faxing the documents to them at least 14-15 times (each time they claim they didn't receive the documents), I get a letter saying time had expired because the documents hadn't been turned in. Eventually I was denied the modification. And personally, as a single mom, with a new baby, working full time, with no family in the state, I didn't have time to keep messing with them. I gave up. I went to a short sale realtor because from the moment we bought the house we were upside down on the loan. Surprise surprise!! And it was not worth what we owed. We finally got the short sale about a month before we were to appear in court. But in all reality, they stole about $10,000 in payments (sent in by the renter but still stolen), were going to foreclose, but we did a short sale instead, completely destroyed my credit which was good at one point, caused me to lose the home I loved, and cause a lot of stress, heartache, and grief. I can't afford to get a lawyer but these jerks need to pay. They have billions and trillions and they are stealing from families that struggle just to make sure their children have food, clothing, and shelter. It's a sad sad world. I don't understand how people can be so cruel, greedy, and heartless. The devil is at work...

 

 

Saving Abel - Bringing Down The Giant

 

Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Against Chase Home Finance

Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Filed Against Chase Home Finance

by John Watts on April 16, 2012

After a foreclosure in Alabama, normally the mortgage company, such as Chase or Fannie Mae, will sue you to eject or evict you from your home.  If the mortgage company has lied to you or otherwise did not have the right to foreclose, you have the option to fight the ejectment suit and file a counterclaim.

You can see an example below of an Alabama homeowner who decided to stay in her home and fight back against the giant mortgage company Chase….

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

            COMES NOW Defendant Lisa Coyne[1] (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through her attorneys of record and files her Answer to the Mortgage Companies[2] Complaint, and her counterclaim pursuant to Rule 13 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:

ANSWER

            For answer to the Mortgage Companies Complaint, Defendant responds as follows:
1.         All material allegations are denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE UNDERLYING

FORECLOSURE AND EJECTMENT ACTION

1. Defendant alleges that there is no default.
2. Defendant alleges that the Mortgage Companies did not have actual physical possession of the original note at the time of the foreclosure.
3. Defendant alleges that acceleration was improper and in violation of the contract between the parties.
4. Defendant alleges that the Mortgage Companies failed to comply with applicable mortgage servicing regulations, guidelines and agreements and as such a condition precedent to acceleration and foreclosure has been violated requiring dismissal of the underlying foreclosure action.
5. Defendant alleges that the Mortgage Companies failed to offer pre-foreclosure loss mitigation as required. This failure requires that the underlying action seeking foreclosure be dismissed or abated until such time as this requirement is satisfied.
6. Defendant alleges that the Mortgage Companies did not have standing to initiate a foreclosure or ejectment action against Defendant.
7. Defendant alleges that the assignments, endorsements, or allonges to or from Federal National Mortgage Association, Chase Home Finance, LLC or any other entity were void, voidable, illegal, without legal effect and are otherwise invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law.
8. The foreclosing entity lacked standing to initiate a foreclosure, therefore the foreclosure is void or at least voidable and no title has passed to Plaintiff as there was no legal title to pass to it from the foreclosing entity.
9. The title taken to the property by the Plaintiff is of no effect and void because the underlying foreclosure was commenced in violation of law on one or more of the following grounds:
   1. The foreclosing entity lacked standing to foreclose.
   2. The foreclosure was taken in violation of law in that the foreclosing entity did not own the mortgage debt upon which it foreclosed and therefore could pass no legal title to the lands it claimed to foreclose nor could it acquire legal title to the lands that it foreclosed upon.
   3. The foreclosure was taken in violation of law in that the default was exaggerated, inflated and based upon improper and illegal mortgage servicing practices on the part of the foreclosing entity and its agents or employees.
   4. The Mortgage Companies failed to strictly comply with the requirements set out in Alabama law and the contract between the parties, with respect to notice, time and place and other legal provisions thereby rendering the foreclosure void.
   5. The Mortgage Companies failed to engage in loss mitigation required by its agreements and federal servicing guidelines which the entity is subject to, and because of the failure of the condition precedent to foreclosure the acceleration and default were invalid and illegal and renders the foreclosure void.
   6. There was no default upon which to accelerate based upon the agreement to modify or forbear the underlying debt.
   7. The Mortgage Companies that allegedly foreclosed on Defendant had no authority to do so as they did not own the note and mortgage so as to give them the right to foreclose.
   8. The Mortgage Companies committed fraud in that several days before the September 2, 2011 foreclosure date, Mortgage Companies gave Defendant false information about Defendant’s option to reinstate the loan and stop the foreclosure, as described below.

COUNTERCLAIM

            Defendant files her counterclaim as follows:

1. This action arises out of Counterclaim-Defendant Chase’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and out of state law violations and out of the invasions of Defendant’s personal and financial privacy by the Mortgage Companies and their agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Defendant.

PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff Counterclaim-Defendant, Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) in this action is a foreign corporation doing business in Jefferson County, Alabama.
2. The Counterclaim-Defendant, Chase Home Finance, LLC (“Chase”) is considered a debt collector under the FDCPA as it was assigned the debt at issue when the debt was allegedly in default in this action and Chase is a foreign corporation of Jefferson County, Alabama, and is added pursuant to Rule 13.
3. Fictitious Counterclaim-Defendants “A”, “B” and “C” thereby intending to refer to the legal entity, person, firm or corporation which was responsible for or conducted the wrongful acts alleged in the counterclaim; names of the Fictitious parties are unknown to the Defendants at this time but will be added by amendment when ascertained.
4. Defendant, Lisa Coyne is a resident of Jefferson County, Alabama, and is over the age of 19.

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction is proper in the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Alabama.  The underlying action is based upon a contract executed in Jefferson, Alabama.  The action is brought to set aside a foreclosure instituted in Jefferson, Alabama, and is in the nature of a counterclaim to that foreclosure action.  The action is brought to enforce the contractual remedies allowed in the mortgage document.   The action seeks damages in contract and tort for the actions of the counterclaim defendants with respect to their servicing, representations as to loan modification and the foreclosure on the loan in question.

VENUE

1. Venue is proper in this Court as Defendant is a citizen of Jefferson County, Alabama and all or substantially all of the wrongs complained of occurred in this county.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Congress found it necessary to pass the FDCPA due to rampant abusive practices by dishonorable debt collectors.  15 USC § 1692 is entitled “Congressional findings and declaration of purpose” and it states as follows:

(a)        There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, decep­tive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.
(b)        Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.
(c)        Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collec­tion of debts.
(d)       Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a sub­stantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate com­merce.
(e)        It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt col­lection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt col­lection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

[Emphasis added].

1. Defendant incurred a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes (Defendant’s home loan) and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
2. Chase is considered a “debt collector” and began engaging in debt collection activities against Defendant.
3. Chase failed to make all required disclosures to Defendant in violation of the FDCPA.
4. Misrepresentations were made by Mortgage Companies regarding the character, amount, or legal status of the debt.
5. The amount of the debt, the amount of fees and charges, were incorrect and not supported by the law and by the note and mortgage.
6. The foreclosure was illegal and constituted a threat to take action which Chase was not legally entitled to take.
7. As set forth below, Mortgage Companies used false representations and/or deceptive means to collect on this debt.
8. The Mortgage Companies represented to Defendant that if she paid the legally owed amount, the loan would be reinstated and the foreclosure sale on or about September 2, 2011, would be canceled.
9. Defendant requested, as is her right, an amount to reinstate the loan and stop the foreclosure.
10. Days later, so that there would be little or no time to comply, Mortgage Companies responded to Defendant’s plea for help when she asked for a reinstatement amount.
11. On or about August 30, 2011, Mortgage Companies sent a letter by mail to Defendant.
12. The letter stated that the amount to reinstate the loan was $9,017.80.
13. In the same letter, however, the reinstatement amount was listed as $9,851.40.
14. The difference in the two amounts is apparently attributable to estimated and/or anticipated costs and fees.
15. Given the incredibly short amount of time between the letter mailed on August 30, 2011 and the foreclosure date of September 2, 2011, and the reinstatement deadline of September 1, 2011, the Defendant frantically was able to secure the money for all missed payments but did not have enough money to pay the bogus fees and charges as well as the un-incurred costs and fees.
16. On or about August 31, 2011, Defendant called Mortgage Companies in a desperate attempt to save her home.
17. Mortgage Companies told Defendant that they would not accept any amount less than $9,851.40.
18. Defendant was told that if she paid anything less than the $9,851.40 that the foreclosure sale would still occur on September 2, 2011.
19. Defendant could have paid the amounts that allegedly were due and owing but could not pay the bogus fees, charges, and expenses that were padded onto the amount allegedly owed.
20. Heartbroken, Defendant tried to prepare herself and her family for the foreclosure which occurred on September 2, 2011.
21. Defendant had relied upon the truthfulness of Mortgage Companies in that they would send her a legitimate and honest and accurate reinstatement amount and so Defendant devoted all of her efforts to raising the money instead of seeking other options, including bankruptcy.
22. This was the intent of the Mortgage Companies – to trick by misrepresentation and suppression, the Defendant into waiting for the reinstatement amount and then making it so inaccurate that Defendant could not pay it and could not exercise other options before the foreclosure.
23. The collection methods employed by Mortgage Companies were harassing and illegal.
24. Defendant took out a home loan and such loan was secured by a mortgage on the property owned by Defendant.
25. Transfers were allegedly made ultimately resulting in Mortgage Companies allegedly having the loan.
26. Defendant alleges that all such transfers were improper, void, and without legal effect.
27. On or about September 2, 2011, Mortgage Companies proceeded to foreclose on Defendant’s home.
28. The sale was without proper notice to Defendant and in direct derogation of Alabama common and statutory law.
29. Mortgage Companies allege that they are the purchasers of the property made the subject of this suit.
30. Mortgage Companies have pursued an order ejecting Defendant from her home while representing to the Court that the foreclosure sale was lawful and that the Mortgage Companies had the present right, ownership and authority to pursue the foreclosure and that Mortgage Companies have the right to evict Defendant.
31. The Mortgage Companies have represented to this Court that they are the proper holder of said mortgage and therefore foreclosed in accordance with Alabama law and their rights under the security agreement.
32. Defendant alleges that the Mortgage Companies lacked standing to foreclose in that they have no present legal right to enforce the security agreement that underlies the foreclosure action.
33. Defendant alleges, upon information and belief, that the alleged assignments related to Defendant’s property are defective, void, or otherwise unenforceable.
34. Defendant contends that said sale was wrongful, illegal, in violation of law and the documents governing the relationship between Defendant and the owners of her mortgage.
35. Defendant contends that the foreclosing entity lacked standing to initiate a foreclosure and that the foreclosure is void or at least voidable and that no title has passed to Mortgage Companies as there was no legal title to pass to it from the foreclosing entity.
36. Defendant alleges that the actions of the Mortgage Companies, and its agents, employees and servants were wrongful.
37. Defendant alleges that the actions of the Mortgage Companies in bringing an action for ejectment from her home and the Mortgage Companies wrongfully foreclosing is a violation of law, wrongful and tortuous and that Mortgage Companies hold no title to the home or property, and that the actions of Mortgage Companies constitute negligence, wantonness, intentional misconduct, fraud, breach of contract, abuse of process and slander of title.
38. As a direct result of the acts complained of, Defendant has been caused to suffer, and will continue to suffer great mental anguish, damage to her reputation, economic and emotional damages and claim from Mortgage Companies all damages allowable under the law.
39. All parties acted within the line and scope of any agency relationship and all of their employees and agents acted with the line and scope of their employment and/or agency relationship.
40. The Mortgage Companies acted as the agents for each other in all of their actions related to the Defendant were taken within the line and scope of their agency relationship with each other.

COUNT ONE

NEGLIGENCE

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies negligently conducted a foreclosure sale on Defendant’s property and have negligently attempted to eject Defendant from the home she rightfully owns.
3. The Mortgage Companies negligently handled, applied, imposed, created, serviced, and processed payments, charges, fees, expenses, and other aspects of Defendant’s loan and mortgage.
4. As a direct result of the said negligence, Defendant was injured and damaged as alleged above and has suffered mental anguish, economic injury and all other damages allowed by law.
5. As a result thereof, the Mortgage Companies are liable for all natural, proximate and consequential damages due to its negligence.

COUNT TWO

WANTONNESS

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies acted with reckless indifference to the consequences, and consciously and intentionally conducted a wrongful foreclosure sale on Defendant’s property and the Mortgage Companies have acted with reckless indifference to the consequences, and consciously and intentionally in instituting this action to eject Defendant from the home she rightfully owns.
3. The Mortgage Companies wantonly handled, applied, imposed, created, serviced, and processed payments, charges, fees, expenses, and other aspects of Defendant’s loan and mortgage.
4. These actions were taken with reckless indifference to the consequences, consciously and intentionally in an effort to increase profits for the Mortgage Companies.
5. The Mortgage Companies knew that these actions were likely to result in injury to Defendant including financial and emotional injuries and mental anguish.
6. As a result thereof, the Mortgage Companies are liable for all natural, proximate and consequential damages due to its wantonness as well as punitive damages.

COUNT THREE

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Defendant adopts and realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The actions of the Mortgage Companies in foreclosing on the home of Defendant in violation of law resulted in the Mortgage Companies being unjustly enriched by the payment of fees, insurance proceeds and equity in the home.
3. As a result of the Mortgage Companies unjust enrichment, Defendant has been injured and damaged in that Defendant has been forced to pay charges that were illegal, wrong in character, wrong in amount, unauthorized, or otherwise improper under threat of and the actual illegal foreclosure by the Mortgage Companies.
4. Defendant claims all damages allowable under law as a result of the Mortgage Companies wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment.

COUNT FOUR

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

1. Defendant realleges all prior paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies have initiated a foreclosure proceeding against Defendant in violation of law and the Mortgage Companies have wrongfully brought an action for ejectment.
3. The foreclosure proceeding by the Mortgage Companies and ejectment action by Mortgage Companies were either negligent, wanton or intentional, depending on proof adduced at trial.
4. As a result thereof, the Mortgage Companies are liable for all natural, proximate and consequential damages due to their actions including an award of punitive damages.

COUNT FIVE

ABUSE OF PROCESS

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies maliciously obtained the issuance of the writ or process of ejectment, from this Court and had it served on Defendant.
3. The Mortgage Companies abused the said writ or process because the attempt to eject Defendant from her home with the knowledge that she is the rightful owner of her home and that the Mortgage Companies had no right to act against her.
4. As the proximate result of Mortgage Companies abuse of the said writ or process, Defendant suffered and will continue to suffer injuries and damages.
5. Defendant claims all damages allowable under law.

COUNT SIX

SLANDER OF TITLE

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies, in filing a foreclosure deed (which is void) have caused a cloud to be placed on the title of the property of Defendant.
3. As the proximate cause of the Mortgage Companies slandering of Defendant’s title, Defendant was caused to suffer injuries and damages and claims all damages allowable under law.

COUNT SEVEN

BREACH OF CONTRACT

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies breached the contracts with Defendant and thereby caused Defendant incidental and consequential damages (including mental anguish).
3. Defendant claims all damages allowable under law.

COUNT EIGHT

 FRAUD

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies represented to Defendant that if she paid the legally owed amount, the loan would be reinstated and the foreclosure sale on or about September 2, 2011, would be canceled.
3. Defendant requested, as is her right, an amount to reinstate the loan and stop the foreclosure.
4. Days later, so that there would be little or no time to comply, Mortgage Companies responded to Defendant’s plea for help when she asked for a reinstatement amount.
5. On or about August 30, 2011, Mortgage Companies sent a letter by mail to Defendant.
6. The letter stated that the amount to reinstate the loan was $9,017.80.
7. In the same letter, however, the reinstatement amount was listed as $9,851.40.
8. The difference in the two amounts is apparently attributable to estimated and/or anticipated costs and fees.
9. Given the incredibly short amount of time between the letter mailed on August 30, 2011 and the foreclosure date of September 2, 2011, and the reinstatement deadline of September 1, 2011, the Defendant frantically was able to secure the money for all missed payments but did not have enough money to pay the bogus fees and charges as well as the un-incurred costs and fees.
10. On or about August 31, 2011, Defendant called Mortgage Companies in a desperate attempt to save her home.
11. Mortgage Companies told Defendant that they would not accept any amount less than $9,851.40.
12. Defendant was told that if she paid anything less than the $9,851.40 that the foreclosure sale would still occur on September 2, 2011.
13. Defendant could have paid the amounts that allegedly were due and owing but could not pay the bogus fees, charges, and expenses that were padded onto the amount allegedly owed.
14. Heartbroken, Defendant tried to prepare herself and her family for the foreclosure which occurred on September 2, 2011.
15. Defendant had relied upon the truthfulness of Mortgage Companies in that they would send her a legitimate and honest and accurate reinstatement amount (or that the Mortgage Companies would have accepted the amount actually allegedly owed) and so Defendant devoted all of her efforts to raising the money instead of seeking other options, including bankruptcy.
16. This was the intent of the Mortgage Companies – to trick by misrepresentation and suppression, the Defendant into waiting for the reinstatement amount and then making it so inaccurate that Defendant could not pay it and could not exercise other options before the foreclosure.
17. At the time of this representation, Mortgage Companies had no intention of honoring this promise.
18. The Mortgage Companies suppressed the truth from Defendant as the Mortgage Companies knew that Defendant would have paid the proper reinstatement amount if the Defendant had known the truth.
19. The Mortgage Companies also knew that if the truth had been told to Defendant about the bogus fees and charges or that Mortgage Companies would have taken less than the false amount represented, then Defendant could have avoided the foreclosure.
20. The misrepresentations and suppressions concerned material facts relating to the Defendant keeping her home.
21. The Defendant properly relied upon the false statements and suppressions as no one else in the world would know the mind and intent of the Mortgage Companies except for the Mortgage Companies themselves.
22. The shock, dismay, fear, anger, embarrassment, humiliation, sense of betrayal, and outrage felt and experienced in the Defendant’s body, mind, and heart, is difficult to describe.
23. Defendant was stunned to learn that on or about September 19, 2011, Mortgage Companies had filed a lawsuit against Defendant claiming that a valid foreclosure had occurred, demanding that Defendant be thrown out of her home, demanding that the Defendant had loss her right of redemption, and demanding money damages against Defendant.
24. Defendant lives in her home with her daughter and granddaughter and the realization that Mortgage Companies lied to Defendant and committed the wrongful acts described in this Answer and Counterclaim and now want to force Defendant, her daughter and granddaughter into being homeless has caused great damage to Defendant and her family.
25. All of the actions of Mortgage Companies were taken in light of a deliberate plan, intent, and scheme to steal the Defendant’s home and to remove any right of redemption and to obtain money damages against Defendant.
26. All of the misrepresentations and suppressions of material fact which occurred before and after the foreclosure were made intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, negligently, and/or innocently.
27. The Defendant properly relied upon all such misrepresentations and suppressions of material facts and has been damaged thereby.
28. At all times the Mortgage Companies have an obligation to speak truthfully and to not lie to Defendant and to not tell half truths to Defendant.
29. The Mortgage Companies knew at all times the devastating effect that their fraud would have upon the Defendant and this is consistent with the effect that homeowners across Alabama and across this nation are experiencing from the rampant fraud committed by the Mortgage Companies over the last several years.
30. The Mortgage Companies have refused to apologize to the Defendant for their horrendous conduct.
31. The Mortgage Companies have refused to set aside the wrongful foreclosure which was accomplished by the Mortgage Companies fraudulent misconduct.
32. The Mortgage Companies have refused to express, in words or deeds, any remorse or any feelings of guilt or regret for what they have done to the Defendant and what they are continuing to inflict upon the Defendant every day.
33. Until the Mortgage Companies face reasonable and substantial punitive damage verdicts, they will see no need to change their conduct and attitude which they have towards thousands upon thousands of homeowners across not only Alabama but the nation as well.
34. Had Defendant been told the truth before September 2, 2011, the Defendant could have taken other steps and actions to prevent the foreclosure and to save her home.
35. Defendant claims all damages allowable under law.

COUNT NINE

 NEGLIGENT AND/OR WANTON HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR TRAINING

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. The Mortgage Companies hired, supervised, and/or trained incompetent agents or employees who committed some or all of the wrongful acts set forth in this Answer and Counterclaim.
3. The Mortgage Companies knew or should have known of the incompetence of these agents or employees.
4. The Mortgage Companies were negligent or reckless in their hiring, supervision, and/or training which led as a direct and proximate result to the damages suffered by Defendant.
5. Defendant claims all damages allowable under law.

COUNT TEN

INTENTIONAL AND/OR MALICIOUS CONDUCT

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. All actions of the Mortgage Companies were made intentionally and/or malicious and led to the damages of Defendant as a direct proximate result.
3. Defendant claims all damages allowable under law.

COUNT ELEVEN

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

1. Defendant incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
2. The acts and omissions of Chase and its agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to Defendant.
3. As a result of the violations of the FDCPA, Defendant is entitled to (1) statutory damages; (2) actual and compensatory damages; and, (3) reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs, from Chase.

COUNT TWELVE

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

1. Defendant realleges all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
2. Alabama law recognizes Defendant’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and Mortgage Companies violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
3. Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings:

Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (emphasis added).

1. Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors (albeit without a private right of action), when it stated as part of its purposes:

It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers’ nonpublic personal information.

15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) (emphasis added).

1. Mortgage Companies and/or its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Defendant, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Defendant’s privacy.
2. Mortgage Companies and its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Defendant by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Defendant’s right to privacy.
3. Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Defendant’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
4. The conduct of Mortgage Companies and their agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Defendant, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by the Mortgage Companies which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
5. As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Defendant is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Mortgage Companies.
6. All acts of Mortgage Companies and their agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such Mortgage Companies are subject to punitive damages.

RELIEF REQUESTED

            WHEREFORE, Defendant having set forth her claims for relief against the Mortgage Companies, respectfully pray of the Court as follows:

1. That Defendant recover against the Mortgage Companies a sum to be determined by a jury of her peers in the form of actual damages;
2. That Defendant recover against the Mortgage Companies a sum to be determined by a jury of her peers in the form of punitive damages;
3. That Defendant recover against Chase a sum to be determined by a jury of her peers in the form of statutory damages;
4. That Defendant recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, expenses;
5. That the foreclosure sale be set aside; and
6. That Defendant have such other and further and proper relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,
                                                                                    /s/ John G. Watts                                            
John G. Watts (WAT056)
                                                                                    M. Stan Herring (HER037)
                                                                                    Attorneys for Defendant
OF COUNSEL:        
Watts & Herring, LLC
The Kress Building
301 19^th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
(205) 879-2447
(888) 522-7167 facsimile
john@wattsherring.com
stan@wattsherring.com

DEFENDANT DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY