Aug 12

O.C.C last letter to me

Now the O.C.C thinks it got me my modification, I contacted O.C.C March 1 of 2009 this letter is dated August 10 2010. I already had my modification months ago,thanks for nothing, I wanted the O.C.C to do something about the violation over the last 2 and a half years. Yet there are still no violations against JPMorgan/Chase. Why is this and why cant the O.C.C do there job of Regulating large banks like they close the small ones. WHAT ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS? CASE# 00880530

May 19

One in four in the government’s mortgage program is dropped.

The government’s mortgage-modification program has left some struggling homeowners worse off than they were before.

The Treasury reported Monday that nearly one in four homeowners who were offered lower payments under the Obama administration’s 15-month-old effort have been weeded out of the program. Many people were removed from the trials because they failed to make payments, didn’t provide all the financial documents needed to qualify or were found to be ineligible.

Homeowners are first offered trial modifications under the program, which provides incentive payments to loan servicers, investors and the homeowners. If borrowers make the payments and satisfy other criteria, those trials are made permanent, ensuring a cut in payments for five years.

While awaiting answers, some borrowers keep making payments, exhausting their savings in what may be a futile effort to save their homes. They also incur fees from the banks and delay taking action that might give them a fresh start in a more affordable home.

Some borrowers had unrealistic expectations about loan-relief programs, which were never designed to prevent all foreclosures. Another big problem is that banks often take six to 12 months to determine whether applicants are eligible.

“I had to learn the hard way and deplete my savings doing it,” said Mia Parry, a manager at a mortgage brokerage in Scottsdale, Ariz., who has spent nearly two years seeking a loan modification. She now wishes she had put her home on the market.

Most struggling borrowers do benefit from seeking help, said Aaron Horvath, a senior vice president at Springboard Inc., a nonprofit counseling service based in Riverside, Calif.

Some win modifications, cutting monthly payments by hundreds of dollars. Others who ultimately can’t get modifications at least are allowed to stay in their homes for months, making either no payments or reduced payments.

But “if you’re draining your savings” in a vain effort to hang onto a home, he said, you may end up worse off.

Eager for quick results, the Obama administration last year prodded banks to start people on trials without first obtaining documents proving they were eligible. That has led to many crushed hopes. The Treasury earlier this year changed its rules and told banks to start trials only after getting documents that proved borrowers qualified.

The Treasury said in a monthly report on the government’s $50 billion Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, that about 1.2 million trial modifications had been started under the plan, and about 281,000 borrowers had washed out by the end of April.

Only about 30% of borrowers who seek help from the main foreclosure-prevention counseling program at Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida end up with modifications, said LeeAnn Robinson, chief operating officer of the Miami-based nonprofit. Many borrowers don’t have enough income to support even reduced loan payments; others give up before completing the paperwork.

On average, it takes seven months to resolve a borrower’s situation, up from four months a year ago, Ms. Robinson said. Banks and other loan servicers can’t keep up with the demand for help, she said.

Ms. Parry bought a home in Phoenix in 2005 for $535,000, but she believes it now would sell for around $250,000. She has been seeking a modification from a unit of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C – News), the servicer of her two mortgage loans, since June 2008.

Ms. Parry’s application was turned down in late 2008, but President Obama’s announcement of HAMP in February 2009 rekindled her hopes. Ms. Parry decided to keep making payments on her loans because she expected to qualify for this new program.

Citigroup started her on a HAMP trial in June 2009, and she made three payments. Then Citigroup told her there had been a mistake and she would need to go through another three-month trial.

At the end of that second trial, Ms. Parry said, Citigroup told her the investor that owned her first mortgage wasn’t participating in HAMP, so she couldn’t get a modification under that plan. During her trial period, Citigroup charged her more than $1,300 of “late charges” and “delinquency expenses,” she said.

Ms. Parry said Citigroup should have been able to determine that the investor wasn’t participating before she went through the trial. Citigroup recently offered her another type of modification that she said fell short of the HAMP formula and wouldn’t lower her costs enough to make keeping the home worthwhile. Unless Citigroup improves the offer, she will try to sell the home.

A Citigroup spokesman said: “We have worked diligently with the borrower and the investor in an effort to find a solution that meets both the borrower’s needs and the investor’s requirements.”

Martha Wright, a marketing executive whose income has dropped in recent years, has been trying since February 2009 to work out a deal with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM – News), the bank that services the $1.1 million mortgage on her Avalon, N.J. home.

The bank denied her request last summer, but Ms. Wright said she kept trying because the responses from the bank were unclear and inconsistent, and she believed she still might qualify. Meanwhile, she said, by continuing to make payments, she cut her nonretirement savings to about $500 from $63,000 in early 2009.

A spokesman for J.P. Morgan said the bank told Ms. Wright on three occasions that she didn’t qualify for a modification. “Modifying the loan would produce less value to the loan’s owner than foreclosing,” he said.

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.

Mar 20

Chase opens 2nd Homeownership Center

JPMorgan Chase & Co. opened its second Homeownership Center this week in Arizona to help struggling families handle mortgage payments.

The facility, located at 444 W. Broadway in Tempe, will host an open house March 30, when Chase mortgage counselors will make a brief presentation on the modification process for local nonprofit leaders and government officials.

?We created these local centers so our borrowers can sit down and discuss their situation face-to-face with trained loan advisors in these challenging times,? said David Schneider, head of mortgage servicing at Chase, in a statement. ?They are part of our wide-ranging initiative to help families stay in their homes whenever possible.?

Since 2007, the New York financial giant helped prevent more than 900,000 home foreclosures across the country, according to the company. As of December 2009, Chase offered about 600,000 new trial loan modifications to struggling homeowners, officials said.

A year ago, Chase open its first Arizona loan service in north Phoenix, with hopes of minimizing foreclosures and helping struggling families make mortgage payments.

Despite the bank?s initiative, many consumers continue to criticize efforts from large financial institutions such as Chase, Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America to stem the foreclosure crises. Many borrowers have told the Phoenix Business Journal they continue to get to the run around and reworking loans in this environment is incredibly difficult.

Last year, 92,292 homes were sold in Arizona and foreclosures accounted for 69.7 percent of all sales, according to Arizona MLS Regional data.

Arizona ended 2009 with the nation?s second-highest home foreclosure rate, according to RealtyTrac. More than 163,000 Arizona properties received foreclosure notices in 2009, about 6.12 percent of homes.

Nevada, with a 10.17 percent foreclosure rate, was the only state with a higher rate.

Arizona?s 2009 foreclosure rate was 40 percent higher than in 2008 and more than three times higher than in 2007.

Nationwide, 3.9 million filings were recorded in 2009 on 2.8 million properties, or 2.21 percent of the housing supply. That?s a 21 percent jump compared with 2008, according to the report.

Mar 06

Nice that Chase has foreclosure.com Are they trying to tell you something.

#
Chase
Highlights from JPMorgan Chase’s ongoing efforts to improve our economy’s health. … Please contact us if you need assistance with your Chase accounts. …
http://www.foreclosure.com

Mar 02

JPMorgan Chase spends $1.9 million on lobbying

JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s banking subsidiary spent $1.9 million during the fourth quarter to lobby the federal government on issues related to regulations that would affect the banking industry.

The $1.9 million spent during the quarter by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA, compares with $1.1 million spent to lobby the government during the final quarter of 2008 as the credit crisis peaked.

The bank spent $1.2 million lobbying the federal government during the third quarter of 2009.

JPMorgan has been one of the best performing banks during the recession and credit crisis and has maintained its strength throughout 2009.

In the final three months of 2009, JPMorgan Chase lobbied Congress, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, U.S. Trade Representative, State Department and Commerce Department.

JPMorgan lobbied the government on issues including reform to credit card lending standards, mortgage lending, income taxes and market regulation reform.

Mar 01

Homeowners Say Banks Keep Them Underwater by Spurning Loan Program Rules

A slew of struggling homeowners are coming forward with complaints about the way banks are operating under a federal loan modification program announced last year by the Obama administration.

You qualify.

Those two words, from the mouth of a bank representative last October, triggered a wave of relief for Tracy Davis and her husband James. The couple had been in and out of work for three years and were struggling to pay their mortgage — so when the Bank of America worker told them they qualified under a federal program to have their loan modified, they finally saw a path to keeping their house.

“We walked out thinking, great,” Tracy Davis said.

But weeks went by, and nobody contacted them, and they weren’t able to reach anyone — other than representatives at a call center in India.

“To this day, we’ve not heard from someone,” she said. “It’s February. This goes back to October 30.”

The Davises, who live in Cincinnati, are among a slew of struggling homeowners coming forward with complaints about the way banks are operating under a federal loan modification program announced last year by the Obama administration. The program, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, aims to keep 3 to 4 million people in their homes. Federal statistics show banks are making plenty of offers, but relatively few of those loan changes are being made permanent — of the more than 1 million homeowners who have started the required three-month trial period, only 116,000 have had their new terms made permanent.

The complaints have a common tune. Homeowners say the banks are giving them the runaround — either by pledging to modify loans and then not following through, as with the Davis family, or by signing them up for the trial period and then leaving them in limbo.

“This is an epidemic problem,” said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation with the National Consumer Law Center.

Under the terms of the Treasury Department program, participating banks that offer new loan terms are supposed to put homeowners through a three-month trial period. If the homeowners make timely payments and meet other conditions, the terms are supposed to become permanent.

But a pair of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Boston this past week claimed Bank of America and Wells Fargo were violating those rules.

Rossman, who is helping to represent the plaintiffs, said banks — in Massachusetts and across the country — are stringing homeowners along for months without sealing the deal.

“That, to us, is inexcusable and a breach of contract,” he said. “They are living in limbo while they are at risk of losing their home.”

In the Massachusetts cases, the lawsuits describe a Kafkaesque scenario in which the banks have been holding up the loan terms because of missing paperwork that they either won’t identify or never required in the first place.

For instance, homeowners Odalid and Wilfredo Bosque, according to one suit, entered the trial period from October to December of last year, but after they “timely made each of the payments,” Wells Fargo did not offer a final agreement. The Bosques were told that they did not submit their paperwork, but when they called the bank, agents purportedly told them “there is no paperwork missing.” Meanwhile, they continued to receive calls from the collections agency.

Wells Fargo issued a statement saying the bank has “diligently” worked with homeowners to complete the loan modifications for customers who meet the guidelines.

“Unfortunately, not all customers who enter a HAMP trial ultimately qualify for the program. In these instances, we work to determine if another foreclosure prevention option is available to them,” the written statement said.

Rossman said that his borrowers qualified.

In Ohio, the Davises were among 10 plaintiffs in a suit filed against Bank of America in early February in U.S. District Court. The homeowners all say they experienced the same problem. According to the suit, they went to a Treasury-sponsored “borrower outreach” event in Cincinnati at the end of October at which bank representatives offered them modified home loans and pledged to send them the paperwork “within weeks.”

The documents never came, they say.

Tracy Davis said the representative she and her husband met with gave them her phone number and extension and said they would receive a packet within seven business days. When it never came, she tried the number, but she was not able to reach the extension. She said she was sent instead to a call center in India that could not help, and that numerous e-mails to the representative went unanswered.

“It’s just not right,” Davis said.

She said she and her husband had good-paying jobs until late 2006, when she was laid off from the title insurance company she worked for in the midst of the housing market collapse. After that, her husband lost his job. Then she got hired doing administrative work, but she was laid off nine weeks later. Finally, she got a job at a grocery store, where her husband also recently started working — but their income, she said, is about one-third of what it used to be. With mortgage payments at above $1,000, she was hoping to reduce it to below $400 by stretching her mortgage from 15 to 30 years.

“It’s been a rough three years,” she said.

She received a package from Bank of America after she filed the suit, but she has turned that over to her attorney.

Bank of America could not be reached for comment.

The Treasury program, part of a $75 billion effort, has been billed as a way to keep millions in their homes by preventing foreclosure.

Under the program, banks get $1,000 for every modification, and then they can receive $1,000 a year for up to three years. Borrowers, too, can get $1,000 a year from the government under the plan, though the incentives don’t kick in until after the three-month trial. The program is meant to reduce monthly mortgage payments to 31 percent of income.

Government statistics from January show Bank of America has offered the modifications to nearly 330,000 homeowners, but it made only 12,761 permanent. Wells Fargo has made 188,749 offers and made 17,652 permanent. There’s a gap between those figures for most banks. J.P. Morgan Chase, for instance, made more than 222,000 offers, but sealed 11,581 of them.

Homeowners aren’t just having a hard time winning modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program. Personal accounts detail trouble getting loan modifications of any kind.

At least one plaintiff in the Ohio case was told she did not qualify under HAMP but could get an extension anyway. But the same thing that happened to Davis happened to her. She says nobody called her, and when she called the bank she was told Bank of America had none of the information she gave the representative at the October meeting.

She was told she qualified under a separate program and forced to re-start the process several times, according to the suit, until she was told in January that she did not qualify. Then she was told again that she qualified for a review, and she re-submitted her paperwork once more.

Bruce W. Gavin, who lives in Glen Burnie, Md., said he’s been trying for years to get his home loan modified to no avail.

He said his monthly payment had been climbing continuously since he and his wife refinanced a decade ago — it went from about $800 to $1,600, which was too much. Gavin said his son has autism, his wife has lupus and he’s the only one who works. He lost his job five years ago, and his new job doesn’t pay enough to be able to afford the higher mortgage — which was pegged to an interest rate of 10.25 percent.

Gavin said he was rejected for one program, but was finally able to go under consideration for a loan modification program through Bank of America. His request? Lower the interest rate and turn the 20 years left on the loan into a 30-year plan.

During that period, he said he was told not to make mortgage payments.

Then came a bank letter last month, telling him he had until Jan. 26 to accept an agreement that was even worse or be foreclosed. The interest rate would stay at 10.25 percent and he’d be required to make up for the lost payments, pushing his monthly payment to more than $2,000.

He signed it, in part out of concern that moving would aggravate his son’s autism.

“It’s been a mess,” Gavin said. “I don’t even know what to do.”

Mark Lawson, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio representing the plaintiffs in the Ohio federal case, said loan modification problems are widespread.

“It’s pretty much everywhere,” he said.

Feb 26

Dimon Decries Washington?s Treatment of Banks

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, says he believes Washington has become increasingly erratic and unfair in its treatment of the banks over the last few months, and he now has some regrets about participating in the government?s Troubled Asset Relief Program.
100% Online SAT Test Prep. Improve your score by 200 points. Guaranteed!
?F.D.I.C. is going to cost us a lot of money. TARP cost us a lot of money. This bank tax, my first reaction was, ?That will cost us a lot of money,?? Mr. Dimon said Thursday at the bank?s annual Investor Day conference in New York. ?I think we are getting into the capricious, arbitrary and punitive behavior.?

Mr. Dimon said he did not know whether he would have taken the $25 billion that the government lent to JPMorgan during the 2008 financial crisis to bolster its capital if he knew then how troublesome the TARP money would be for the bank.

?The mistake was we let the government and the politicians not differentiate between irresponsible companies and prudent companies, from irresponsible, imprudent, and everybody got lumped together in the same boat,? Mr. Dimon said ?Yes, a lot of those companies needed TARP to survive, and yes, a lot did not.?

Mr. Dimon has expressed some of these complaints before. During JPMorgan?s earnings conference call in January, he said it was unfair that the big banks would be the only ones forced to pay the Obama administration?s proposed bank tax to ensure that all the TARP money is repaid.

Mr. Dimon said Thursday at the Investor Day conference that he supported certain new regulations to secure the financial system, but not all of them. He said JPMorgan had always supported the creation of a systemic risk regulator, which would be controlled by the Federal Reserve, to monitor the largest and most interconnected banks in the nation.

He disagreed with one proposal to create a separate agency devoted to consumer protection, which would regulate a whole host of activities from mortgages to credit cards.

?We want better consumer protection; we just don?t want a new agency. We think it should be done by the O.C.C. and the Fed,? Mr. Dimon said, referring to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

?Yes, you can say they didn?t do a great job, but they are professional people,? he said. The elegant solution is for Congress to tell them do a better job.?

Mr. Dimon may get his wish, thanks to some persuasive lobbyists in Washington. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said last month that he might drop demands for a new agency after pushing for its creation.

Thursday was certainly a day for JPMorgan to express its concerns about regulatory changes in Washington. Earlier in the day, James E. Staley, the bank?s investment banking chief, acknowledged that regulatory changes being considered in Congress had influenced the bank?s acquisition strategy.

? Cyrus Sanati