Cassino v Chase PI WF Nardolillo v Chase Northern District of CA Motion to Dismiss Denied 09202017

Nardolillo V. Chase Northern District of California: Motion to Dismiss Denied

Posted on September 20, 2017 by Neil Garfield

By J. Guggenheim / www.lendinglies.com

Note: Our ongoing gratitude to Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency for keeping us
updated with significant developments in nationwide foreclosure defense cases. Paatalo is the
preeminent investigator regarding WaMu/JPMorgan Chase merger issues.

See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase Nardolillo v. Chase

Analysis by Neil Garfield: Although Nardolillos case has merit, unfortunately he may lose because
he already alleged that the loan was sold to a specific securitized trust. We already know the loans
werent transferred to the trusts, so Nardolillo has already compromised his own case by making
erroneous presumptions.

Without an amendment to his pleadings, he will be forced to prove the trust bought the loan which is
impossible because the trust didnt buy the loan and therefore there is no evidence to support the
allegation.

The flip-side is that if Nordolillo had not identified who the loan was sold to, the court would have
likely gone the other way on the motion to dismiss.

If he amends to not be specific on the sale of the loan, there is a risk that the court will dismiss the
action. The real problem really is that not only did the trust NOT buy the loan, but NOBODY did.
That is because the only movement of money that actually occurred in the real world was to fund
loans originated by WAMU. Thus he is right that WAMU didnt own it but he is citing the wrong
reason. WAMU never owned the loan in the first place. Thus there could be no sale.

Chase relies on the complexity of its scheme to confuse and overwhelm the bench. This is the
principal reason that I have been hammering at the idea of using a CPA as an expert witness
because the numbers dont lie. Banks lie, servicers lie, and lawyers lie; but in the end, the
numbers on the general ledger as audited by one of the big auditing firms tell the real story.
You will likely never find a single one of these loans on the balance sheet of any of the players
pretending to foreclose.
___________________________________________________________
Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase is scheduled for trial in April in Californias liberal North District
Court. This case includes illegal substitutions of trustees by Chase, if they were not the beneficiary
per the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA). Nardolillo alleges wrongful foreclosure,
violations of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, and dual-tracking violations in regards to
a pending loan modification. Nardolillo is not the first to allege that JPMorgan Chase is playing an
ownership shell-game (see Fox).

WaMu was taken under receivership by the FDIC in 2008 when it became insolvent. JPMorgan
Chase then entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) with the FDIC to acquire
certain WaMu assets. Plaintiff Gary Nardolillo alleges his Note and Deed of Trust were not
among the assets Chase acquired through the PAA and that they were possibly sold or
securitized years earlier.
This is business as usual for JPMorgan Chase who typically has no note or assignment
demonstrating ownership in regards to the WaMu loans it claimed to have
acquired. Therefore, without resorting to manufacturing the documents or having a bank
representative file a sworn affidavit they have personal knowledge of the loan (when they
dont), JPMorgan Chase simply relies on a substitute trustee to compensate for Chain of
Assignment deficiencies.

On March 14, 2011, Chase claimed to be the beneficiary of the DOT and directed the California
Reconveyance Corporation (CRC), as trustee, to record a Notice of Default against the subject
property. CRC recorded a Notice of Default, stating the amount due as of March 11, 2011, was
$36,304.16.

On October 20, 2014, in a recorded Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, Chase purported to act
as attorney in fact for the FDIC and transferred all beneficial interest in Nardolillos DOT to
itself. Nardolillo alleges this was a void assignment because: (1) Nardolillos DOT was never among
the assets received by the FDIC from WaMu and transferred to Chase; and (2) Chase was not
authorized to serve as the attorney in fact for the FDIC at the time it executed and recorded the
Corporate Assignment.

Chase then began its usual game of what Investigator Paatalo refers to whack-a-mole and on April
17, 2015, it recorded a Substitution of Trustee, substituting former-defendant Trustee Corps in place
of CRC as trustee under the DOT. Nardolillo alleges that this substitution is also void.

Chase directed Trustee Corps to record a Notice of Trustees Sale against the Subject Property on
July 7, 2016. Around July 22, 2016, Nardolillo submitted his first loan modification application to
Chase, but the defendants have continued to notice trustees sale dates on the Property. He claims
that chase violated California Civil Code when it conducted the July 2016 Notice of Trustees Sale
recorded, as Chase had no right to foreclose because Chase never acquired rights to the DOT and
Note from WaMu.

Assuming these allegations are true, the Notice of Trustees Sale would not be accurate and
complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. Cal. City Code 2924.17/a). Chase
argues Nardolillos argument isnt sufficiently supported by facts, but only by insufficient bare
conclusions. Nardolillo is at the mercy of Chase who likely doesnt have the necessary proof but
relies on the complicity of the bank to get away with fraud. The relevant allegations in the Complaint
are:

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that WaMu sold Plaintiffs DOT and Note to a
mortgage backed securitized trust.

Plaintiffs securitization audit indicated Plaintiff s loan was possibly sold to the WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-AR12 trust a real estate mortgage
investment conduit (REMIC) registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that his Note and DOT were not among the assets
acquired by Chase through the PAA, having been sold and securitized to a trust pool a few
years prior.

Chase relies on the PAA, that claims Chase acquired WaMus assets from the FDIC in 2008, as well
as the recorded Corporate Assignment, showing that plaintiffs DOT and Note were transferred to
Chase by Chase (as the attorney in fact for the FDIC as receiver for WaMu). Relying on JPMorgan
Chases word is like believing Kevin Hart is a committed family man- despite the Vegas photos.

Chase claims these judicially noticeable documents and the absence of notices recorded by any
other entity with respect to the Property establish that Chase is of record with respect to the
Property. Plaintiff has correctly objected to any attempt to take judicial notice of the facts contained
in these public records as true. He argues that the truth of whether Chase was entitled to sign the
Corporate Assignment and whether plaintiffs Note and DOT were included with the scope of the PAA
are contested and cannot be established through a request f0r judicial notice. Neil Garfield writes
about the perils of not objecting to judicial notice here.

Chases arguments are not well-taken on a motion to dismiss. The PAA does not expressly
cover plaintiffs Note and DOT. Chase fails to point to any portion of the PAA that
demonstrates that WaMu-funded REMICs (like the one Nardolillo contends owns his Note and
DOT) were WaMu assets transferred to Chase for servicing or for any other purpose. The
court noted that although Chase has been an entity causing notices to be recorded with
respect to the Property, is significant, it does not by itself establish as an incontrovertible fact
that Chase is of interest or otherwise entitled to enforce rights to the Note and DOT.
Investigator Bill Paatalo has proof that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase $615 billion in
WaMu loans. See article here:
http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-jpmorgan-chase-did-not-purchase-ownership-of-615b-worth-of-
wamu-loans-in-three-simple-steps/

Paatalo has long discussed the questionable use of using Substitution of Trustees in order to create
the illusion of ownership and to further complicate the ownership issue in a court of law. Paatalo
discovered that WaMu entities have never been dissolved and still exist. The loans did not go
through the FDIC, therefore Chase executes assignments from the FDIC in order to substitute
trustees. Paatalo demonstrates that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase ownership of $615
billion in Washington Mutal loans in three simple steps.
Paatalo presents a 3-step Analysis to show that ownership of at least $615,000,000,000.00
(over half a TRILLION Dollars!) of WaMu loans were not purchased by JPMorgan Chase from
the FDIC.

STEP 1:
The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu
sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries WaMu
Asset Acceptance Corporation and Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation who acted
as Depositors in the securitization transactions.
See:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senate-investigations-
subcommittee-releases-levin-coburn-report-on-the-financial-crisis

Pg. 116
From 2000 to 2007, Washington Mutual and Long Beach securitized at least $77 billion in subprime
and home equity loans. WaMu also sold or securitized at least $115 billion in Option ARM loans.
Between 2000 and 2008, Washington Mutual sold over $500 billion in loans to Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, accounting for more than a quarter of every dollar in loans WaMu originated.

Pg. 119
WaMu Capital Corp. acted as an underwriter of securitization transactions generally
involving Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. or WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp.
Generally, one of the two entities would sell loans into a securitization trust in exchange for
securities backed by the loans in question, and WaMu Capital Corp. would then underwrite the
securities consistent with industry standards.

STEP 2:
See: Page 2. PAA (click here: FDIC-Chase PAA)
Assets means all assets of the Failed Bank purchased pursuant to Section 3.1. Assets owned by
Subsidiaries of the Failed Bank are not Assets within the meaning of this definition.

STEP 3:
In the case of Fox v. JPMorgan Chase, a specific REMIC Trust is named in the action. To prevail on
its argument that the loan was sold and transferred to the Trust, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank,
N.A. as Trustee, both admitted / stipulated that the loan contained both investor codes AO1 and
369 in the loan transfer history, which means the loan was sold by Washington Mutual Bank to the
subsidiaries prior to those subsidiaries transferring the loan into the Trust. AND, it was
stipulated that the loan was NOT PURCHASED FROM THE FDIC.
(Click here: Chase Stipulated Fact AO1 WMAAC)
Stipulated Facts:
8. Investor Code AO1 in the Loan Transfer History File represents WaMu Asset Acceptance
Corporation.
9. Investor Code 369 in the Loan Transfer History File represents Washington Mutual Mortgage
Securities Corporation.
10. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not purchase the loan from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.

In the Fox case, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank as Trustee, have taken a position that
universally applies to all $615B of these securitized loans.
Each one of these loan transactions will show either the investor code AO1, 369, or both
somewhere in the Loan Transfer History screenshots within the servicing system, and as
such, the loans were not purchased from the FDIC.

To date, Chase has relied upon presumptions in order to maintain its position in thousands of
foreclosure proceedings that: (1) it acquired the loans through the PAA, and (2) the
assignments of beneficial-ownership interests to the loans unto itself is valid.

Please visit Bill Paataloss informative blog at http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com. Paatalo

has investigated and exposed the fraudulent WaMu/FDIC/JPMorgan Chase fraud and is one of
the most talented foreclosure fraud investigators in the country.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Bill Paatalo, bpinvestigativeagency, Gary Nardolillo v JPMorgan
Chase, JP Morgan Chase, Nardolillo v. Chase |