Chase has been sued in New York City by three homeowners that claim they were denied permanent mortgage modifications under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program despite the fact that they should have been eligible.
Chase claims that their incomes were inadequate for a permanent loan modifications but refused to specify what the income qualifications were. You’ve got to love that Chase.
The latest J.D. Power & Associates survey for banks is out and, as expected, Chase rated near the bottom (again).
The good news is that according to the survey, more people in general are willing to leave their bank if they don’t like the customer service.
The blame for this one falls directly on WaMu’s shoulders.
Apparently, in 2007, despite getting reports that a caregiver was embezzling from an 88 year old man with Alzheimer’s disease, WaMu went ahead and opened a new mortgage anyways which allowed the caregiver to steal all the money.
WaMu’s bankruptcy plan (i.e. the former banks holding company) has been stalled for a while but now there is another reason, claims that the holding company is not fairly disclosing the value of its assets, meaning, it is actually worth more than they are saying. Is someone trying to pull a fast one on shareholders? It is clear that under the current plan, Chase would have benefited, perhaps undeservedly.
Luckily, shareholders have won the right to pursue an annual meeting, where they can try to force out the current board and replace it with one that might be more favorable to them.
We’ve reported on a number of cases where Chase, with no fanfare or notice, either before or after, will debit an account for an old debt either with them or an affiliated institution (i.e. one they’ve acquired). People are forced to call Chase to ask what gives as Chase doesn’t inform them why they did it.
The way Chase does this is wrong for a number of reasons:
1. At the very minimum they should inform the account holder
2. Given how many mistakes Chase bank makes in general that we hear about, it seems possible that the information about an old debt could be wrong. Especially considering all the integrations of data from other institutions they’ve done over the last decade.
Chase should be informing account holders before hand and giving them the chance to dispute it. If they are concerned an account holder clearing out their account to avoid paying the old debt, they can freeze the money without removing it from the account, until some resolution period has expired.
If you have been affected by such a money grab by Chase, one thing to consider is that there is a statute of limitations for the collection of old debt. You can find information on the statute of limitations by state here. It is not clear whether such statutes apply to this type of debt, but it is something worth trying.
Foreclosure, Loan modification | admin May 4, 2010 | 
Comments (0) 
