Aug 20

LEWIS V. CHASE HOME FINANCE LOAN PAYOFF FEE CLASS ACTION

SGB, along with co-counsel Guy Beckett and Rob Williamson, have filed a class action lawsuit in King County Superior Court, Washington, alleging that Chase Home Finance breached its contract with borrowers and violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by requiring borrowers to pay certain fees, including fees for recording a substitution of trustee and for obtaining a faxed payoff statement, when paying off their mortgages.

The case is currently pending before the Honorable Palmer Robinson in Seattle. Discovery is ongoing, and no class has yet been certified. Trial in the case is currently set for June 4, 2012.

To learn more about this case please read:

Lewis v. Chase Home Finance LLC Complaint (PDF)

Oct 07

One more Law Office tired of Chase.

Your web page calls for people to join in a class action against Chase Home Finance, and for attorneys.

I have filed my own suit to prevent foreclosure on my home when I could not meet the monthly payments after WaMu almost tripled them at the end of 2007, and would not modify. The suit now includes the FDIC and JP Morgan Chase & Co., parent company of Chase Home Finance.

Please contact me.

Thanks.
Ernie

=================================
Ernest J. Ciccotelli
The Law Offices of Ernest J. Ciccotelli, PLLC
Aldrich House
16 Beaver Meadow Road, Suite 10
P.O. Box 562
Norwich, Vermont 05055
Office: 802 649-3400
Fax: 802 649-3401

Jul 11

Warren v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al.

On June 17, 2010, we filed a Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of New York homeowners who Chase required to purchase flood insurance in connection with a mortgage loan or line of credit. The lawsuit alleges that Chase unfairly requires its customers to purchase and maintain unnecessary and excessive flood insurance for their property in amounts greater than necessary to secure the outstanding balance of their loan or HELOC. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, reimbursement of all unfair and excessive premiums.

The following staff from Nichols Kaster, PLLP are handling this case:

More on this case: http://www.nka.com/Cases%5CChaseHomeFinanceNY.aspx?CaseRef=157

May 19

No reply from a QWR sent 2008

Sent QWR in 2008 to Chase one of many. Have had case with O.C.C since March of last year. Nothing has been done by the Regulator of banks. Nothing has been done by Congress. I am the 35% of Americans that pay taxes for services, that I should receive called protection from large corporations. I fight this battle without the help of my country, but with the help of other people that have fallen to the large corporation like Chase/JPMorgan. Do they really think that they do not have to answer to anyone. Chase owns the media so the truth is never shown on TV. The only media that is telling the truth is on the internet. You can see that politics they are a changing. So beware Chase things are going to change.

Letters sent:
O.C.C
Federal Trade
Attorney General Office
B.B.B
F.D.I.C
and many more

Picture of all Documents being sent FedEx today.

May 14

NYC Homeowners Sue Chase for Unexplained Delays & Denials of Permanent Modifications

Also posted at bottom of page full court document in PDF format.

From the Urban Justice Center
For Immediate Release, Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Contact: Anna Deknatel, (646) 200-5311, BerlinRosen Public Affairs

JP MORGAN CHASE ILLEGALLY DENYING HOMEOWNERS FORECLOSURE RELIEF

NYC Homeowners Sue Chase for Unexplained Delays & Denials of Permanent Modifications under Federal Program, Including after Months of ?Trial Payments?

Latest in Wave of Lawsuits across the U.S. against Banks for Violating ?HAMP?

New York ? Today three homeowners from Queens, New York City?s foreclosure epicenter, joined with attorneys from the Urban Justice Center to announce a lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase Bank for illegally delaying and denying their applications for permanent foreclosure relief under the federal ?Home Affordable Modification Program? (HAMP).

The lawsuit charges Chase with breach of contract for violating HAMP requirements, often without providing timely or sufficient information to the homeowners. Under HAMP, servicers are required to provide permanent modifications to all eligible homeowners who complete three months of trial payments and verify their income.

?Chase has collected months of on-time payments from these homeowners? and surely many like them across around the country? with seemingly no intention of giving them real relief through permanent modifications on their loans,? said Carmela Huang, an attorney at the Urban Justice Center, which filed the complaint.

The homeowners are suing for an injunction to force the bank to modify their loans, an end to their foreclosures, and damages.

?Chase must end their endless tactics to dodge providing foreclosure aid to eligible homeowners, as required by the federal government,? Harvey Epstein, an attorney and Project Director at the Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center.

One Queens Village homeowner, Shanaz Begum, has made trial modification payments of $1576 on time for eight months. Begum bought her home in 2005, where she lives with her husband and two sons, but fell behind on mortgage payments in September of 2008 after losing a previous job as a manager of a retail business. Chase did not offer Begum a trial modification until July 2009, the same month she was served with a foreclosure summons.

Chase claims their consistent income is suddenly inadequate? even though Begum met Chase?s demands for documentation, beyond HAMP requirements, of her husband?s cash income from taxi driving. Begum now works as a clerical assistant at the Department of Transportation on weekdays, and on weekends as a server at Boston Market.

?We made the three trial modification payments, and then didn?t hear a peep from Chase until December; then, abruptly, they said our income wasn?t enough, even though it hasn?t changed,? said Begum. ?Chase has completely lacked any transparency and has been staggeringly unresponsive? leaving us in the lurch for months. They have demanded spurious documents and claimed they lost others. Our son is headed to college in the fall. We don?t know how to afford those bills too with the possibility of losing our home still looming.?

Chase has also failed to provide a permanent modification to Tamara Williams, who lives in Jamaica, Queens with her two sons, despite three on-time trial modification payments of $1,274 this winter.

Williams bought her house in December of 2005 though a subprime, interest-only loan fraudulently marketed to her by a rental broker. Able to make payments until the summer of 2008, she fell behind when she lost her job in November of 2008, and went into foreclosure in March of last year. She now works doing post-renovation and demolition cleanup for Interior Quality Renovations and also attends school.

?The Obama administration?s program was supposed to give people like me a lifeline and a chance to save our homes, but if the banks won?t play by the rules, what else are we supposed to do?,? asked Williams.

The lawsuit also includes charges of fraud against Chase because the bank instructed homeowner Alex Lam, of Fresh Meadows, Queens, to deliberately miss mortgage payments in order to become eligible for a modification. Lam bought his house in 2002, and refinanced in 2005. In 2009, he was told he did not qualify for a modification because he was current on his payments. On the bank?s advice, Lam skipped payments in February and March of 2009. To this day, those are the only payments he has missed. He now faces foreclosure.

?I may lose my home and my credit is damaged because I believed what the bank told me,? said Lam. ?I held out for the HAMP modification because the terms are better. But the months I spent waiting for Chase to follow through on their promises mean I may have lost any chance to get help by refinancing somewhere else.?

Modifications under HAMP reduce mortgage payments to 31% of the homeowners? income, by reducing the interest rate, extending the term of the loan, or adjusting monthly payments. Chase has reported Begum, Lam, and Williams as ?delinquent? to credit reporting agencies, harming their ability to secure other foreclosure relief.

Chase put Lam in a trial modification last year, and then refused to make it permanent. Chase has since denied Lam a HAMP modification because of the remaining value in his house, though they will not share their calculations. HAMP requires servicers to offer trial modifications, as long as the value of modifying the loan would be more than the value of foreclosing, as determined by a ?Net Present Value? test.

?Chase has misled these homeowners, plain and simple,? added Ted De Barbieri, an attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Urban Justice Center. ?Unfortunately, they?re not alone? that?s why we?ve seen a recent spate of homeowners suing banks for not complying with HAMP around the country, including in California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington State. These homeowners have done their part and now the banks must live up to their end of the bargain.?

The lawsuit was filed Eastern District Federal Court in Brooklyn this morning. The full complaint is available on request.

50353-Final Chase complaint.pdf

http://chasehomefinancesucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/50353-Final-Chase-complaint3.pdf

Jan 10

Bank CEOs to answer for financial crisis

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) — As lawmakers start trickling back to Washington next week, a panel tasked with investigating the financial crisis is set to make its first big splash.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a 10-member panel appointed last summer by Congress, will hold public hearings on Wednesday and Thursday.

Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein will be among four banking executives returning to Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
First up are four chiefs of some of the best-known and largest banks: Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500).

The panel’s chairman, Philip Angelides, said he’s interested in hearing about the banks’ role in creating the crisis as well as finding out how they became “too big to fail.” The federal government stepped in to prop up the banks in fall 2008, creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help provide them with liquidity.

“We think it made sense to start by bringing up the four biggest investment banks that were involved in so many aspects of the crisis,” said Angelides, former California State Treasurer, who warned about financial sector abuses back in 2002. “Many of them had arms that were involved in originating mortgages, some were packaging mortgage securities and some of them were betting against these mortgage securities.”

Lawmakers say the commission was modeled after the Pecora Commission, a panel that was convened after the 1929 Wall Street crash and other events leading to the Great Depression.

The Pecora panel’s findings led to an overhaul of federal banking laws, including the creation of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Glass-Steagall divided investment banking from government-insured commercial banking; ending that separation in the 1990s was seen by some critics as contributing to the current crisis.

Slow start
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has taken a while to get up on its feet.

The panel was appointed last July and held its first meeting in September. It has only started getting staffed up over the past few months.

It has new offices in downtown Washington, a few blocks northeast of the White House. Funded to the tune of $8 million, it aims to employ between 40 and 50 investigators and other staffers.

The crisis panel’s one big goal is to complete a final report, sort of like the final 9/11 Commission report that found federal agencies missed signs of the impending terrorist attacks in 2001. The financial crisis report is due Dec. 15.

Critics have noted the panel’s impact may be blunted by timing, as the House has already passed a bill to overhaul regulations and the Senate is deep in negotiations on similar proposals.

But panel members have consistently pledged their work will serve as more than window dressing for politicians worried about the appearance that they allowed the financial crisis to happen.

The panel, which has subpoena power, plans to issue interim reports as it collects data, Angelides has said.

The panel’s second-in-command is Bill Thomas, a retired California Republican congressman described as strong-willed during his tenure running the powerful Ways and Means Committee.