JPM MORGAN TAKES INCONSISTENT POSITION AS TO BEING SUCCESSOR TO WAMU

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEE Exhibit to Consent Motion-Confidentiality Stip and Order

SEE Consent Motion for Confidential Documents

SEE Deutsche-Bank-Response-to-FDIC-and-JPM-Motions-to-Dismiss

SEE Docket as of October 7, 2011

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: When it suits JPM Chase, like when they are looking to foreclose, they say they are the successor in interest to WAMU. When it doesn’t suit them, like in a lawsuit with Deutsch over whether there is an obligation to buy back the crappy paper that never was perfected or transferred properly, they say they are not the successor. The truth lies somewhere in between at the option of JPM Chase because fo the crazy way WAMU was “resolved.” But use this as a heuristic guide: the price paid by JPM Chase was about 1% of the total assets of WAMU. Obviously they bought some bank assets and an option on the mortgages — not the assets themselves.

Which brings up the next subject about the “notes” (which are NOT evidence of the complete transaction between the investor and the borrower): When they are foreclosing they point to the fact that the notes were indorsed without recourse. When they litigate amongst themselves they admit that it is with recourse.

Which is it? The answer is in the securitization documents, which is why people need the COMBO report. The notes were never assigned timely, but leaving that out as an issue, they were ALL assigned WITH RECOURSE. Every one of them required the seller to replace a bad note with cash or a comparable note. But the problem is that this creates too much activity to satisfy the passivity standards under the REMIC portion of the Internal Revenue Code, so they stand to lose their tax status as well as their standing.

And that leads to the last point. Why is it that when institutions sue each other over securitization issues, they are entitled to discovery but borrowers have to fight tooth and nail to get the same documents and information? The same Judge is likely to grant  discovery to a litigating institution and deny it to a borrower over essentially the same facts, but on a smaller scale.

Posted by April Charney

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company sued JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC in
2009 claiming breach of contract as to WaMu originated mortgage loans that
were supposed to be transferred into securitized trusts of which DBNTC is
the “trustee”.

> One of the issues in the case is whether WaMu must repurchase mortgage loans
> that did not comply with the “Representations and Warranties” provisions of
> the Trust documents as the loans were in default, in danger of being in
> default, etc. at the time that they were allegedly “transferred” to the
> hundreds of securitized trusts of which DB is the “trustee”.
>
> The Court ordered discovery of the loan files.
>
> JPM Chase has taken the position in this case that it is “not the successor
> in interest to WaMu”, and that it only assumed certain assets and
> liabilities of the failed WaMu as of September 25, 2008, yet JPM Chase has
> filed hundreds of foreclosures where it claims, many times under oath, the
> right to foreclose on the WaMu loans maintaining inconsistantly that it is
> “the successor in interest to WaMu.”

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, Deutsch, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, JPM CHASE, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WAMU, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |