Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Dmdmd2020]

The following articles and posts are referring to LSF9 (Lone Star Fund9) Master Participation Trust which bought Wamu Loans from JPMC (who allegedly owned the Wamu Loan assets--either through portfolio loans from WMB & WMB, FSB ). IMO...my calculations portfolio loans within the bankruptcy totaled = $231 billion.

IMO...Remember, all the bankruptcy remote securitized loans which were sold to MBS Trusts were not under the jurisdiction of FDIC to sell to JPMC, or any other entity.


https://mfi-miami.com/2017/11/jpmorgan-chase-1/

"JPMorgan Chase Foreclosures Of Old Wamu Loans Are Beatable
Home / 2017 / November

Foreclosures Of Old Washington Mutual By JPMorgan Chase Are Easy To Beat. However, You Need A Legal Team that Knows What They Are Doing

JPMorgan Chase acquired Washington Mutual’s mortgage assets in 2008. Little did they know that a decade later they would still be fighting costly foreclosure battles over them. These legal battles have become so costly for JPMorgan Chase they began selling the loans and the servicing rights at fire-sale prices.
JPMorgan Chase became so desperate to dump these mortgages, they are selling them in the middle of foreclosure litigation. I have already had this happen in four of my foreclosure cases involving old Washington Mutual loans.
JPMorgan Chase lawyers have also purposely postponed trial dates just so they could sell the loan at top dollar.
Chase and their lawyers know most of these mortgages are unenforceable and are garbage. They have their lawyers file the foreclosure anyway under the assumption that homeowners and their lawyers are idiots. After all, most attorneys doing foreclosure defense are idiots. Foreclosure mill attorneys are also betting they can intimidate the judge.
There are multiple ways to beat a foreclosure of an old Washington Mutual loan. However, its a herculean endeavor that you don’t want to attempt as a Pro-Se litigant.  I know because I have kicked JPMorgan Chase’s ass on several of these files and I know what I’m doing.
I also have an external hard drive containing 500 GB of arguments, and depositions. The hard drive also contains Linkedin profiles and dossiers of former Washington Mutual executives that are no longer available. Who scrubbed them is up for debate but all evidence points to JPMorgan Chase. A few of these former Washington Mutual executives went to work at JPMorgan Chase during the financial crisis.
I have compiled the best and simplest ways to beat a foreclosure of an old Washington Mutual Loan.
Step 1: The Washington Mutual Mortgage
JPMorgan Chase or whoever bought the loan has serious issues with the recordation of these old WaMu mortgages. Therefore, there are a number of ways to attack the mortgage lien itself. You will want to check what legal precedent before you argue this. Some state courts base standing on mortgage recordation where others base standing strictly on the Promissory Note. 
No Mortgage Assignment
In some cases, JPMorgan Chase failed to record mortgage assignments into their name with the county. This creates a serious issue for the foreclosing party if the lien is still in Washington Mutual’s name. As we all know, Washington Mutual has been officially dead for five years.
JPMorgan Chase cannot file any mortgage assignments. The FDIC only gave JPMorgan Chase until December of 2014 to assign the liens away from Washington Mutual. JPM-Chase or the current alleged debt holder would then have to bring a breach of contract civil suit. This opens up a plethora of defenses not allowed under general foreclosure litigation.
JPMorgan Chase Puts New Spin On An Old Argument
Soon as word spread about our clients’ legal victories,  JPMorgan Chase dusted off their pre-Kim “operation of law” argument. But their lawyers added a new spin to it.
They claimed that JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition of Washington Mutual assets from the FDIC on 9/25/2008 allows them to claim “Operation of Law” under the FDIC Act.
JPMorgan Chase pointed to Section 11(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) of the FDIC Act. Lawyers argued mortgage loans acquired from the FDIC were exempt from state recordation laws:
The Corporation may, as conservator or receiver—
merge the insured depository institution with another insured depository institution; or
subject to clause (ii), transfer any asset or liability of the institution in default (including assets and liabilities associated with any trust business) without any approval, assignment, or consent with respect to such transfer.
Attorneys began attaching copies of the Purchase and Assumptions Agreements between the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase from 9/25/2008. 
Local courts ruled this section of the FDIC Act does not exempt JPMorgan Chase from state recordation laws. One judge in Florida openly laughed when the JPMorgan Chase tried to argue this. Apparently, others did as well. State courts across the county began shooting down this argument by JPMorgan Chase lawyers.

Step 2: The Promissory Note
Former Washington Mutual VP Cynthia Riley

Nearly 2/3 of the Washington Mutual Promissory Notes in foreclosure contain an endorsement stamp of former Washington Mutual Vice President Cynthia Riley. 
Riley was a Vice President of Washington Mutual until November of 2006
Nearly half of the Washington Mutual loans currently in foreclosure were consummated after November of 2006. Most of them contain Riley’s endorsement.
This was a big mystery until January of 2013 when Cynthia Riley sat for a deposition.
Riley admitted other people in her office used her stamp and she admitted she never stamped any mortgage notes. Riley admitted in her deposition she was hired by JPMorgan Chase in 2009.
She remained employed at JPM-Chase until some time between October of 2014 and April of 2015.  Attorney Daniel Milian attempted to force JPMorgan Chase to have her sit for a deposition in the Zacharakis case. Naturally, JPMorgan Chase dragged their feet with responding to the motion for nearly 6 months. JPMorgan Chase then claimed her whereabouts were unknown. 
It appears JPMorgan Chase made sure her whereabouts would remain unknown. They scrubbed the internet of any record of her connection with Washington Mutual or JPMorgan Chase. 
MFI-Miami discovered JPMorgan Chase was hiding a dirty secret. They were stamping these Washington Mutual notes with the Cynthia Riley endorsement stamp between 2012 and 2014. Several MFI-Miami clients had their 2009 or 2010 Washington Mutual foreclosure cases with no endorsement stamp suddenly withdrawn. Only to have them refiled in 2013 or 2014 with endorsed notes by Cynthia Riley. 
JPMorgan Chase got really sloppy. JPMorgan Chase began compulsively stamping almost every promissory note with Riley’s endorsement stamp. MFI-Miami has a file cabinet filled with foreclosure files containing Riley’s stamp that weren’t consummated until months or years after she left Washington Mutual. 
Former Washington Mutual VP of Capital Markets/National Closing Operations, Jess Almanza 
JPMorgan Chase’s compulsive use of Cynthia Riley’s endorsement stamp was beginning to affect the bank’s bottom line in 2015. So what should they do?
JPM-Chase executives went into the basement storage room. They searched through old Washington Mutual boxes and randomly dusted off the endorsement stamp of another former Washington Mutual VP. This time, they picked former Vice President Jess Almanza. 
Almanza served as Washington Mutual’s VP of Capital Markets/National Closing Operations until July of 2006. He soon went to work for Bank of America after leaving Washington Mutual according to his Linkedin profile.
Almanza never went to work for JPM-Chase like Cynthia Riley. It appears Almanza’s endorsement stamp was used without his consent.  

JPMorgan Chase Has Massive Liquidation Sale Of All Washington Mutual Loans

JPMorgan Chase soon began facing mounting legal bills from the bungled foreclosures of Washington Mutual loans. So what did they so? They took a play from Family Guy’s Al Harrington and had a massive liquidation sale of all thing Washington Mutual. The mortgages they acquired from the FDIC were sold to hedge funds for 20 cents on the dollar. Lone Star Fund‘s LSF9 Master Participation Trust bought about 40% of the loans from JPM-Chase.
JPM-Chase also sold off the servicing rights to any Washington Mutual loans they were servicing to other mortgage servicers for a fraction of their value.  Lone Star Fund’s Caliber Home Loans bought the servicing rights to the majority of these. The rest seem to have landed at Specialized Loan Servicing or Credit Suisse’s Select Portfolio Servicing.
Jami Dimon is probably sitting in his office high atop JPMorgan Chase headquarters on Park Avenue laughing like a school girl."

_______________________

http://claosb.blogspot.com/2015/09/whats-story-with-lsf9-master.html

"Friday, September 18, 2015
What's the Story with LSF9 Master Participation Trust?

I have a foreclosure client who has a loan that was bought by LSF9 Master Participation Trust.  This is a weird case in a lot of ways, but when I Looked for information on LSF9 Master Participation Trust, I found from a Google search that it seems that a lot of problem loans from different servicers got swallowed up in this trust (which is serviced by Caliber Home Loans, Inc. That's not necessarily bad, as long as whoever buys an interest in the trust knows the true status of the loans and as long as the new servicer competently handles the loans.

Here's a blurb that I found on the web:

Lone Star Funds Lone Star Funds is a private equity firm that “seeks investment opportunities in developed markets that have suffered an economic and/or banking crisis.”24 The firm submitted winning bids for every pool offered in the June 2014 DASP auction, with a weighted average bid of 77.6 percent of the properties’ value.25 The 2014 fund that invested in the DASP loans, Lone Star Fund IX, has an investment period of 40 months.26 In July, Lone Star bought $500 million in nonperforming residential mortgages from JPMorgan Chase & Co.27 Lone Star Funds owns Caliber Home Loans, a full-service mortgage company and special servicer28 led by Joe Anderson, former Senior Managing Director at Countrywide Financial Corporation, the poster-child of the predatory, discriminatory29 subprime mortgage boom and overheated, destructive mortgage-backed securities markets that fueled the current housing crisis.30 Standard and Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P) has ranked Caliber Homes as Above Average as a US residential special and subprime mortgage loan servicer.31

source: http://homesforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/HUD.DASP_.RTC_.v15.pdf

So LSF9 Master Participation Trust is a pool of distressed mortgages put together by Lone Star funds.  The mover and shaker behind Lone Star Funds is a billionaire named John Grayken.  LSF9 ws the high bidder in an auction of  $3.8 billion in loans that the FHA had insured.  According to Bloomberg News:

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- Lone Star Funds, the private-equity firm founded by billionaire John Grayken, submitted winning bids for $3.9 billion of soured home loans sold this month by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
It was the first time that a single bidder won each of the pools of loans offered in such a sale of debt previously insured by the Federal Housing Administration, HUD said today in an e-mailed statement. Dallas-based Lone Star’s bids on the 16 pools auctioned on June 11 averaged 77.6 percent of the estimated current prices of the homes and 65.8 percent of the unpaid loan balances, HUD said.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-20/lone-star-wins-3-8-billion-of-bad-fha-loans-at-auction
What this means is that if LSF9 bought your mortgage, they likely only paid $65.8% of the loan balance which was 77.6% of the value of the house.   (You see, these loans were upside down, but they aren't based on what Loan Star Funds paid.  In other words, Loan Star Funds and its subsidiary has room to cut you a deal on a modification and still make money.  Will they?  That's going to be up to them.   (This also means that the FHA may has paid the original owner a big chunk of money that came out of your mortgage Faulty Mortgage Assignments
In the early years of the financial crisis, foreclosure mill attorneys hired by JPMorgan Chase argued they had Operation of Law. Attorneys argued JPM-Chase was not required to record mortgage assignments. They argued JPMorgan Chase bought Washington Mutual lock, stock, and barrel. This was not entirely true. JPMorgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual assets within days of Washington Mutual going into FDIC receivership. 
Lawyers made these arguments until December of 2012 when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Kim v JPMorgan Chase. The Court ruled that JPMorgan Chase was required to record mortgage assignments on the public record. The court ruled JPMorgan Chase did not acquire Washington Mutual as a corporate entity.  Instead, they acquired assets of the company through a third party, the FDIC. The court ruled a chain of ownership of the mortgage must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Other states soon followed. This created a mad dash by JPMorgan Chase lawyers to record mortgage assignments.
In their mad dash to cover their ass, JPMorgan Chase lawyers ignored the white elephant in the room. That elephant was the Washington Mutual bankruptcy that was playing out in federal court in Delaware. 
The Bankruptcy Court finalized plans to transfer all of all remaining Washington Mutual assets to WMI Liquidating Trust. This order went into effective 3/19/2012. This was months before the Kim ruling in Michigan.
The order also set a date to close out the FDIC responsibilities as the Receiver for Washington Mutual. The court set the date of 12/23/2014 as the final day the FDIC could act as Attorney-In-Fact for Washington Mutual. 
The lawyers used by MFI-Miami successfully argued that mortgages assigned after 3/19/2012 needed to come from WMI Liquidating Trust. They argued the FDIC no longer had an interest.
insurance.  Assuming the new owner doesn't discount the principal of the loan, the benefits of this write-down go to the rich investors behind the Lone Star Funds.  Not only that but if you work out a deal to get the loan caught up at the previous rate and terms, Lone Star gets a windfall. Let's say you had a loan at 4% APR, if Lone Star only paid 65.8% of the principal, that's an effective rate of over 6%. If you had an 8% subprime loan, that's an internal rate of return of over 12% for Lone Star.  Elizabeth Warren is right, the game is rigged.)

A large portion of the loans in LSF9 appear to be from Chase, bought in a $500 million bulk deal.  
My client's loan was a Citimortgage loan.  Based upon the information that I've gathered, it appears Citimortgage  sold its interest to LSF9 Master Participation Trust while the loan was subject to a foreclosure lawsuit originated by Citimortgage. Instead of discontinuing the lawsuit, or substitutiong  LSF9 Master Trust as a plaintiff,  Citimortgage has continued the lawsuit under the representation that it is the owner of the loan without notifying the court that the ownership has changed.  
If you are in the midst of a foreclosure proceeding and your servicer gets changed to Caliber Home Loans, it may mean that your loan has been sold to a Lone Star affiliated trust.  If that happens your foreclosure case should not go through under the previously filed paperwork.  At the very least the change in ownership should be disclosed, and it may trigger another opportunity to modify your loan.  It also might be an unfair debt collection practice by the firm that is filing the foreclosure suit.  If you have this happen to you, contact me or find a local NACA consumer attorney near you at www.NACA.net.  
UPDATE 3/14/2017

Since I wrote this blog post a year and a half ago, it has been by far my most popular post, with over 14,000 hits. I have also gotten emails from lots of frustrated people trying to deal with LSF-9.  Most of these have either been people who are either trying to buy LSF9 properties or who are facing foreclosure on an LSF-9 mortgage.  I have this to say about each category:

IF YOU ARE FACING FORECLOSURE ON A MORTGAGE OWNED BY LSF9 Master Participation Trust, or maybe LSF8 or LSF10 or whatever, get advice from an experienced consumer lawyer IN YOUR AREA.  To find one in your area use the National Association of Consumer Advocates' Find an Attorney page.  I can't represent you if you are not a resident of Indiana.

 IF YOU ARE TRYING TO BUY A PROPERTY OWNED BY LSF-9 AND CAN'T FIND ANYBODY TO CONTACT, good luck, I can't help you.  You can write to Caliber. You can write to the lawyer handling the foreclosure case.   You can write to Lone Star Funds, the parent company, at the address below which I took from their website."

_______________________

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-a-straw-man-and-heres-some-proof/

“LSF9 Master Participation Trust” Is a “Straw Man” And Here’s Some Proof!
Posted by Bill Paatalo on Jul 26, 2018 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Back in late 2016 I wrote the following article showing evidence that the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” was a “sham” entity. (See: https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/beware-the-lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-operating-as-a-secret-agent/). Since then, I have been called into cases throughout the United States involving this entity, which is typically named –  “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust.”
 
In opposing this named entity as an expert witness, and providing litigation support in the areas of “discovery,” inconsistent “trust” documents (typically 50-70% redacted), as well as testimony put forth by various counsel and witnesses for this entity continue to mount, and here’s why.
 
As I stated in my previous article, the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” is not an actual trust that holds any assets, it is merely a “Participation Agent” per at least one of the many trust documents produced thus far. I point out that the actual “Indenture Trustee” representing a myriad of alleged series trusts is actually “U.S. Bank, N.A.” and NOT “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.” These are different entities. “U.S. Bank, N.A.” is non-existent in any of these cases involving the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust,” yet this recent letter obtained in a case I’m involved reveals this entity is indeed the “trustee for the Trust that owns the mortgage and note.” (See: US Bank NA Letter Re-LSF9 – July 2018 ). In spite of the admissions in this letter, which I will outline below, a judgment was granted in favor of the Plaintiff  “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust” who claimed that IT was the Trustee for the Trust that owned the mortgage and note. (Of note, I was not retained in the case until after the judgment.) The letter provides the following statements:
 
“The servicer is the party to the Trust that has the authority and responsibility to make decisions and take action regarding individual mortgage loans in the Trust.”
[NOTE: In the trust document referenced in my previous article, the servicer (Caliber Home Loans) which is the same in this case with the attached letter, is named as the servicer for the “VOLT XXVII Asset-Backed Notes, Series 2014-NPL7,” and not the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust.”]
“Please note, the Trust is the owner of the mortgage and note, not the trustee, or us in our individual capacity.”
[NOTE: The alleged version of the trust agreement is signed as follows, and implies that “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.” is the “Owner Trustee” of the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust,” to which this entity claims in all cases that it is the owner of the mortgages and notes. This does not comport with the above statement by “U.S. Bank, N.A.,” or the “Certificate of Trust filed in Delaware for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust (See: Certificate of Trust-LSF9 MPT). “U.S. Bank, N.A.” states it owns nothing related to the Trust that owns the mortgage and note! But, “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.” states in these documents that it is the “owner trustee” of the LSF9 Master Participation Trust, who again, is simply a “Participation Agent.”

 
This highlights the differences between these two U.S. Bank entities, and if not objected to in these foreclosure cases, the courts brush through these facts like horseshoes and hand grenades – close enough. (i.e. – from a hearing in a recent CT case involving LSF9:

 
 
 
 
Back to the letter:
“While U.S. Bank understands and wishes to assist you with this matter, the servicer is the only party with the authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding this mortgage and they are not affiliated with U.S. Bank in any way.”
In every case I’ve reviewed thus far, Caliber or other servicers take the position via counsel that they are acting as agent on behalf of “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust” who owns the mortgages and notes. This is clearly not the case which is confirmed by “U.S. Bank, N.A.’s” admissions in this letter.
 
Let me hammer this home one more time – Caliber has no affiliation “in any way” with the actual trustee (“U.S. Bank, N.A.”) who represents hidden investors for a multitude of alleged series trusts. No document has been produced thus far in any case I am aware showing Caliber’s authority to act as a servicing agent for “U.S. Bank, N.A.” or any of the various series trusts, nor has any actual “Trust Agreement” of “Pooling & Servicing Agreement” (PSA) ever been produced for any of these series trusts which are being concealed from the courts. U.S. Bank, N.A. who claims to be the actual trustee for the Trust that owns this particular loan, is nowhere to be found in the chain of title, nor was it ever named as an interested party in the foreclosure proceeding resulting in a judgment for “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust.”
 
This evidence provides clarity as to why “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.” never refiled its motion in Monroe, as analyzed here by Neil Garfield recently (See: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/ny-monroe-case-default-entered-against-homeowner-case-dismissed-on-standing-us-bank-never-refiled/)
 
With the growing dossier I’ve collected on this entity, the evidence now paints a pretty clear picture that the named Plaintiff or foreclosing party “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust” is nothing more than a “straw man” that owns no mortgage assets."
_______________________

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/settlement-agreement-between-the-city-of-los-angeles-u-s-bank-n-a-proves-that-u-s-bank-trust-n-a-as-trustee-for-lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-a-misrepresentation/

"Settlement Agreement Between The City Of Los Angeles & U.S. Bank, N.A. Proves That “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. As Trustee For LSF9 Master Participation Trust” Is A Misrepresentation
Posted by Bill Paatalo on Dec 19, 2018 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-a-straw-man-and-heres-some-proof/
The investigation continues with more compelling evidence to prove that the named assignee / Plaintiff “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust” is a misrepresentation, and they have been using this name to conceal identities and authorities while pulling the wool over the eyes of borrowers and the courts.
Today, I discovered a Settlement Agreement between the City of Los Angeles and “U.S. Bank, National Association” as the trustee for hundreds of named trusts, including the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust.” Unfortunately, the document is 1,314 pages long and too large to attach in this article. I’ll provide the relevant snippets below that are relevant to this piece.
As I’ve been saying for quite some time now, the entity in these example snippets is a misrepresentation of the true parties in interest. This entity exists in thousands of mortgage assignments and countless complaints to foreclose across the United States.

 
 
The snippets below are from the Settlement Agreement which acknowledges that “U.S. Bank, National Association” is the Trustee for the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” (trust #2434) and that there is a Trust Agreement for this Trust dated July 10, 2014. It is also very important to note that the Trust Agreement revealed here also acknowledges that it includes / involves “LSF9 Mortgage Holdings, Inc.” as the “Depositor.” This entity is almost universally missing in every chain of title.

 
My investigation(s) reveal that the Trust Agreement referenced in this Settlement Agreement is not the same governing instrument that has been produced in discovery in other cases, as there have been numerous inconsistent and highly redacted versions of what “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.” (really “Caliber Home Loans”) as been purporting to be the “Trust Agreement” for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust. More interesting is the fact that the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” states in its Certificate of Trust filed in Delaware that “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.” is the Trustee.

 
This filing clearly states, “The name and address of the Trustee of the Trust” is “U.S. Bank Trust, National Association.” Can they have it both ways? I don’t think so. It’s time the “Trust Agreement” dated “July 10, 2014? be produced in its (unredacted) entirety, along with all of its ancillary agreements. "
_______________________

IMO...My conclusions as of December 26, 2018:

1) JPMC did not own the portfolio mortgages ($231 billion  within the bankruptcy proceedings which the FDIC had legal rights to seize)but rather only owned the rights to service the portfolio loans.

https://mfi-miami.com/2017/11/jpmorgan-chase-1/

"Faulty Mortgage Assignments
In the early years of the financial crisis, foreclosure mill attorneys hired by JPMorgan Chase argued they had Operation of Law. Attorneys argued JPM-Chase was not required to record mortgage assignments. They argued JPMorgan Chase bought Washington Mutual lock, stock, and barrel. This was not entirely true. JPMorgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual assets within days of Washington Mutual going into FDIC receivership.
Lawyers made these arguments until December of 2012 when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Kim v JPMorgan Chase. The Court ruled that JPMorgan Chase was required to record mortgage assignments on the public record. The court ruled JPMorgan Chase did not acquire Washington Mutual as a corporate entity.  Instead, they acquired assets of the company through a third party, the FDIC. The court ruled a chain of ownership of the mortgage must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Other states soon followed. This created a mad dash by JPMorgan Chase lawyers to record mortgage assignments.
In their mad dash to cover their ass, JPMorgan Chase lawyers ignored the white elephant in the room. That elephant was the Washington Mutual bankruptcy that was playing out in federal court in Delaware.
The Bankruptcy Court finalized plans to transfer all of all remaining Washington Mutual assets to WMI Liquidating Trust. This order went into effective 3/19/2012. This was months before the Kim ruling in Michigan.
The order also set a date to close out the FDIC responsibilities as the Receiver for Washington Mutual. The court set the date of 12/23/2014 as the final day the FDIC could act as Attorney-In-Fact for Washington Mutual.
The lawyers used by MFI-Miami successfully argued that mortgages assigned after 3/19/2012 needed to come from WMI Liquidating Trust. They argued the FDIC no longer had an interest."


2) JPMC proceeded to sell the portfolio loans to LSF9 Master Participation Fund

3) LSF9 Master Participation Fund doe not have a clear chain of title.

4) Ultimately, US Bank, N.A. is the legal trustee of LSF9 Master Participation Fund not US Bank Trust, N.A.

5)  This is just more proof that the "House of Cards" that the underwriters and originating lenders started is all rigged.

What does this all have to do with WMI?

My answer:

1) JPMC did not have legal ownership of the portfolio loans ($231 billion) within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy proceedings (FDIC receivership). JPMC only owned the servicing rights. JPMC still needs to compensate WMI for the portfolio loans.


2) The WMILT/WMI Escrow Marker Holders are the rightful owners of the portfolio loans ($231 billion) along with the beneficial interests in all the bankruptcy remote securitized loans that were transferred to MBS Trusts ($692 billion securitized between 2000-2008 & I calculated that WMI participated in about 26.24% of all the securitized loans).