Settlement Spotlight
Active Investigations
-
California Early Termination Fee (ETF) Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Depakote Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Dilantin Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Drywall Price-Fixing, Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Kidney Dialysis Heart Attack, GranuFlo & NaturaLyte Recall Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Mesothelioma Asbestos Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Metal on Metal Replacement Hip Implant Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Propecia Loss of Sex Drive, Sexual Dysfunction Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Stevens Johnson (SJS) & Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Text Message Spam, Cell Phone Call TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Type 2 Diabetes Drugs Januvia, Byetta Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Unum/UnumProvident Disability Insurance Claim Denial Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Vaginal Mesh Sling Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Wage & Hour, Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
-
Yaz/Yasmin, Ocella & Beyaz Birth Control Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Zithromax Z-Pak Azithromycin Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation
-
Zoloft & SSRI Antidepressant Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
Top Settlements
Top News
Top Drug Lawsuits
| JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Continues |
|
|
- Wednesday, 31 August 2011 11:21
JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Continues
By Matt O'Donnell
A federal judge has ruled that JPMorgan Chase must face a class action lawsuit that claims it defrauded New Jersey residents who applied for the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, a federal program designed to help homeowners in danger of defaulting on their homes.
Chase opted into HAMP through Fannie Mae shortly after the plan was implemented in 2009. The plan is designed to lower homeowners' monthly mortgage payments to sustainable levels, but New Jersey homeowners say they never got the benefits of the program. Instead, they say, Chase took the federal money designed to bail out homeowners and systematically rejected HAMP applications based on false claims that homeowners did not provide the appropriate documentation, even though many homeowners claim they did.
Lead Plaintiff Johny Thomas claims in the JPMorgan Chase mortgage fraud class action lawsuit that in October 2009, he and his wife were struggling on their home mortgage loan and requested a HAMP modification. Later than month, he claims Chase sent them a letter telling them they were eligible, but that they should sign up and pay for a trial-period plan.
Thomas says he and his wife made these trial payments for about six months, until they received a letter from Chase stating their application was declined because it did not meet an unspecified requirement, even though Thomas says he met all the requirements necessary. Chase then refused to apply several of the payments Thomas made before foreclosing on their home on August 2, 2010.
A second Plaintiff, Johnny Fields, makes the same allegations in the Chase HAMP class action lawsuit, saying that, just like Thomas, he applied for a HAMP modification on his mortgage in December 2009 and made trial payments. Just as in Thomas's case, Chase eventually declined his application, citing inadequate documents, which Fields says he field. A year later Chase sent him a notice of intent to foreclose.
Thomas and fields filed separate class action lawsuits but later joined forces in a consolidated case against JPMorgan Chase in February, charging 10 separate claims. Last week, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed eight of them, but ruled that JPMorgan Chase must stand trial for counts of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and engaging in negligent misrepresentation.
The JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit case is Johny Thomas and Johnny Fields, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chase Home Finance, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-08993, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
Updated August 31st, 2011
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
Last Updated on Thursday, 27 December 2012 11:09




Comments
JP Morgan Chase, a case study in Liars that figure.
This is a story that rivals the criminal activities of Enron’s Executives (“the smartest men in the room”) with one major difference, Enron’s victims were primarily investors, whereas Chases victims are vulnerable and financially distressed Chase customers. This includes US servicemen and their families and thousands of others facing foreclosure, with chase “gaming” the Obama MHAP program to steal from, and foreclose on, seniors seeking help from the federal program designed to provide financial relief.
Chase says it will pay more than $2 million to about 4,000 service member mortgage holders that were overcharged in interest while they were on active duty. The bank's decision is linked to a five-year legal battle with Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles, an F/A-18D weapons system officer who sued after the institution continued to charge him 9 or 10 percent interest on his mortgage -- a violation of the Service members Civil Relief Act -- and threatened to take his home. .
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is a story that will not be welcome or embraced by politicians influenced (if not corrupted) by big banking lobbyists.
This is a story that can change the way elected officials will level the playing field for the most vulnerable of our citizens victimized by the US banking system.
This is a story that needs to be pursued by the institutions that are chartered to challenge the criminal activities aimed at our most vulnerable and least protected citizens.
This is a story that should culminate in the prosecution of responsible Chase management under the “RICO Act’.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count treble damages.Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."
On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather than face spending the rest of his life in prison.On September 7, 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was also threatened with a RICO indictment under the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes.
“Experience hath shown, that even under
the best forms of government those
entrusted with power have, in time, and
by slow operations, perverted it into
tyranny."
– Thomas Jefferson
Where are the “protectors’ of our most vunerable?
Robert Barry Hall, just another victim of “Liars that figure”.
Thank you, Car E. Durham
RSS feed for comments to this post