February 28, 2014
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, a Pinellas County (St. Petersburg) Florida Judge denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA in connection with a WaMu origination. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowner and argued the Motion in person in court on Tuesday.
JPM claimed to have come into the right to enforce the Note and Mortgage through “a chain of mergers” (JPM’s Complaint, paragraph 4). As we all know, there was never any “merger” between WaMu and JPM; the deal structure was an asset purchase (and also the purchase of certain defined liabilities) from the FDIC, and that JPM acquired whatever assets the failed WaMu had in its inventory as of September 25, 2008 which were set forth in the deal documents. As we also know, WaMu had sold off almost all of its originations into securitizations prior to its failure, so the most that JPM would have acquired from the FDIC consisted of servicing rights, if that.
The 330-page deposition of former JPM and WaMu mortgage management employee Lawrence Nardi (which deposition was taken in another Florida case) was filed by the homeowner. Mr. Nardi, who was with WaMu through the time that it failed and then through the period during the FDIC asset purchase and thereafter remaining with JPM, testified under oath that there was never, ever, a mortgage loan schedule in connection with the asset purchase, and that it never existed. He also testified that there is no evidence of any transfer of any mortgage loans from WaMu to JPM: no assignments, no allonges, and no endorsements.
The homeowner also filed a excerpt from JPM’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case filed against it and the FDIC by Deutsche Bank in the District of Columbia Federal Court, where JPM admits that it was NOT the “successor in interest” to WaMu, and that it only purchased certain defined assets and liabilities. This admission, of course, is in direct contradiction to the position taken by JPM in thousands of foreclosures nationally where it asserts that it is the “successor in interest” to WaMu.
The Judge recognized the issue of material fact where JPM is taking the position that it has the right to enforce the Note, but JPM’s own former management employee testified under oath that there is no evidence of any transfer of any mortgage loans from WaMu to JPM and no schedule of any mortgage loans purchased from the FDIC.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com