In re: JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation | JPMorgan Chase Fails to End US Mortgage Modification Lawsuit

JPMorgan Chase Fails to End US Mortgage Modification Lawsuit

* Homeowners claim bank misled them about modifications

* Excess fees, unnecessary foreclosures alleged

* Judge dubs some fee justifications “gibberish”

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, July 30 (Reuters) – A federal judge rejected JPMorgan Chase & Co’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of misleading thousands of cash-strapped homeowners nationwide about modifying their mortgages.

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns in Boston on Friday let homeowners pursue claims that the largest U.S. bank systematically failed to keep its end of the bargain after signing up borrowers hoping to modify their mortgages under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP.

Stearns also let stand claims that Morgan’s Chase unit drove homeowners deeper into debt by prolonging the modification process through “gross ineptitude,” sometimes adding fees to loans already in default and starting foreclosures while modifications were being negotiated.

“(Some plaintiffs) allege that they would have fared better economically had their homes been foreclosed by Chase at the outset instead of at the end of a drawn-out and ultimately futile modification process that Chase had no real intention of honoring,” Stearns wrote. “These are, of course, allegations — but for present purposes, the court must credit them.”

Rest here…

Copy of the order below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

In re: JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation

Comments
8 Responses to “In re: JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation | JPMorgan Chase Fails to End US Mortgage Modification Lawsuit”
  1. Terry owens says:

    They put my home in foreclosure with no notice to me. I found out when trying to make my payment after missing recommended payments to qualify for modification. The paper work was delayed. Resubmitted 7 times. They accumulated 18,000 dollars in fees during the paperwork process. I was only behind 1,500 before the paper work scam. I was told they would wave the fees after I showed proof the paper work was not delayed by me but didn’t do it. I’m in bankruptcy to save my home. I’m ruined. 18,000 from 1,500 dollars is criminal in my eyes. I have to pay the whole 18,000 to keep home.

  2. James & Joy McRae says:

    We went thru the same thing with Chase. They string you along making you think that they are modifying your mortgage all the while the mortgage is getting bigger and bigger then they put your home in foreclosure without letting you know. I We’ve had to retain several attorneys to fight with them. I feel they should be sued. The reason why these bank get away with so much is because they are not oversea by no government agency. They feel that they are above the law. They made our life hell. if a class action lawsuit should arise we want to be a part of it.

  3. Robert Hall says:

    There is an old adage “Liars figure but figures don’t lie”

    JP Morgan Chase, a case study in Liars that figure.

    This is a story that rivals the criminal activities of Enron’s Executives (“the smartest men in the room”) with one major difference, Enron’s victims were primarily investors, whereas Chases victims are vulnerable and financially distressed Chase customers. This includes US servicemen and their families and thousands of others facing foreclosure, with chase “gaming” the Obama MHAP program to steal from, and foreclose on, seniors seeking help from the federal program designed to provide financial relief.

    Chase says it will pay more than $2 million to about 4,000 service member mortgage holders that were overcharged in interest while they were on active duty. The bank’s decision is linked to a five-year legal battle with Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles, an F/A-18D weapons system officer who sued after the institution continued to charge him 9 or 10 percent interest on his mortgage — a violation of the Service members Civil Relief Act — and threatened to take his home. .

    This is just the tip of the iceberg.

    This is a story that will not be welcome or embraced by politicians influenced (if not corrupted) by big banking lobbyists.

    This is a story that can change the way elected officials will level the playing field for the most vulnerable of our citizens victimized by the US banking system.

    This is a story that needs to be pursued by the institutions that are chartered to challenge the criminal activities aimed at our most vulnerable and least protected citizens.

    This is a story that should culminate in the prosecution of responsible Chase management under the “RICO Act’.

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
    Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count treble damages.Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.
    Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, “We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”
    On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather than face spending the rest of his life in prison.On September 7, 1988, Milken’s employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was also threatened with a RICO indictment under the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees’ crimes.
    “Experience hath shown, that even under
    the best forms of government those
    entrusted with power have, in time, and
    by slow operations, perverted it into
    tyranny.”
    – Thomas Jefferson
    Where are the “protectors’ of our most vunerable?
    Robert Barry Hall, just another victim of “Liars that figure”.

  4. jodybrownd says:

    Chase was doing a home modification with us… Now they are taking our home, If only they had just let us make one late payment after the hurricane, and not offered us the modification, everything would be just fine.

  5. Dennis Shockney says:

    Hi,I live near Daytona Beach Fla . I was told by Chase that they would give me a Loan Mod. No problem! They said just hold your payments for 90 days! I did as told and I found on county records the filed on me! I have recordings and letters of them saying to do this. Now I am in a 10.5% loan I am close to losing my home. I am disabled and money is tight .What should I do?

  6. Janelle says:

    Chase Mortgage is unethical n what they are doing to innocent people and they need to be put out of business

  7. Bobbi Swann says:

    Michael – I do hope that you will follow this suit and keep us all apprised. We have ALL been foolishly led astray by this bast*** bank!

  8. Kathleen Burt says:

    Finally reached court! The pattern of all those “misrepresentations” will emerge as bank policy now that there are complaints from all over the country, not just Florida.

    Yes, the fees are gibbersish,.Many of us started 2 months in arrears because we were told we weren’t eligible unless our mortgage was 60 days late! If we were current on the mortgage, per the bank, we “could afford to pay the investor!”

    We soon found our mortgage was twice as much as before we applied for HAMP and began the trial period. If we’d sold our house in 2009, we’d have been mcu better off financially than we were after spending all that time trying to get the HAMP.

Leave a Reply