Tag Archives: Morgan

Kramer-Kaslow: Questionable Banking Practices Outcomes in Lawsuit For JP Morgan Chase (CHASE)

Posted on by


Calabasas, California (Vocus/PRWEB) April 18, 2011

Philip Kramer has filed a mass joinder lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase (CHASE) (Belmont v. Chase, Superior Court of California, Superior Court of Los Angeles, case number: BC455629) in what is potentially the most substantial and precedent-setting legal action taken against lenders as a outcome of the national foreclosure crisis, it was announced nowadays by Philip Kramer, Esq. of Kramer &amp Kaslow.

&#13

The firm has filed suit on behalf of a mass joinder of plaintiffs looking for damages and injunctive relief as a outcome of what Mr. Kramer calls the bank’s fraud and numerous violations of Nearby, State, and Federal customer protection laws. Mr. Kramer says that relief is getting sought for fraud, to quit the illegal sale of plaintiffs residences, to force the bank to cease and desist from their outrageous conduct, as properly as to seek compensatory damages on behalf of the plaintiffs.

&#13

Mr. Kramer says that the lawsuit alleges CHASE perpetrated a massive fraud, also constituting unfair competition upon borrowers that devastated the values of their residences, resulting in the loss of net worth even as CHASE enriched itself by knowingly promoting economic instruments based on a value the bank knew to be unwarranted. The lawsuit alleges that CHASE further intended to deprive quite a few rights and remedies for the problems they triggered the borrowers and believes that the harm done to the plaintiffs is exceeded only by the scale of the banks conduct, as asserted in the plaintiffs suit.

&#13

According to court documents, the lawsuit claims the bank disregarded underwriting requirements and implemented a massive fraud that was concealed from borrowers and other mortgagees on an unprecedented scale. The lawsuit alleges that, as a outcome of the banks actions, borrowers lost equity in their homes, their credit ratings and histories were destroyed and they incurred unnecessary fees and costs.

&#13

Mr. Kramer says that the lawsuit challenges the fraudulent and illegal use of MERS in connection with the loans and mortgages, as well as the defendants alleged failure to perform their obligations pursuant to accepting TARP funds.

&#13

I am convinced that for the initial time that aggrieved property owners are going to get a fighting chance, says attorney Philip Kramer. Till now, the banks have had their way, employing and abusing the system at the expense of distressed home owners across the nation. Now, soon after years of abusing homeowners and the greater public, the bank bullies are acquiring a great stiff legal punch in the nose.

&#13

ABOUT PHILIP KRAMER&#13

PHILIP A. KRAMER is the senior partner of the Law Workplace of Kramer &amp Kaslow, in Calabasas, California. Kramer &amp Kaslow is Martindale Hubbell AV rated. Mr. Kramer is a perennial recipient of the prestigious Southern California Super Lawyer award.

&#13

Mr. Kramer received his undergraduate degree from Ohio State University and his Juris Doctorate from the Catholic University of America, in Washington, DC. His practice emphasizes industrial litigation and trial advocacy, with a concentration on company litigation, and actual house matters. He has prosecuted and defended instances for over twenty 5 years.

&#13

Mr. Kramer is a licensed real estate broker and has spent considerable time offering legal services in connection with real estate issues relating to loan modification and loss mitigation, land use and zoning, environmental concerns, easements, building and improvement, finance, and landlord tenant matters.

&#13

Mr. Kramer is admitted to practice prior to all courts in the State of California, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Military Appeals. Mr. Kramer has tried in excess of 200 situations. He has appeared on nationally televised applications with regards to pre-trial procedure and trial approach and has appeared as a guest lecturer on subjects ranging from constitutional law to trial practice, and Mr. Kramer often lectures on a broad spectrum of numerous legal and enterprise problems.

&#13

Mr. Kramer also serves as a Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles Superior Court and as a Mediator.

&#13

Mr. Kramer is also a previous president of the Los Angeles West Inns of Court, a national organization committed to bringing professionalism and civility back into the legal profession. He also serves on several Boards of Directors and serves as an officer in a lot of businesses. For far more details get in touch with (818) 224-3900 or go to http://kramerlaw2.com.

&#13

# # #

&#13
&#13
&#13

Multi-Party Suit Filed by Homeowners Against JP Morgan Chase et al

Posted on by


Roseville, California (PRWEB) October 27, 2011

On Tuesday October 18, 2011, United Foreclosure Attorney Network (UFAN) filed suit in Superior Court in Martinez, CA (case number C-11-02390) on behalf of many home owners against JP Morgan Chase and other individuals alleged by Plaintiffs to be involved in a scheme to defraud and otherwise take advantage of investors and borrowers.

&#13

The complaint information how the lending practices of JP Morgan Chase led straight to Plaintiffs becoming placed in harmful and predatory loans. Following a loosening of lending restrictions in the 1980s, banks like JP Morgan Chase started originating exotic non-prime mortgages with adjustable interest rates. These risky loans have been often securitized into mortgage backed securities and sold to investors. Since a bank could quickly recoup amounts spent issuing mortgages by the sale of these residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS), banks incentivized mortgage brokers to participate in the scheme with high fees for origination. According to the filing, these charge incentives encouraged full disregard for underwriting requirements which were employed to lure borrowers into extremely predatory loans they could not afford.

&#13

The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs relied on statements produced by JP Morgan Chase personnel and mortgage brokers when they accepted negative loans. Plaintiffs were usually told that they would be in a position to afford high loan amounts and had been promised the capacity to refinance at a later date. It is alleged that in some situations, loan officers blatantly lied to Plaintiffs about the top quality of the loans they had been getting. The complaint alleges that Chase not only knew about these broker practices, but encouraged and incentivized them. A Chase internal memo states, If you do not get Stated/Stated, try resubmitting with slightly greater income. Inch it up $ 500 to see if you can get the findings you want. Do the identical for assets.

&#13

Similarly, the complaint alleges that appraisers were encouraged to inflate home values in order to give borrowers greater loan amounts. The greater the loan amount, the more money JP Morgan Chase was capable to make on the sale of the loan. It is argued that the bank incentivized appraisers to falsify property valuations in order to safe a higher loan to sell to investors. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs borrowed excessively in reliance on inflated appraisals and other statements.

&#13

Plaintiffs also argue that simply because of the sale of their loans, they did not receive the advantage of the contract for which they bargained. Plaintiffs, believing they would be placed into a mortgage with a traditional Lender/Borrower relationship, later identified that they did not have a lender with whom they could deal. Servicers are not at liberty to make changes to contracts when circumstances are unforeseeably changed. In addition, loan servers have an incentive to foreclose whereas a lender has the incentive to modify a loan if it would be more lucrative in the extended run. Had several property owners had a lender with whom to deal, they could have restructured the mortgage for a more desirable result for each parties. The complaint information how numerous Plaintiffs diligently sought modification of their loans but have been denied merely because the servicer had no authority to grant a modification.

JP Morgan Chase Borrowers in California Nonetheless in Want of Mortgage Relief Regardless of Current Lawyer General Settlement

Posted on by


Roseville, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2012

Although settlement was reached recently with the States Attorneys Basic, UFAN Legal Group, Computer (UFAN) continues to see significant interest in litigation against Chase and the other key banks participating in the settlement. In spite of the settlement, numerous California property owners continue with no relief.

&#13

UFAN filed its 1st complaint against JP Morgan Chase on October 18, 2011 in Superior Court for Contra Costa County (case number C-11-02390). The case targets problems origination of loans, Chases alleged improper servicing of borrowers loans, and other claims mainly concerned with contract law. The case has been amended twice in the initial half of 2012. UFAN is at the moment looking for new consumers, similarly situated with current plaintiffs, who are left without relief.

&#13

Current news headlines discuss the settlement in between the States Attorneys General and five main banks, which includes JP Morgan Chase. Even though Chase, by means of this settlement, agreed to a large money payout each to participating states and specific groups of distressed borrowers, a lot of borrowers continue to be left with no relief. For instance, the settlement does not cover property owners whose mortgages are owned by government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to a February 2012 LA Occasions report. Reportedly, these loans make up far more than 60% of California home owners, and the settlement itself will only apply to about 250,000 California homeowners.

&#13

Even though the settlement precludes certain new actions by state officials against participating banks, it does not limit private lawsuits filed on behalf of home owners. UFAN continues to fight for the rights of distressed homeowners who have been injured by the poor enterprise practices of JP Morgan Chase, and who have been left without having assistance despite governmental efforts.

&#13

If you think you may have been injured by your lender, UFAN delivers complementary lawyer consultations to assist distressed homeowners in assessing feasible choices for relief which includes, but not limited to, litigation and bankruptcy. Click right here to get in touch with UFAN.