drummer55

Members
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About drummer55

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    oregon
  1. Long time no post. The CFPB action against Chase brought me back out. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/administrativeadjudication/ What recourse will this give those of us who have settled with a JDB? I sued Chase ProSe in 2012 to remove 2 items on my credit reports that had started as Wamu accounts. They settled out of court and the items were removed from my report Sadly they had been sold separately one to Midland and one to MCM (i know same company) The account that went to MCM used a local debt collector and sued me for one. I fought in court but because it was blocking my mortgage I settled (I had them by the balls but I needed the mortgage so it was for a minimal amount that I settled) the account that went to Midland was on the report but no action taken. I had to reach out and settle with them to show it was paid off to get the mortgage. In both instances I let them know I had sued Chase and the items had been removed by Chase. The Midland account is still on my account (as paid) but it is a degratory account and hurts my score. The MCM was entirely removed 1. Does this open up the ability for me to go after Midland/MCM? Even just to get the Midland Account entirely removed from my CR? Thanks
  2. Some great stuff with the IRS and their 36 month testing period. I think I might be able to effectivally argue it from this angle. It was written off in 2009 and in 2012 a 1099 c should have been issued by the OC and wasnt. Thus the CA's 1099 C that was issued in 2013 is too late and can not be properly reported. http://www.aicpa.org/Press/PressReleases/2013/DownloadableDocuments/AICPA-Letter-to-IRS-on-Cancellation-of-Indebtedness.pdf Similarly, in Stewart, TC Summary Opinion 2012-46, a credit card companydischarged the taxpayer’s debt in 1996 but sold the debt to a collection company. The debt was later sold toanother company which issued a Form 1099-C in 2008. The court found that the 36-monthtesting period ended in 1999. Thus, the Form 1099-C was issued several years too late with theresult that the cancellation of debt income could not have been properly reported as the year when the debt actually was eligible for being included in income had long past. http://www.aicpa.org/Press/PressReleases/2013/DownloadableDocuments/AICPA-Letter-to-IRS-on-Cancellation-of-Indebtedness.pdf
  3. Arbitration in Oregon is a joke. Hearsay objections? out the window. rules of evidence? out the window. that being said focus on the sales agreement and hammer it home that if the arbitrator accepts that piece of crap as evidenct that they own anything then MF/DG could use that blacked out piece of toilet paper to "prove" anyone they wanted owed them money at anytime they wish... Governor Kitzhaber, the arbitrator, bill clinton, anyone.
  4. okay heres a fun one. I had one account with midland funding in arbitration and one account with MCM that had sat for 3 years that I disputed and tried to get removed via the CRA's and directly with them. MCM never responded to my dv requests. I applied for a mortgage but got denied till I got rid of the above "collection" accounts I sat on it for a day and decided to settle. Needed the house and couldn't afford to sit through Oregon's laughable arbitration (since it was after my closing date ) just so I could go back to court again. I settled with Midland funding for 1/7 of the total. I called and settled with MCM for 1/2 of the total. In neither case do I admit to oweing the debt just that I had to pay them off to get my mortgage. wait for it...... yep just got 2 1099 c's from midland funding. one for each account and the amount of debt discharged is screwy on both of them. The information I have been finding on the boards is all over the map. file this form, write a hand written note, declare insolvency, sacrifice a goat on a full moon in July....etc..etc... Is there a clear, concise direction in this forum or elsewhere as to what my options are in this matter? To keep it focused lets forget the insolvency route wouldnt work in my case. thanks
  5. sooooooo what was the final word on this? what form should our refusal to pay a 1099 c when we dispute a debt take?
  6. if you want the deposition. Its in PDF format. do a search for assignment. 120509 - JPMC v Waisome FL Lawrence Nardi Deposition
  7. some more info on it. Again I wonder about credit cards from wamu to chase. OUT OF THE MOUTH OF JPMORGAN CHASE: SCHEDULE OF LOANS PURCHASED FROM WAMU DOES NOT EXIST; NO ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, NO ALLONGES OR ANY EVIDENCE OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF LOANS FROM WAMU TO CHASE | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide - Mortgage Forecl OUT OF THE MOUTH OF JPMORGAN CHASE: SCHEDULE OF LOANS PURCHASED FROM WAMU DOES NOT EXIST; NO ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, NO ALLONGES OR ANY EVIDENCE OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF LOANS FROM WAMU TO CHASE August 21, 2012 Confirming, under oath and in print what we already suspected: there is no schedule of mortgage loans evidencing what JPM allegedly “purchased” from the FDIC in connection with the failure of WaMu. This is from the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, the operations unit manager and a mortgage officer for JPM, who was previously with WaMu and was picked up by JPM after WaMu’s failure. The 330 page deposition was taken by counsel for the homeowner on May 9, 2012 in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank v. Waisome, Florida 5th Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-005717. Here is the question and the answer: Q: (page 57, beginning at line 19): Okay. The — are you aware of any type of schedule of loans that would have been created to represent the — either the loans that were asset loans or the loans that were serviced by WAMU? Are you — was the — do you know if there is a schedule or database of loans like that? A: (page 58, beginning at line 1): I know that there was a schedule contemplated in certain documents related to the purchase. That schedule has never materialized in any form. We’ve looked for it in countless other cases. We’ve never been able to produce it in any previous cases. It would certainly be a wonderful thing to have, but it’s — as far as I know, it doesn’t exist, although it was — it was contemplated in the documents. As we all know, JPM has also stated, in a Federal Court filing, that it is NOT the “successor in interest to WaMu.” However, the deposition testimony gets even better as the day went on: Q: (beginning at page 260, line 18): Have you ever in your duties of being a loan analyst — a loan operations spe******t, have you ever seen an FDIC bill of sale or a receiver’s deed or an assignment of mortgage or an allonge? A: (page 260, beginning at line 23): For loans, I’m assuming you’re taling about the WaMu loan that was subject to the purchase here. Q: (page 261, line 1): Right. A: (page 261, beginning at line 2): No there is no assignments of mortgage. There’s no allonges. There’s no — in the thousands of loans that I have come into contact with that were a part of this purchase, I’ve never once seen an assignment of mortgage. There is simply not — they don’t exist. Or allonges or anything transferring ownership from WAMU to Chase, in other words. Specifically, endorsements and things like that. So, JPM allegedly “purchased” mortgage loans from the FDIC out of the WaMu failure, but there is no schedule of what loans were purchased, no assignments, no allonges, no endorsements, nothing that transferred ownership of the loans from WaMu to Chase. However, as we all know, JPM goes around the country touting that it is the “successor in interest to WaMu” (which it has admitted in Federal Court that it is not) and relies on the amorphous “FDIC Affidavit” which, as far as what the “Affidavit” is proffered for, is directly contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony of JPM’s authorized representative WHO WAS FORMERLY WITH WAMU AND WAS PICKED UP BY JPM.
  8. I'm hearing more stories about Chase not being the successor of interest to WAMU. Like these below. breaking today. BREAKING From JPM: SCHEDULE OF LOANS PURCHASED FROM WAMU DOES NOT EXIST, NO EVIDENCE OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF LOANS FROM WAMU TO CHASE | SilverDoctors.com and then Defendant JPM has admitted, in filings by its counsel in the Federal matter of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporationand JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-1656 (RMC) that:“Under the plain terms of that agreement [the P&A], JPMC (Defendant JPM herein] did not become WMB’s [WaMu] successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC asreceiver has controlled WMB.” and VICTORY OVER CHASE: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA'S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES & MAY NOT BE THE TRUE P&A. I'm wondering if in the case of JDB who bought Chase credit card debt that was originally WAMU debt if it can be successfully argued that the JDB isnt the assignee because Chase cannot prove they were the successor of interest?
  9. K I'm reading this and re-reading this. http://www.jeffcanhelp.com/library/FCRA_and_FDCPA_.pdf The FTC issued a consent order stating that a debt collector must refer to original account records when necessary to investigate a dispute. U.S. v. Performance Capital Mgmt. (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2000) (consent decree). A debt collector shouldn’t be able to rely on the balance due transmitted by the original collector during the sale of the account. If the debt collector cannot or is unwilling to obtain the original account records, the information should be deleted. See National Consumer Law Center, Fair Credit Reporting § 6.10.4 (6th ed. 2006 and Supp.). An argument can be made that an investigation wasn’t reasonable if a debt collector collecting on a sold debt fails to obtain the original account information. Heres the case they referenced Performance Capital Mangement, Inc.. - Consent Decree B. failing to properly investigate consumer disputes, as required by Section 623( of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(, when consumer reporting agencies refer disputes to the defendant pursuant to Section 611(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2) . In order to comply with Section 623( when a consumer disputes the accuracy of information reported by the defendant to a consumer reporting agency, defendant shall either verify the information with the original account records within the time period set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act or take all necessary steps to delete the information from the files of all consumer reporting agencies to which the information was reported. In any situation where the defendant either knows that no original records exist, or is informed by the original creditor that no records exist, the defendant shall, within five business days after receiving the consumer dispute, notify all consumer reporting agencies to which the information has been provided that the information is to be deleted from the file of the consumer who has disputed the account;
  10. ultimately it turned out bad for the debtor but its a good read of how some judges see statements.
  11. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC v. KUMBARIS - Submitted October 12, 2011. The colloquy between plaintiff's counsel and the judge continued regarding the admission of monthly credit card statements in defendant's name: Judge: All right. And the existence of the underlying debt would be reflected in the business records of [WaMu]? Counsel: Yes . . . . Judge: All right. And Ms. Sharpe . . . is not an employee of [WaMu]? Counsel: [WaMu] doesn't exist anymore . . . . Judge: Well, Ms. Sharpe is not an employee of [WaMu], so how could she be the proper custodian of records for those bank records, and support the admission of the bank records under the hearsay 803 series? [T]he fact is that Ms. Sharpe is not a business custodian of [WaMu], and, therefore, she's not properly qualified to authenticate the underlying business records. The underlying business records are not authenticated, they [sic] cannot rely upon them as a hearsay exception to establish the underlying debt
  12. the first part is just definition of terms. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/329732-chase-palisades.html
  13. the amount of information I'm finding is amazing. well at least to me. Maybe a sticky for all forward flow agreements?? I found this in the palisades one. 2. Sale of Accounts (a) Purchaser represents and warrants to Seller that Purchaser's primary purpose in purchasing Charged-off Accounts is to attempt legal collection of the Unpaid Balances owed on such Charged-off Accounts and is not to commence an action or proceeding against Cardholders obligated under such Charged-off Accounts. that would mean anybody who bought those accounts couldnt sue right? maybe we should ask for a sticky on forward flow agreements?