A couple recently was able to get their foreclosure by WaMu then Chase dismissed and the court went a step further and found WaMu and Chase guilty of fraud.
At the heart of the issue was the fact that the bank was claiming it owned the loan rather than being the service of the loan which was owned by Fannie Mae. The loan was originated by another bank unrelated to WaMu or Chase so neither bank (WaMu, then Chase as the purchaser of WaMu’s assets) had the right to claim that they owned the loan.
The court found WaMu and Chase guilty of fraud because they knew as servicer and not owner of the loan, they were not entitled to foreclose; only Fannie Mae was entitled to foreclose.
11. The court find by clear and convincing evidence that WAMU, Chase, and Shapiro and Fishman committed fraud on this court.
This was bound to happen given the highly aggressive deceptive and fear-based tactics Chase is using to get people to sign up for their overdraft protection.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – JPMorgan Chase Bank forces customers to pay “absurdly high” overdraft fees on debit cards in violation of a federal regulation that protects people from such fees, according to a class action in Federal Court. Congress passed Regulation E in November 2009; it requires bank customers to “opt in” before banks can charge them overdraft fees on debit transactions.
Chase, which claims that Regulation E will cost it $500 million a year, “is doing everything it possibly can to scare and mislead customers into opting-in to an abusive and unfair overdraft program, which causes significant harm to its most vulnerable customers, while resulting in massive profits for the bank,” according to the complaint.
The class claims Chase is aggressively pushing its customers to opt in, bombarding them with misleading ads that “create the impression that the customers’ debit card will simply stop working or experience significant problems in everyday usage if they do not opt-in to being charged overdraft fees.”
To bully customers into opting in to its overdraft program, the class says, Chase has altered its available-funds policy so that direct deposit funds are not available on the day the money is received – but only for customers who have not opted in.
“Chase is fully aware that many of its customers who live paycheck to paycheck need to have access to their funds on the day that they make deposits, such as direct pay checks from employers,” the class claims.
“However, Chase has changed its practice of making these funds available in order to create hardships for these customers … in order to coerce its customers into opting-in to the abusive overdraft program.”
Lead plaintiffs Victor Espinosa and Rhonda Closson both claim that Chase withheld money from their paychecks, and say they were not given notice that their money would no longer be available on the day it was deposited.
The class seeks restitution and punitive damages for breach of contract, conversion, fraud and unfair business practices, and an order prohibiting Chase from running deceptive ads about its overdraft program.
They are represented by David Wright with McCune Wright of Redlands.
A judge all but threw the book at JP Morgan Chase over its handling of a loan to a company owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim in 2007. JP Morgan Chase has tried to structure the loan such that the majority of the loan would be held by a direct competitor to Slim’s Grupo Telivisa SAB, allowing them access to confidential information. Grupo Telivisia SAB sued Chase over the loan.
The Judge barred 10 JP Morgan Chase employees, including Vice Chairman Steven Black, from having any further dealings with the loan.
You can read the Wall Street Journal article here.
If Chase thinks like this at its very top levels, just think how little it bothers them to screw the little guy, aka its retail customers.
By David Lazarus
July 20, 2010
Matthew Pinnavaia sued Chase after the bank closed his two business accounts and four personal accounts even though the balance on each card was no more than $4,000. He may win a $2-million judgment.
Matthew Pinnavaia was among the hundreds of thousands of people whose credit card accounts were either shut down or limited over the last couple of years as banks grappled with the meltdown of the financial markets.
Unlike most people, though, Pinnavaia decided to do something about it. He taught himself the law and sued Chase bank.
Now there’s a chance — a slim one, perhaps, but a chance — that he could be awarded $2 million in damages by a San Diego County Superior Court judge because Chase failed for months to respond to his lawsuit, as required by state law.’
Read more (LATimes.com) …
Update: As of 7/24/10, there are 20 comments on this story at LATimes.com and not one of them is in defense of Chase bank!
According to an article from CNBC, several big banks, including Chase, have been accused of short sale fraud as second lien holders.
…
But here’s what’s not legal and what’s apparently happening quite often recently. Since many second lien holders are getting very little, they are now allegedly requesting money on the side from either real estate agents or the buyers in the short sale. When I say “on the side,” I mean in cash, off the HUD settlement statements, so the first lien holder doesn’t see it.
“They are pretty clear and pretty upfront about the fact that if the first lender knows they are getting paid, the first lender will kill the short sale,” says Brandt. “So these second lenders are asking for the payments off the closing documents, off the HUD statement, usually in a cashiers check prior to closing. Once they receive that payment, they will allow the short sale to go through, which according to RESPA laws and the lawyers that we have spoken to on the topic is not legal.”
…
Brandt told me he’s heard from at least 200 agents that they’ve had these requests made by representatives of Citi Mortgage, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other large banks.
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) is suing units of three banks over the sale of mortgage-backed securities to the company’s bank, alleging the firms made false statements or omitted facts about the credit quality of loans that backed the investments.
The banks named in the complaint filed on June 29 include units of Bank of America Corp. (BAC), UBS AG (UBS), and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM). Two units of Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) are also named in documents, though the bank wasn’t one of the securities dealers that sold certificates to Schwab. Rather, Wells Fargo is considered an issuer of the certificate that UBS sold to Schwab.
In a filing with Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Schwab said it purchased three certificates in three securitization trusts backed by residential mortgage loans for $130 million.
Schwab alleges that defendants in the suit “made untrue statements, or omitted important information, about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured the loans and the extent to which the entities that made the loans departed from their standards in doing so.”
The complaint alleges that more mortgage loans other than those listed in the document “were the subject of untrue or misleading statements.”
The complaint says that because the certificates are securities, under two California securities acts, Schwab believes it is entitled to rescind the purchase of the certificates or be paid damages for losses on the certificates.
Read more …
Think again. According to a lawsuit filed by a Seattle business owner, a bank error made by Chase during the holidays resulted in Chase freezing his accounts which ultimately forced him out of business.
Whether or not Chase made an error is not in question. Chase has formally admitted to the error and the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates Chase, has also determined that Chase made an error. The business owners account was put on hold incorrectly, and it took a week to get it open again, a week that turned out to be the worst possible time for the business.
Finally.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether Chase Bank USA can be sued for changing credit-card interest rates without written notice for account holders who were late on payments.
More details in this Wall Street Journal article.
Foreclosure, Lawsuits | admin August 14, 2010 | 
Comments (0) 
