As a result, Chacker suspended payments pending the receipt of an appropriate response. According to the operative complaint, Chase failed to substantively respond to the October 2009 request in a timely manner, in violation of federal statutes and regulations. Chase responded the following month, stating it was investigating in response to Chacker's questions. In October 2009, Chacker (or her then-husband) sent Chase a "Qualified Written Request" seeking information related to the mortgage. In 2008, Washington Mutual Bank was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and sold to Chase. The mortgage loans were to be "serviced by Washington Mutual Bank, as servicer." LaSalle Bank was designated the trustee of the Trust. On the Trust's closing date, the mortgage loans that supported the certificates were to be sold by Washington Mutual Bank to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., the depositor, which would, in turn, sell the mortgage loans and related assets to the Trust. The prospectus supplement provides the following additional details about the Trust and the promissory notes it held. The operative complaint attached and incorporated by reference the prospectus supplement for the Trust. The operative complaint does not allege when plaintiff's promissory note was placed in the Trust. After the pool of mortgages were placed in the Trust, only the Trust had the right to receive scheduled monthly payments due on the loans. Once the Trust closed, no mortgages or other investments could be placed in or taken out of the Trust. The Trust "closed" in July 2006, meaning all mortgages purchased by the trust had to be pooled and placed into the trust by that date. The Trust was created under Delaware law in 2006 as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC).
#TOWER TRAX CHASE BANK BAKER LA SERIES#
The DOT lists Washington Mutual Bank, FA as the "lender" and CRC as the "trustee."Īccording to the operative complaint, Chacker's promissory note was placed into a mortgage backed security trust entitled "WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR9 Trust" (the Trust). The repayment of the loan was secured by a deed of trust (DOT), which was recorded in June 2006. In 2006, they refinanced the home and executed a promissory note for $1,700,000. 1.)Ĭhacker and her then-husband purchased a home in Hermosa Beach, California in 1995. The facts are derived from the operative complaint, the exhibits attached to it, and documents subject to judicial notice. Bank as Trustee for WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR9.
dorra__qatar.jpg "tower trax chase bank baker la")
#TOWER TRAX CHASE BANK BAKER LA TRIAL#
We are asked to decide whether the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and we consider in arriving at our decision the arguments made by Chacker in her motion for reconsideration.ĭefendants and respondents are JP Morgan Chase Bank (Chase), California Reconveyance Company (CRC), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
The trial court sustained defendant's demurrers to the operative complaint without leave to amend and denied her subsequent motion for reconsideration that invoked our Supreme Court's intervening decision in Yvanova v. Bank now serves as trustee is void (not merely voidable) because Chase claims it still holds the promissory note and that the initiation of the foreclosure process violates state and federal debt collection statutes. The gist of her third amended complaint (the operative complaint) is that defendants disregarded a statute that required them to contact her before beginning the foreclosure process that the assignment of the deed of trust from Chase to a securitization trust for which U.S. Plaintiff and appellant Melody Chacker (Chacker) sued to stop defendants, who had begun the nonjudicial foreclosure process, from proceeding with a foreclosure sale of her home. Ramos for Defendants and Respondents Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Sorich, Bryant Delgadillo, and Mariel Gerlt-Ferraro for Defendants and Respondents JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. BC547853) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSĬalifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).
0 kommentar(er)
