Chase Discovery Demand #1: Produce The WaMu “Servicing Agreement(s)” With All “Approvals & Consents”
Posted by Bill Paatalo on Sep 23, 2021 in Uncategorized | 0 comments
In response to a recent QWR sent to JPMorgan Chase regarding ownership of a WaMu deed of trust, the following response was provided:
Chase acquired certain assets of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, including servicing rights in your loan, from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, FA, pursuant to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement dated as of September 25, 2008. As a result, certain servicing agreements previously completed by Washington Mutual were transferred to Chase. It is not clear why you believe the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust dated July 23, 2014, is fraudulent, but we consider the document to be valid. [Bold emphasis added.]
Here, Chase’s position is the same as thousands of others; the loan was never sold or securitized by WaMu, was “bank-owned,” and was acquired by Chase via the Purchase & Assumption Agreement with the FDIC. But this begs the question – if WaMu was both owner and servicer, then why the need for a servicing agreement with itself? In all my years of research, I have yet to see a “servicing agreement” executed by a lender who was servicing a loan on its own behalf.
Now, apply the language in this QWR response with the language used in paragraph 1 of the FDIC’s hollow limited power of attorney granted to Chase for all “sold loans.” The last sentence states, “[a]nd to provide approvals and consents for the transfer of servicing related to the Sold Mortgage Loans.”
The language in both the QWR response (which can be applied universally) and the POA both reveal that the FDIC did not sell any servicing rights to Chase, but rather the FDIC stepped into the current “servicing agreements” previously entered into between WaMu and various investors to which consents and approvals were required by the investors to allow Chase to continue servicing the loans. And as a reminder, the FDIC’s position that they became the successor in interest to WaMu for servicing these loans is also highly suspect because the typical trust agreements in these securitization transactions triggered the trustees to become the default servicers in the event of a bankruptcy or receivership of the existing servicer (WaMu).
This is why I would make the #1 request for production to include the “servicing agreement(s)” and all necessary “Approvals & Consents” to service the WaMu loans. This will expose the big lie.
AI
