You come up with very interesting finds. Thanks for sharing the results of your DD with all. Those numbers are mind boggling, as most of your numbers have been. Maybe this will be a Very Happy Year.
Thanks for your outstanding DD Dmdmd2020.So you think that the legal battle is still going between the WMILT as the Succesor interest of the WMI Assets and HEritage or they have settled already??If settled why are we still licking our wounds,If not till when is this battle going to go on?And do you think WIllingham knows about this battle as the Head of the WMILT?STrange that not a single word came from the WMILT during all those years about such an important issue but weere kept secret and dark from them.And why didnt we hear nything from the WMILT Legalese about any new Suit against the Chase?I thought the GSA Is the case of the law and they signed to on the Setlement agreement between them in the 2012 and not onnly FDIC as the receiver of those Assets of the WMI? Thanks for sharing it.Really interesting?
1) It’s obvious that US Bank, NA (trustee of LSF9) and US Bank Trust, N.A. are two different entities.
2) US courts are flooded with a plethora of foreclosure suits involving LSF9.
3) The plaintiffs (the institutions trying to foreclose on the properties) constantly use the tactics of lying and try to confuse the courts because the plaintiffs are trying to hide the fact that there is a defective chain of title.
4) The defective chain of title is a problem because JPMC (who did not own the Wamu (WMB/WMB,FSB) loans but rather only owned servicing rights) sold the Wamu Loans to entities such as LSF9 in June 2014.
5) Everyone can debate and dispute my admittedly outrageous/astronomical recovery estimates, but it’s becoming more evident that JPMC needs to pay for all the Wamu Loans that they claimed they owned and subsequently sold to entities such as LSF9.
Per JPMC’s 2009 annual report, they claimed that JPMC acquired $264 billion in WAMU Assets from the FDIC. The portfolio loans within WMB + WMB,FSB = $231 billion.
Thus, upon “Change In Control”, JPMC needs to pay book value for the portfolio loans.
“U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Moomey-Stevens” – Plaintiff Fails To Prove Its Standing Once Again Posted by Bill Paatalo on Jun 6, 2019 in Uncategorized | 0 comments https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2019/526630.html We’re getting closer and closer to the truth when the high courts begin to demand and require proof; a burden “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust” cannot meet. During the past two years, I have been providing expert testimony spelling out the gaps in this Plaintiff’s story and its lack of evidence, often leading to motions to compel which this Plaintiff seemingly ignores as a form of business practice. Here’s a recent ruling from the New York Court of Appeals that holds “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.’s” feet to the fire for failure to prove its standing, and agrees that the lower court should have compelled this Plaintiff to produce all evidence surrounding the purchase and possession of the “original” mortgage note. This same logic applies to all foreclosure cases. “Plaintiff similarly failed to establish its standing by demonstrating that it had physical possession of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted, among other things, a copy of its complaint, the mortgage, the unpaid note (indorsed in blank), the relevant assignments of the mortgage and proof of defendants’ default. Plaintiff also tendered the affidavit of the authorized officer for Caliber Home Loans, Inc., the mortgage loan servicing agent and attorney-in-fact for plaintiff [FN3]. The affidavit of the authorized officer indicates the source of her knowledge to be her “review of the electronic records of Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” regarding defendants’ delinquent account, which includes, among other things, “electronic images of the note and electronic records maintained by Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” Other than alleging that she reviewed these electronic records, the authorized officer’s affidavit fails to provide any indication that she actually examined the original note, nor did it provide any details with regard to whether plaintiff ever obtained possession thereof and, if so, how and when it came into its possession (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Walker, 141 AD3d 986, 988 [2016]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 133 AD3d 1057, 1058-1059 [2015]). Moreover, the complaint is equivocal and alleges in the alternative that plaintiff is “the current owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note, or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note.” Such language is insufficient to establish that plaintiff had [*2]physical possession of the note at the time it commenced this action (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Kyle, 129 AD3d at 1169-1170).
Defendants also specifically sought discovery with respect to when plaintiff took physical possession of the original note, from what entity it received it, what it paid for same, as well as “a first generation copy of the original [n]ote and all original [a]llonges to the note” and “evidence of the physical transfer of the original [n]ote from origination to its current location.” Plaintiff, however, failed to provide any discovery prior to filing its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, inasmuch as the proof submitted was not sufficient to establish that plaintiff had standing through assignment or actual physical possession of the note at the time it commenced the instant mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. Rather, Supreme Court should have compelled plaintiff’s disclosure of the original note pursuant to defendants’ discovery request prior to granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 133 AD3d at 1058-1059; compare Green Tree Servicing LLC v Bormann, 157 AD3d 1112, 1115 [2018]; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v McClintock, 138 AD3d 1372, 1374-1375 [2016]).“
________________________
IMO...my conclusions as of July 10, 2019:
1) JPMC did not own the WMI (WMB and WMB, fsb ) portfolio loans of $231 billion which they claimed they bought from the FDIC Receivership, which in turn they sold to LSF9 (trustee US Bank Trust, N.A.). But rather, JPMC only owned the servicing rights, therefore there is a defective chain of title ownership of the loans.
2) per the N.Y. Court of Appeals (Decided and Entered: January 3, 2019):
“Plaintiff [US Bank Trust, N.A.], however, failed to provide any discovery prior to filing its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, inasmuch as the proof submitted was not sufficient to establish that plaintiff had standing through assignment or actual physical possession of the note at the time it commenced the instant mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. “
3) IMO...the rightful owners to the WMI portfolio loans ($231 billion) are the WMI Escrow Marker Holders.
4) IMO...upon Change in Control, JPMC will have to pay book value for the WMI portfolio loans = $231 billion
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
