Washington Mutual JPMorgan Chase FDIC Deal NOT Finalized? So how can JPMorgan Foreclose on WAMU Loans?

This is very intriguing… Check out the the excerpts from the report below…

Game Changer?

WaMu sale hasn’t closed, document suggests

Next month will mark two years since federal regulators seized Washington Mutual and sold it to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion. Now a document that appears to be from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation suggests the deal still hasn’t closed.

“Everyone is saying the sale is finalized,” said the shareholder, Farokh Lam, of Woburn, Mass. “It is not.

Lam noticed that on pages 7 and 9, the original WaMu purchase and sale agreement allows the FDIC to extend the settlement date. He says he asked about it, and the FDIC confirmed in phone calls and emails that the settlement date was set for Aug. 30, 2010, and could be extended further.

“Settlement Date” means the first Business Day immediately prior to the day which is one hundred eighty (180) days after Ban Closing, or such other date prior thereto as may be agreed upon by the Receiver and the Assuming Bank. The Receiver, in its discretion, may extend the Settlement Date.

It says: “The purpose of this amendment is to extend the time period for Final Settlement to August. 30, 2010.”

WaMu’s final days were chronicled in depth by Puget Sound Business Journal Staff Writer Kirsten Grind in an award-winning series.

Does this mean that all the WAMU foreclosures being pushed through the courts by JPMorgan Chase using the FDIC Purchase and Sale Agreement are invalid?

Does it mean if they haven’t closed the deal THEY DO NOT OWN THE LOANS OR THEIR SERVICING RIGHTS?

Where are the windfall profits going after the foreclosure sale?

What if the agreement changes before it is finalized?

So many questions…

The way I see it is, if they haven’t finalized the deal, how can they foreclose on the homes?

~

4closureFraud.org

~

JPMorgan Wamu FDIC Settlement Date Extension
[scribd id=36027673 key=key-5z7g1dy0c99oralt1p0 mode=list]

Comments
17 Responses to “Washington Mutual JPMorgan Chase FDIC Deal NOT Finalized? So how can JPMorgan Foreclose on WAMU Loans?”
  1. anon says:

    If you’re in California, SB1638 is your greatest weapon.

  2. craig E. Hellman says:

    WAMU bank is unreal, thank God for good GUYS like Nye Lavalle as he let the can of wormes OUT, ck out WAMUFRAUD. com its will give insite!! all A/HOLES!!!

  3. So now this brings us to Nov. 9, 2010….did the actual final purchase of WaMu to Chase get the finalized rubber stamp as done/completed…case closed?? Or is the FDIC still playing hide and seek with everyone? This whole set-up with Chase and the FDIC was planned behind closed doors long before the actual seize..the writing was on the walls..it left dirty hand prints. Now don’t get me wrong…Washington Mutual had plenty of dirty tricks used on the borrowers and the investors. so we are dealing with three (3) outlaws. There are certainly more out-laws following this ‘rat pack’..but our concerns need to be dealt with the three (3) listed. If Chase claims to own all fraud that came with the purchase agreement of the WaMu seize..to bad sucker..Chase should have read the small print of what they were buying. WaMu was famous for making their own rules and regulations..problem was WaMu didn’t follow any of them..cause their rules and regulations were meant for the borrowers and investors to fail..so they had two (2) sets of rules..One for WaMu and one for the borrowers/investors. But it backfired when the mortgages were securitized….Once a note was securitized it was no longer a note and would NEVER be a Note again. It became a security. So if the Notes were Pass-Through to the Trust..they are now securities. If not Pass-Through to the Trust.. that is fraud. So if Chase says they own/holder of the Notes, they bought fraud. At least this is my opinion as I believe…” To catch a crook you must think like a crook”.

    • I believed the same thing, but read the PSA agreements more carefully and you’ll see the trusts only posses certificates, not the actual loans/notes. The key words being “Pass-Through Certificates” Physical possession of the notes is allegedly with the DTCC, or at least according the PSA’s.

  4. mike says:

    My girlfriend had in hearing in Federal Bankruptcy Court in San Jose, California yesterday on a motion to lift the stay filed by Chase wherein they used the original FDIC assumption document to prove they owned the note and DOT. They had provided a very bad photocopy of both with no assignments. There has also been no assignments at the county recorder.

    She had a BK mill attorney she had hired who I don’t know how he had a law license except he could file documents. He filed a motion to disallow Chases’s claim and a Declaration by my girlfriend about Chase’s Lack of Standing. It was written by me and included numerous case cites, evidence statutes, etc, etc. about no wet ink note and no assignment to Chase.

    The Judge totally dismisses the wet-ink note and said that Local Rule 4001 (?) allowed photocopies of the notes. The attorney never raised issue of assignment and that an assignment can’t be by operation of law but must be a legal transfer and duly recorded. They’ve had 2-years to do it.

    The Judge did however appear to like the mention that the assumption had never closed. I had attached the above as an Exhibit. The attorney for Chase tried to get the doc thrown out but Judge said no. Judge then asked Chase about the doc to which replied he replied I don’t know if deal was completed. Judge then went on to bring up the Aug. 30, 2010 date and since it was Sept. 1 then they now owned the doc and had standing.

    Once again her attorney never brought up the fact you can’t file a claim or a foreclosure action for a loan/DOT that you weren’t holder in due course at time of the filing. At the very least, if he bought the notion they just received standing they should have to refile.

    He ruled they had standing and we bought some more time by agreeing to make a payment in three weeks.

    I really thought we were going to get the Judge to at least make them get the note/DOT. Because of that I believe I made the mistake of not divulging the fact that we a title report, the prospectus, the PSA, 10K, 8K and a recent shareholder distribution report from Wells that has her loan as being in BK. In clearly shows that WAMU sold her note in 2004 and as late as May 2010 was still in the trust.

    Today we received a letter from the FDIC that she filed under a FOIA request. The letter states the FDIC never received any of the notes or loan docs from WAMU. Everything went to Chase.

    Is there smoke and mirrors here again somewhere? If the deal hasn’t closed and if it were to fall through how would the FDIC recover the files and docs that Chase has? If there’s no records at the FDIC as to what Chase received, how do they know what to take back?

    Unfortunately, I am unable to argue this case or help with it because I’m not on the note or a party to the BK.

    My question if anyone knows is, what’s the time frame to ask for a rehearing with the BK judge or can we appeal his ruling on the fact if Chase only received standing on the 30th that they would have to in fact refile or do we have to raise the issue in an AP in state court?

    If she can appeal, can she raise issue of the above mentioned SEC documents and how they conflict with the fact Chase says they own the note but don’t have the note/DOT?

    Thanks

    • Chris says:

      Mike,

      I’ve got a case that is very similar to the scenario you outlined. I’d love to see the declaration that you drafted. Would you be willing to share it. I too thought it was not possible to assign the notes by operation of law and that they had to be recorded. This is fascinating.

    • Chris Hellmich says:

      Mike,

      I’ve tried contacting you the email address you provided me but I’ve not heard from you. I remain eager to see your analysis if you are willing to share it.

      Kind regards,

      Chris

  5. Alina says:

    I believe that the shareholders of WaMu sued both the FDIC and Chase alleging fraud in the seizure by the FDIC and subsequent sale to Chase. This may be the reason why the agreement is not finalized. The shareholders have set up several websites where they are posting info supporting their claims of some type of fraud in the seizure of WaMu – WamuStory.com, WamuEquity.org, GhostOfWamu.com, and WamuCoup.com.

    I have not visited any of these sites, but there may be more useful info if anyone is willing do some more research.

  6. Brenda R. says:

    An so the “Bank Welfare System” continues to go unpunished, unchecked, vile, and viscious! God help us all!

  7. dormanmom says:

    Well, isn’t that just special informaiton.
    Why am I not surprised at all?

  8. JB says:

    A mere technicality, Geithner will be okay with it no worries. I’m being sarcastic of course just call me cynical.

  9. James M says:

    JP Morgan Chase is a giant commodities speculator (losing, most recently, hundreds of millions of dollars on coal). And this is appropriate for a bank . . . how?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-tavakoli/jpmorgans-losses-from-ind_b_676042.html

  10. James M says:

    If the assets are intended to be transferred by the umbrella agreement I would agree. The questions I have are:

    1) What assets did WAMU hold when FEDS took control ?

    2) Did reviver authorize any other transfer or sale of individual or pools of notes prior to, and out side of, the above mentioned sale to JP Morgan ?

    3) Are people back dating assignments to make it look like transfer of note was prior to FEDS takeover ?

    4) It seems other creditors, the public and various AG’s may have the right to examine what transactions the receiver has or has not allowed. I suspect the receiver, who has a fiduciary duty to both the US goverment, other creditors, and persons with money on deposit, has probably created an excellent set of records, which are discoverable.

    5) Maybe JP Morgan is busy typing up a power of attorney to be agent in fact, which while unrecorded until now, just happens to pre-date the start of litigation.

    What was that I was reading 15 minutes ago: Oh yes,

    F.S. 559.72(9) provides (in pertinent part):
    Prohibited practices generally. – In collecting consumer debts, no person shall….Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person…assert(s) the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist. F.S. 559.72 (9)

    This should be amusing.

    • Anony says:

      Thanks for the post. My attorney is using this document and information in a motion to dismiss defending an alleged assignment and subsequent suit by Chase to collect a business line of credit debt (BLOC) loan on which I’m a personal guarantor. They’ve moved for summary judgement without even providing a copy of the note–just very poor, unreadable copies of so-called purchase and assignment documents dated back in 2008. They filed suit against me and the company in 2/2010– many months before this transaction was “finalized”. I’ll let you know how it goes.

      88492 %%PopBop &&*

      • lvent says:

        Anony, Good for you!!!! Hope you can beat the crooks and sheisters, the pretender lenders!!!! Fight the good fight America!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *