ALERT ALERT!!!!! For $200,000 (plus) We "Might" be able to work with you" Says JPMorgan Chase Executive Office.

"....For $200,000(plus) 

We "Might" 

be able to work with you." 

Says JPMorgan Chase Employee in the Executive Office.     August 19th, 2013

"If We Can't, there is No Guarantee that you will get that Money Back."

The bank probably calls this a negotiation of some kind, I however call this something completely different.

-Michelle Hansen of Aurora Colorado

Front Page of the Denver Post. Colorado Foreclosure firm on Hot Seat. **BOOM**

Colorado foreclosure firm on hot seat

PROBE: Whistle-blower alleges law group padded expenses, kept refunds due clients

By David Migoya 
The Denver Post

POSTED:   08/03/2013 12:01:00 AM MDT32 COMMENTS| UPDATED:   16 DAYS AGO

Attorney fees in foreclosures are unique in that they ultimately are borne by the public, Assistant AG Erik Neusch wrote in a court brief in the Aronowitz case. (Associated Press file)

RELATED STORIES

• Aug 18:
• Foreclosure lawyers charge some homeowners for nonexistent cases
• Aug 10:
• AG: Lawyer e-mails indicate collusion to control foreclosure billing
• Aug 1:
• Denver foreclosure lawyer faces federal sanctions
• Jul 30:
• State's biggest foreclosure law firm fights subpoena for records
• Jul 26:
• Colorado attorney turned whistle-blower alleges foreclosure abuses
• Jul 24:
• Colorado's 2nd-largest foreclosure law firm sued in over-billing probe
• Jul 11:
• Denver judge orders foreclosure lawyer to comply with investigation
• Colorado foreclosure lawyers target of probe into billing practices
• May 25:
• Colorado AG requests foreclosure lawyers' documents from 4 counties

Colorado's second-largest foreclosure law firm allegedly padded attorney expenses, pocketed refunds due its clients and made millions of dollars by running side companies affiliated with its foreclosure work and overcharging for it, a lawyer-turned-whistle-blower has told state investigators.

Susan Hendrick laid out over several meetings with the Colorado attorney general's office a pattern of alleged abuse and misconduct that stretched out for years at Aronowitz & Mecklenburg, the Denver law firm where she was a lawyer, according to documents unsealed in a lawsuit that would have shielded them from public view.

Meanwhile, an Aronowitz employee said in an affidavit that Hendrick admitted to coming forward with personal financial gain as her goal.

Attorneys at the firm were encouraged "to bill the client for more time than was actually spent" on foreclosure cases that homeowners contested in court, according to an affidavit filed by AG investigator Shelly-Jean Sartor, who said she met with Hendrick several times.

The firm charges a flat fee for foreclosures that homeowners did not contest but an hourly fee when they are contested, Hendrick told Sartor.

After several meetings, Hendrick texted investigators that the firm appeared to be hiding its conduct.

"It is my understanding that there is a project underway to clean up a certain problem and that includes the destruction of evidence," Sartor said Hendrick texted her in March.

The law firm "flatly rejects and denies any allegation of inappropriate conduct," its attorney, Richard Benenson, said in an e-mail Friday.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General John Suthers refused to comment.

The unsealed documents provide a clearer picture of what Hendrick told investigators, the first details of which emerged in a Denver District Court hearing last week. Aronowitz argued to seal the case from public view, but District Court Judge R. Michael Mullins disagreed and opened the hearing. Documents in the case file were unsealed Friday.

Hendrick told investigators that other employees at the law firm told her how it improperly charged for title commitments during the foreclosure process, although the investigator's affidavit doesn't detail how.

She also told investigators that employees said the company doesn't refund client money that's advanced to county sheriffs for eviction costs, with any unspent balance later returned.

Sartor said Hendrick told her she had informed partners at the firm about her discoveries — but not about her contacts with investigators.

With regard to the alleged padding of attorney fees, firm partner Stacey Aronowitz "told Hendrick that she was 'onto something' and the law firm tries to shield attorneys from billings so that they have 'plausible deniability,' " Sartor said in an affidavit.

Hendrick said she was asked to help clear up the problems and later was offered $1,000 to sign a confidentiality agreement. She refused to sign.

Investigators say Hendrick contacted them in August 2012 after reading a Denver Post story detailing how county public trustees — the overseers of the state's foreclosure process — were asked to provide investigators with bills that attorneys had filed.

Those bills detail expenses that the lawyers say they're allowed by law to recoup. Investigators have been focusing on charges that lawyers say they paid for the posting of a pair of legal notices informing homeowners of their rights in the foreclosure process.

Investigators found the market rate to post the notices — one telling homeowners about a 90-day deferral they can apply for and the other telling them of a court hearing called a Rule 120 — is about $25 apiece. The lawyers bill up to $150 for each.

The charges are sometimes paid by homeowners if they want to "cure" the deficiency and stop the foreclosure, or by investors seeking to buy the foreclosed property at a public trustee auction.

All the firms revealed to be under investigation — Aronowitz, the Castle Law Group, Vaden Law Firm, Dale & Decker, and the Hopp Law Firm — have tried to shield some of their records from investigators, saying their content is protected by attorney-client privilege.

In denying one firm's request for attorney-client protection of its records, Denver District Judge Edward Bronfin said the privilege is designed to protect clients, not attorneys trying to hide their own misconduct.

"Unlike most attorney billing matters, the foreclosure billing process is unique because the attorney's claimed fees and costs are ultimately borne by the public, not the client," Assistant Attorney General Erik Neusch wrote in a brief to prevent Aronowitz from having the investigation sealed from public view.

Aronowitz posts its foreclosure notices using Xceleron, which is owned entirely by the firm's partners: Robert Aronowitz, his daughter Stacey and his son-in-law Joel Mecklenburg.

Investigators say Xceleron is managed by another of Robert Aronowitz's daughters, whose name is not in court documents.

Investigators also say the partners have made more than $6 million in profits in the venture since 2009, when the Colorado legislature required the postings.

Hendrick worked at the firm until April.

An Aronowitz employee said in a court affidavit that Hendrick said "she was interested in leveraging the firm for a settlement so she could pay off her student loans, fund an IRA and take some time off."

"When I pressed Hendrick that her position sounded like 'extortion,' Hendrick responded by explaining 'that's how it's done,' " Madeleine Daly said in the affidavit.

Neither Hendrick nor her attorney responded to efforts to reach them.

David Migoya: 303-954-1506, dmigoya@denverpost.com or twitter.com/davidmigoya

Want to Steal a Home? Go To Colorado, Banks Don't Even Have To Show Paperwork.

JPMorgan Chase Assumtion Aggrement for WAMU PRIVATE Documents

Secret FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank 118 Page Purchase and Assumption Agreement for Washington Mutual Bank Uncovered

.
Piggybankblog posted 06/22/12
Piggybankblog posted picture
Cross linked with victorychase.com
Smoking Gun or Another Murder of Crows? You be the judge.
QUESTION — Are the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank and their attorneys keeping secrets and playing destructive games with the lives of good decent Americans across the land that results in their stealing homes and damaging forever lives and communities? Are they in fact hiding the true agreement (PAA) for the assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank, the failed bank seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision and placed in Receivership with the FDIC who sold WAMU to JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on the very same day in September 2008?

Repeatedly homeowners in foreclosure and their attorneys have questioned the veracity of the 39 page Purchase and Assumption Agreement between the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank that Chase, the FDIC, and their attorneys represent to be the real PAA. They have used this 39 page public document in courts of law to reap all of WAMU’s benefits without bearing any of its burdens in courtrooms, federal and state, throughout the United States.

.

Attorney Vernon Bradley of Sausalito, California, recently filed a lawsuit to stop a foreclosure action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Scott Call Jolley, against Chase et al in California Superior Court in Marin County, California and it is under appeal. This case and the revelations that have come to light through Appellant’s Opening Brief filed with the California Appellate Court points to the existence of a different “full copy” PAA that consists of 118 or so pages as revealed in the deposition and declaration of Jeffrey Thorpe, whose credentials make him a reliable witness. (see below excerpts from Appellant Brief.)
Appellant’s Opening Brief presents a strong argument that the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA entered into an approximated 118 page “full ” Purchase and Assumption Agreement, rather than the “public” PAA being circulated through internet and the courts in foreclosure cases throughout the United States federal and state courts.
. If in fact this 118 page PAA exists, can one conclude that the Respondents and their attorneys have perpetrated a possible fraud on the court and that this possible fraud extends to foreclosure lawsuits (past, present, and future) throughout the United States? And if so, what can be done to help these homeowners who were possibly victimized by judges who unwittingly relied on the purported 39 page PAA to seize and sell their homes? What will these judges have to say about this serious misrepresentation of the PAA if found to be true? Will these victimized homeowners be recompensed for the damage caused to them financially and personally? Will the courts take another look?
. Below is information obtained through court proceedings. Please read this post in its entirety.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
SCOTT CALL JOLLEY, Plaintiff and Petitioner/Appellant vs. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation and successor in interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., a Washington Corporation; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants and Respondents. Appellate Docket No. A134019 Marin County Superior Court Case No. CIV1002039
APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MARIN Hon. Lynn Duryee, Judge Phone: (415) 444-7221
Appellant’s Opening Brief in Jolley vs. Chase Home Finance LLC et al filed by the Law Offices of Vernon Bradley in Marin County, California presents a strong argument that the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA entered into an 118 page Purchase and Assumption Agreement, rather than the PAA being circulated through the courts in foreclosure cases throughout the United States federal and state courts.
The brief states: “On April 19, 2010, Petitioner Scott Jolley‘s Complaint Case No. CIV1002039 was filed in the California Superior Court in Marin County, California. On April 20, 2010, Petitioner obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the scheduled trustee‘s sale and thereafter obtained a Preliminary Injunction continuing that relief upon posting a $50,000 bond with the Marin County Superior Court. Petitioner opposed a summary judgment motion brought by Chase and California Reconveyance. The Honorable Judge Duryee took the matter under submission after the hearing, on November 15, 2011, and grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants/Respondents on December 1, 2011. Judgment was entered the same day thereby immediately dissolving the preliminary injunction of August 20, 2011. On January 25, 2012, Petitioner filed this appeal along with a writ of supersedeas requesting an immediate stay to protect his real property against an impending foreclosure and trustee sale. Since the trial court seemed unreceptive to Petitioner’s need for a continued stay during the summary judgment hearing, Petitioner did not formally seek a stay from the trial court because such efforts were clearly futile and the law does not require a litigant to engage in such useless endeavors (please see the accompanying writ reply). Petitioner now files this opening brief along with a reply in support of the writ of supersedeas and stay.
. “Petitioner Jolley and Washington Mutual Bank (.WaMu.) entered into a construction loan agreement which expressly provided that the covenants and agreements of this Security Instrument shall bind the successors and assigns of Lender [WaMu]. “Surprisingly, Respondents now erroneously claim that Chase bears no successor liability for WaMu’s torts and contractual breaches arising from that agreement even though Chase continues to enjoy all of the associated benefits. Respondents mistakenly believe Chase is insulated from successor liability because WaMu subsequently went into FDIC receivership and Chase allegedly took all of WaMu’s assets from the FDIC under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) that supposedly allowed Chase to reap all of WaMu’s benefits without bearing any of its burdens.
. “However, under California and federal authority Chase is legally required to step directly into the .shoes. of WaMu, to take the place of WaMu, and to remain fully liable for all torts, breaches of contract and other .sins. committed by WaMu for several reasons.
. “First, because the parties’ contract expressly provided that the covenants and agreements of this Security Instrument shall bind . . . the successors and assigns of Lender [WaMu]. and the FDIC was statutorily required to step directly into WaMu’s shoes, all of the FDIC’s .successors and assigns. were also obligated to take WaMu’s assets subject to its burdens since the FDIC failed to exercise its special rescission powers and never issued any rescission notice to Petitioner as required by law (see below). As explained in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Jeffrey Thorne, the FDIC had opened an escrow and were supposed to send out notices of repudiation/rescission to Petitioner and other borrowers within 90 days or another reasonable time, but the escrow closed so quickly that the notices were never sent by the FDIC. Therefore, as discussed below, the FDIC always remained subject to the terms and conditions of Petitioner’s loan contract, including the requirement that Chase, as the .successor and assign. of the FDIC/WaMu must be bound by the contract and .take the place of. the FDIC/WaMu to bear all associated burdens.”
Appellant’s brief further asserts the following:
“Second, according the compelling deposition testimony and declaration of Mr. Thorne, the actual, full and complete PAA (118 pages) makes Chase liable for all torts and contractual breaches by WaMu in stark contrast to the identically named public document (34 pages) posted on the internet.”
“The record is full of competent and convincing evidence to support this fact, including, without limitation, the deposition testimony of Mr. Thorne (Thorne Depo,. CT 69-88, Pgs. 37, 70-73 ) as well as his sworn declaration (Thorne Dec,. CT 53-59). This evidence cannot be lightly dismissed since Jeffrey Thorne is a highly credible expert witness who swears under penalty of perjury that he actually read the real PAA and it does not absolve Chase of liability for WaMu. More specifically, Mr. Thorne’s declaration reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“1. Currently I am employed as an asset manager for the FDIC through a contractor for the FDIC, RSM McGladrey Inc. I am intimately familiar with the procedures for taking over a failed bank and the required notices that must be given to insulate the buying bank from liability for the original loans of the failed banks.
“2. When Washington Mutual failed, I was involved in the takeover of Washington Mutual by FDIC and the escrow that was opened to sell Washington Mutual to Chase Bank. I was uniquely positioned to be involved in what was known as .Bank No. 26 takeover. as I had previously worked for Washington Mutual, heading their Construction Lending Department for 38 states.”
“4. Within the takeover procedures by the FDIC, the FDIC will enter into an agreement with the succeeding bank. In this instance the FDIC entered into an agreement with Chase Bank. But because of the nature of the transaction, the FDIC guaranteed 80% of the loans, while Chase only assumed 20% of the potential losses on the loans. Pursuant to the public part of the agreement with the FDIC, of which were approximately 39 pages, the balance of the contract and the complete agreement with the FDIC and Chase bank is 118 pages long which has not been made public. I am familiar with this agreement, I have read it, I was involved in the takeover of WAMU with the FDIC, and the balance of the agreement imposes liability on Chase for ongoing contracts with WAMU. Chase took liability for the ongoing contracts in return for getting an 80% discount on the loan‘s principal owed. Essentially, Chase Bank traded their right to cut off all liability on WAMU‘s end for money and a good deal.
“5. Chase assumed the rights and benefits owing to WAMU under its outstanding contracts with its customers. Because of the favorable guarantee from the FDIC, they also agreed to assume the liabilities flowing from the WAMU contracts.
“6. From 2002 to 2006, I was senior loan consultant for WAMU.” Furthermore Appellant’s Brief states the following: “Mr. Thorne’s testimony is further bolstered by the FDIC’s tacit admission that the document exists, i.e., when Petitioner’s counsel sought the smoking gun document by subpoena, the FDIC’s agent told Petitioner’s counsel that the document could only be obtained after all parties and the trial judge executed a comprehensive stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order barring dissemination outside of this case. That response indicates something is being hidden.
“More specifically, on or about November 7, 2011, a request of the full and complete PAA from responding party was made orally, responding party denied the existence of such document. On November 8, 2011, a request for the same document was requested from the FDIC. The FDIC refused to provide the document but alluded to its existence by requesting Petitioner provide for the specific portions in which he was seeking, and further advising that the FDIC would redact portions of this agreement. On or about November 8, 2011, a request by subpoena was made to the FDIC, and again the FDIC refused the request and asked Petitioner‘s Attorney to submit to a protective order with a stipulation from all parties. See emails C.T. 142 – 143. On November 9, 2011, Petitioner requested, in writing, the full 118 page contract from Responding party and asked Respondent’s counsel to sign the FDIC’s stipulation. These requests were immediately denied. Petitioner‘s Attorney was then forced to seek ex parte relief from Judge Duryee of the Marin County Superior Court to have all parties execute the stipulated protective order so that the true PAA could be obtained and to continue the jury trial until Petitioner had a fair chance to seek that dispositive evidence. Judge Duryee ignored these requests.
. “Perhaps because of Mr. Thorne’s unique qualifications and personal knowledge of the crucial facts, this is the very first case to bring this evidence to light. Previously, Chase mislead courts across the country with the abridged version of the PAA, so case law developed in reliance thereon cannot be deemed valid. It was also reversible error for Judge Duryee to accept the truth of matters asserted in the contested document, i.e., that Chase was absolved of liability. At the very least, Petitioner should be allowed a fair opportunity to finally overcome discovery stonewalling and obtain a copy of the document pursuant to CCP §437c(h), which reads: .If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, then be presented, the court shall deny the motion, or order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had or may make any other order as may be just. (emphasis added). Accordingly, it was reversible error to simply ignore Petitioner‘s request. Alternatively, Petitioner should have been allowed to have a jury of his peers evaluate the credibility of Mr. Thorne and Chase’s experts on this crucial factual issue.”
. Apppellant’s Brief argues the following: “Alternatively, Chase’s successor tort liability also exists under the general rule that a purchaser assumes a seller’s liabilities when (1) there is an express or implied agreement of assumption, (2) the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations, (3) the purchasing corporation is a mere continuation of the seller, or (4) the transfer of assets to the purchaser is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller’s debts. Id. At 28. The .mere continuation. ground for liability exists due to Chase’s acquisition of all WaMu’s operating assets, its use of those assets and of WaMu’s former employees to maintain the same line of .financial products,. its holding itself out to customers and the public as a continuation of the same enterprise under a new name, its failure to provide:
“WaMu/FDIC with adequate consideration to meet claims of unsecured creditors (a factual determination subject to disputed material facts); the fact that one or more persons were officers, directors, or stockholders of both WaMu and Chase (a factual determination subject to disputed material facts).2 Id. .
“2 The last two facts are based on Appellant’s information and belief. Further expert analysis of the underlying transactions will be required to verify these allegations. However, since expert discovery had not closed before summary judgment, the disputed nature of these facts should have been ground for denial of summary judgment.
.”Moreover, the powerful deposition testimony and declaration of Jeffrey Thorne created triable issues of material fact as to whether Chase defrauded and deceived Appellant and the general public by concealing the true purchase and assumption agreement wherein Chase retained full liability for WaMu’s torts and contractual breaches in exchange for other favorable terms. Mr. Thorne is uniquely qualified to present evidence on this issue and he had personally read the .smoking gun. document so Appellant was entitled to have a jury evaluate credibility regarding this crucial fact, which would clearly preserve Chase’s liability for WaMu’s misconduct.
Link to related documents: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3675055/Secret-FDIC-and-JPMorgan-Chase-Bank-118-Page-Purchase-and-Assumption-Agreement-for-Washington-Mutual-Bank http://www.scribd.com/doc/97851793/6-Case-File-Montana-Paatalo-v-J-P-Morgan-Chase-Motion-to-Re-open-Discovery-Re-Inspection-of-118-Page-Wamu-PAA
This is compelling information. Anyone have further information about these assertions should contact Vernon Bradley, Esq. in Sausalito, California or email this author.

Imagine that, JPMC has Questionable Debt Collecting Practices. (hit hand on forehead and act surprised)

 

 

Economic Crisis, The Audit — March 13, 2012 03:26 PM

American Banker Delves into Debt-Collecting Woes at Chase

By Ryan Chittum

TAGS: American Banker, Debt Collectors, Foreclosure Scandal, Jeff Horwitz, JPMorgan Chase

It looks more and more like the foreclosure scandal is a symptom of a larger problem.
American Banker’s Jeff Horwitz has another excellent report today on JPMorgan Chase’s debt-collection practices, which his sources say included robosigned affadavits, shredded documents, jury-rigged computer systems, hired sketchy third-party lawyers, fired whistleblowers, and emphasized recovering money at the cost of accuracy and ordered employees to take shortcuts to do so. All of this resulted, in the testimony of a whistleblower, in thousands of accounts Chase sold to debt collectors where it didn’t even have the balances correct. If you had to bet whether the “vast majority” of the balances were too high or too low, which would you guess? You’d be right.
This story sheds more light on why Chase suddenly quit launching debt-collection lawsuits last year. The Banker also reports that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has been investigating Chase’s practices since at least late last year.
They’re investigating things like this:

Among the files Chase was selling, Almonte said, were former Providian Financial Corp debts that had previously belonged to the failed Washington Mutual. (JPMorgan acquired Wamu’s assets from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2008.) The Providian files had been labeled with a code that that the credit card litigation group used to signal “toxic waste,” she says.

Another person familiar with the files confirmed that the Providian accounts were commonly referred to with that term. The debt had long been considered unreliable and lacked documentation. It was never supposed to be sold, this person says.
A review of state court records shows that second-hand debt buyers are suing people who allegedly owe money on the Chase-Wamu-Providian accounts, however. Informed that the files have surfaced in court, the former Chase employee who confirmed the files’ “toxic” status was appalled.

And this:
It’s worth emphasizing the similarities between what the Banker is reporting here and what happened in the foreclosure scandal, which the big banks, including Chase, just settled for $25 billion (which to be sure is not all being paid by the banks).
It raises the question of whether Chase was an outlier in debt colletion of if this was —like robosigning and forging documents in foreclosuregate, which the banks pooh-poohed the foreclosure scandal as “technicalities.” —effectively the industry standard. We have part of the picture, but not a complete one. Horwitz and the Banker have been on this angle, too, naturally.
The Chase story raises even more fundamental questions about trust. If a giant bank like JPMorgan Chase can’t figure out (or doesn’t want to figure out) how much it is actually owed by people it’s sent to collections, it raises questions about the plumbing of the financial system:

TSYS only handles current accounts, however. When customers stop paying credit card bills, their accounts are passed to TCSF, for collections and litigation, and eventually to RMS for charge-offs.

Each of Chase’s systems handles its own tasks just fine. The problem employees faced is that TCSF and RMS can only talk to each other through TSYS, and each of the systems operates by its own rules. This means that when presented with the question of how much a customer owes, each might spit out a different answer.

Which makes me think: I can’t remember the last time I balanced a checkbook.

Subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review at our special Web rates.

Another Lawsuit Filed Against JPMC for Silver Price Manipulation

Another Lawsuit Filed Against JP Morgan For Silver Price Manipulation

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/16/2011 13:26 -0400

• Commodity Futures Trading Commission

It has been a while since JP Morgan has been sued for silver manipulation. Well, that changed on September 12, after JPM was served with its most recent lawsuit alleging silver manipulation, which we have no doubt will promptly move from JPM's Inbox straight to the trash can. Since this is a class action, virtually everyone who has ever traded silver and lost on the trade appears to be on the list of plaintiffs (we jest, although the list of impaired parties a through x is rather, well, dillutive of the purpose). It is unfortunate that the John Doe defendants are not named as the general media will merely see this as just another lawsuit which serves simply to remind us that the CFTC still has to investigate any of the allegations against JPM and HSBC for silver manipulation. And while a lot of the content in the filing is regurgitated filler, it does provide some suggested details (with price/volume - probably a first in a legal filing) on JPM's specific manipulation techniques, which makes for some engaging reading. There is substantially more, which at time reads like a diary of a conspiracy nutjob, and unfortunately that is how the conflicted legal system will see it. Because after all it is the CFTC's dute to monitor its member firms, and as long as the regulator is one of the alleged manipulators, nothing will change. That said, we certainly wish the plaintiffs lots of luck to at least get their case heard. That said, and going beyond the purvey of this lawsuit, we ask ourselves: why all the endless sound and fury over this purported ongoing price manipulation. Surely, the plaintiffs are smart enough to realize that every market intervention (such as the alleged JPM silver manipulation) always ends with price discovery in the end, i.e., silver, gold, spam, what have you, reaching its fair value. As such, should the litigants not be thanking JPM for allowing them to buy silver at lower than fair value prices? We wonder...

Never a Shortage of Information #JPMC #SUNTRUST

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania Issues Opinion in Dietz V. Chase Home Finance, LLC, Clarifying Preemption of State Common Law Claims by Fair Credit Reporting Act

Apr 23 12

In a case of first impression, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on April 2, 2012, issued its opinion in Dietz v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, holding that state common law negligence and defamation claims based on erroneous information furnished to credit reporting agencies are preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, unless the plaintiff alleges that the false information was supplied with malice or willful intent to injure. In Dietz, plaintiffs Paul Dietz and Marian Dietz contended that Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase) incorrectly reported to credit reporting agencies that the plaintiffs were in default on their home mortgage loan payments. Despite the error being promptly corrected, the plaintiffs claimed that, as a result of the incorrect reporting, their credit limits were reduced and certain sources of credit were eliminated. The plaintiffs asserted state law causes of action for negligence and defamation against Chase. At the trial level, Chase sought summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq. (FCRA). The FCRA bars actions for, among other things, defamation and negligence arising out of incorrect credit reporting, unless the incorrect information was furnished to the credit reporting agencies with malice or willful intent to injure the plaintiff. As the plaintiffs had not alleged malice or an intent to injure on behalf of Chase, the trial court granted Chase's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted. However, the trial court relied on a separate section of the FCRA, section 1681t(b)(1)(F), which provides that no state law may impose duties on furnishers of information, such as Chase, with respect to the manner in which they furnish information to the credit reporting agencies. The plaintiffs appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing that 1681t(b)(1)(F) was intended only to bar claims based on state statutes and not common law causes of action like defamation and negligence. On appeal, the state Superior Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Chase. After analyzing cases from surrounding jurisdictions which were split on whether state common law claims are preempted, the Superior Court adopted the "statutory approach" finding that 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempted only statutory causes of action. However, the court also found that 1681h(e) preempted negligence and defamation claims that did not allege that the incorrect reporting was done with malice, and thus held that 1681h(e) preempted the plaintiffs' claims. Moreover, the court cited with approval a federal court decision, which held that common law negligence claims were always preempted by 1681h(e) because, by definition, a plaintiff cannot allege malicious or willful negligence. As a result, the Superior Court concluded that, under any possible analysis, the plaintiffs' claims were preempted. This decision is significant as it is one of first impression in the Pennsylvania appellate courts and essentially forecloses would-be plaintiffs from asserting common law claims against creditors based on incorrect credit reporting, unless they can show actual malice or intent to injure.

A.G. Schneiderman Announces Major Lawsuit Against Nation's Largest Banks for Deceptive & Fraudulent Use of Electronic Mortgage Registry

Feb 3 12

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has filed a lawsuit against several of the nation's largest banks charging that the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process. The lawsuit asserts that employees and agents of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, acting as "MERS certifying officers," have repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and misleading information that made it appear that the foreclosing party had the authority to bring a case when in fact it may not have. The lawsuit names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as well as MERSCORP, Inc. and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The lawsuit further asserts that the MERS System has effectively eliminated homeowners' and the public's ability to track property transfers through the traditional public records system. Instead, this information is now stored only in a private database - which is plagued with inaccuracies and errors - over which MERS and its financial institution members exercise sole control. Additional defendants include BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Chase Home Finance, LLC, EMC Mortgage Corporation, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Files Class Actions Lawsuits Against SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., SunTrust Banks, Inc., Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A

May 11 11

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. announced the filings of two class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. One case was filed against SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and SunTrust Banks, Inc. The other case was filed against Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The complaints were filed on behalf of California homeowners who have pursued mortgage loan modifications with SunTrust or Chase, and allege that the Defendants violated California consumer protection laws and breached contracts and other duties by, among other things. Keller Rohrback's investigation of the practices alleged in the complaints is ongoing, particularly regarding homeowners whose houses were sold in foreclosure sales after they tried to have their loans modified by SunTrust or Chase.

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 :)

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.”

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.

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...

 

 

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