July 9, 2015

We hope everyone had a safe and happy July 4th holiday. Mr. Barnes recently completed a month-long “tour of duty” throughout the US involving trials and hearings in several states including Florida, Oregon, Tennessee, Illinois, and Colorado, and is preparing for another battery of court appearances in New Jersey, Colorado, Florida, and Tennessee.

The Florida 4th District Court of Appeal has reversed a Final Judgment of Foreclosure which a Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Circuit Judge had entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank; dismissed the foreclosure due to lack of standing; and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the homeowner in the matter of Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 4th DCA Case No. 4D14-565. We thank one of our dedicated followers for bringing this case to our attention.

The case is of particular interest as the original Note was in favor of Chase Bank USA, which JPM claimed to be its wholly-owned subsidiary. JPM argued that it obtained servicing rights over the loan and that as the parent company of the wholly owned subsidiary, it had the right to enforce a Note in favor of its subsidiary.

The 4th DCA disagreed, holding that Chase Bank was a separate legal entity and as such, the parent company could not exercise the rights of a subsidiary, citing two appellate decisions on this issue. The Court held that absent evidence that the loan was purchased by JPM, it could not enforce the Note. JPM did not introduce any purchase agreement or other evidence that it had acquired the Note.

The Florida 4th DCA has consistently been one of the few appellate courts in the entire country to really examine the issues involved in foreclosures and hold the foreclosing party to its legal burdens. Other Florida appellate courts are recently beginning to do likewise.

We have been receiving many inquiries since our publication on the America’s Wholesale Lender issues raised by the Nash decision in Florida. Mr. Barnes currently has cases pending in two states on the issue of whether AWL ever legally existed and thus whether any alleged “successor” thereto may seek to enforce a Note in favor of a non-existent, unlicensed mortgage “Lender.”

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com