2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 1 of 33

Pg ID 1

THERESE DICKOW, on behalf of herself and a class of persons similarly situated,

Case No. 12Hon. Magistrate:

Plaintiffs, vs.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ww

Except as provided below, no civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this complaint has been previously filed in this court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge. Except as provided below, I do not know of any other civil action between these parties, arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this complaint, that is either pending or was previously filed and dismissed, transferred or otherwise disposed of after having been assigned to a judge in this or any other court except Oakland County Sixth Circuit, Case No. 11-DA9393-AV and 48th District Court Case No. 10-25020-LT7.

w.

St

op Fo

Defendants. __________________________________________________________/ WOLFE LAW GROUP, PLLC Jack B. Wolfe (P39667) Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 24901 Northwestern Highway, Suite 212 Southfield, Michigan 48075 (248) 809-2005 (o) (248) 809-9969 (f) (248) 229-1187 (m1) (248) 228-6307 (m2) thewolfelawgroup@yahoo.com _______________________________________________________________________/

re

Jack B. Wolfe (P39667)

clo

/s/Jack B. Wolfe

su re

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, Successor in interest from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank; BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM; and OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY (federal bank regulators),

Fr au d. co

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 2 of 33

Pg ID 2

Plaintiffs, Therese Dickow, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated John and Jane Does, by and through their undersigned attorneys, WOLFE LAW GROUP, PLLC, and for their Complaint, state as follows:

PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION 1.

Plaintiff, Therese Dickow, is a resident of the City of West Bloomfield,

County of Oakland and State of Michigan and owns a home at 4250 Margate Lane, West Bloomfield, Michigan, 48322 (the Property) and her claims against Defendants are representative of the similarly situated plaintiffs. 2.

All other similarly situated plaintiffs, John Doe and Jane Doe, are located in

the State of Michigan and have a connection to Defendants by way of a residential mortgage loan transaction with Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) and property owned by or at one time by the similarly situated plaintiffs. 3. Defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase Bank, Chase or

4.

which is a quasi-government entity has contacted Dickow because their loan with WAMU may be eligible for an Independent Foreclosure Review that may result in compensation or other remedy. Dickows Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) is

w.

attached as Exhibit A. 5. Defendant, Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), is a

ww

government entity involved with the FRB in the IFR. 6. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a).
2

St

op Fo

sometimes referred to as the Foreclosing Lender), is the successor in interest to WAMU. Defendant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB),

re

clo

su re

Fr au d. co

VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE, DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 3 of 33

Pg ID 3

7.

The amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the

sum of $50,000,000.00 and is a class action in that any member of any class identified by plaintiff is a citizen of a State different from defendants. 28 USC 1332(d) (2) (A). COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8.

On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), within

the United States Department of Treasury, closed WAMU and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver over WAMU. 9.

Pursuant to a Purchaser and Assumption Agreement, dated, September 25,

of WAMUs loans and loan commitments. Upon information and belief, the applicable Purchaser and Assumption Agreement referred to herein is attached as Exhibit B.

in pertinent part, as follows:

re

(d) Powers and duties of Corporation as conservator or receiver ***

ww

w.

St

succeed to

(i) all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the insured depository institution, and of any stockholder, member, accountholder, depositor, officer, or director of such institution with respect to the institution and the assets of the institution; and (ii) title to the books, records, and assets of any previous conservator or other legal custodian of such institution.

op Fo

(2) General powers

(A) Successor to institution The Corporation shall, as conservator or receiver, and by operation of law,

clo

10.

12 USC 1821 governs the FDICs Authority as a receiver, which states,

su re
3

2008, between the FDIC, as receiver, and Chase Bank, as buyer, Chase Bank acquired all

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 4 of 33

Pg ID 4

[12 USC 1821(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) (Emphasis added).] 11. The FDICs authority to dispose of the Banks assets is set forth in 12

USC 1821(d)(2)(G),which provides:

(G) Merger; transfer of assets and liabilities (i) In general

The Corporation may, as conservator or receiver

(I) merge the insured depository institution with another insured depository institution; or

(ii) Approval by appropriate Federal banking agency No transfer described in clause (i)(II) may be made to another depository institution . . . without the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency for such institution. 12. Consistent with this authority, the FDIC and Chase Bank entered into the

Purchase and Assumption Agreement, pursuant to which Chase Bank acquired Dickows

purchase substantially all of the assets and assume all deposit and substantially all other liabilities of the Failed Bank[.] Exhibit B, page 1. 13. Article III of the agreement, pertaining to the purchase of assets,

provides, in relevant part: 3.1 Assets Purchased by Assuming Bank. Subject to Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 4.8, the Assuming Bank hereby purchases from the Receiver, and the Receiver hereby sells, assigns, transfers, conveys, and delivers to the Assuming Bank, all right, title, and interest of the Receiver in and to all of the assets . . . of the Failed Bank . . . . . [T]he Assuming Bank specifically purchases all mortgage servicing rights and obligations of the Failed Bank.
4

ww

w.

St

op Fo

indebtedness. The agreement states that Chase Bank, as the Assuming Bank desires to

re

clo

su re

(II) subject to clause (ii), transfer any asset or liability of the institution in default (including assets and liabilities associated with any trust business) without any approval, assignment, or consent with respect to such transfer.

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 5 of 33

Pg ID 5

provisions, the FDIC, as receiver, rather than Chase Bank, acquired WAMUs rights, titles, powers and privileges by operation of law. 15.

Chase Bank simply purchased the loans from the FDIC after they were

transferred to the FDIC from WAMU by operation of law. 16.

Pursuant to the foreclosure-by-advertisement statute under Chapter 32 of

Michigan compiled laws (the Foreclosure Act), MCL 600.3204 provides, in relevant part, as follows (emphasis added):

(1) A party may foreclose a mortgage by advertisement if all of the following circumstances exist: (a) A default in a condition of the mortgage has occurred, by which the power to sell became operative. (b) An action or proceeding has not been instituted, at law, to recover the debt secured by the mortgage or any part of the mortgage; or, if an action or proceeding has been instituted, the action or proceeding has been discontinued; or an execution on a judgment rendered in an action or proceeding has been returned unsatisfied, in whole or in part.

(d) The party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage. *** (3) If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertisement is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title shall exist prior to the date of sale under section 3216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the mortgage.

ww

w.

St

op Fo

(c) The mortgage containing the power of sale has been properly recorded.

re

clo

su re
5

Fr au d. co

14.

Reading the agreement in conjunction with the federal statutory

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 6 of 33

Pg ID 6

17.

Chase Bank was not the original mortgagee in any WAMU transaction

with the Class and acquired its interest in the mortgage of a Class Member by assignment. 18.

Pursuant to the plain language of MCL 600.3204(3) under the Foreclosure

Act, Chase Bank was required to record its assigned mortgage interest prior to the date of the sheriffs sale. 19.

The Michigans Supreme Court has recognized that [t]he right to

foreclose by advertisement is conferred solely by the statute and that strict compliance

108 (1891). 20.

MCL 600.3204(3) of the Foreclosure Act makes no exception for

of Appeals in Euihyung Kim and In Sook Kim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 302528

21.

The Kim Court held that:

Id.

THE SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE PUTATIVE PLAINTIFF

ww

w.

Dickow), husband and wife (collectively Dickow), acquired the Property by warranty deed as tenants in the entireties (Exhibit D).

St

22.

op Fo

Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of MCL 600.3204(3), defendant was required to record its mortgage interest before the sheriffs sale. Because defendant failed to do so, it was not statutorily authorized to proceed with the sale.[Appellants] were entitled to set aside the sheriffs deed.

In 1993, Eugene S. Dickow (Mr. Dickow) and Therese Dickow (Mrs.

re

(January 12, 2012) (For Publication) (Exhibit C).

clo

mortgage interests acquired by operation of law was the ruling of the Michigan Court

su re
6

with such statutory provisions is required. Dohm v. Haskin, 88 Mich. 144, 147; 50 N.W.

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 7 of 33

Pg ID 7

23.

On August 8, 2007, Mrs. Dickow granted a mortgage (the Mortgage)

(Exhibit E) and note (Note) (Exhibit F) on the Property to the originating lender, WAMU, in the amount of $381,119.00 (the Loan). 24. 25. Exhibit F. 26.

Mr. Dickow signed the Mortgage to waive his homestead rights, if any.

Mr. Dickow was not an obligor of the Note, only Mrs. Dickow. See,

As set forth above, WAMU was taken over by the FDIC, with all its assets

sold to Chase Bank; however, no record of this sale was recorded until the Sheriff Deed,

(FDIC Affidavit) of the purported sale (Exhibit G, all the recorded documents associated with the Sheriffs Deed). 27.

2007-2008, leaving him financially devastated.

defaulted on the Note, resulting in the acceleration of the Note and pending foreclosure of the Mortgage. 29.

(First Publication) (Exhibit H, Notice of Publication).

indicated that the owner of the Mortgage was WAMU (Exhibit I).

w.

ww

WAMUs interest in the Mortgage to Chase Bank prior to or after the Sheriffs Sale other

St

30.

31.

op Fo

First publication of the foreclosure process occurred on March 31, 2009

At the time of First Publication, the recorded chain of title for the Property

There is no recorded assignment in chain of title for the Property of

re

28.

Dickow was unable to keep up with their life expenses and Mrs. Dickow

clo

Mr. Dickow was in the real estate investment business, which fell apart in

su re
7

dated, December 1, 2009 (the Sheriffs Sale), which included an affidavit of the FDIC

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 8 of 33

Pg ID 8

than the FDIC Affidavit. The FDIC Affidavit which is part of the foreclosure sale documents at Exhibit G is separately attached as Exhibit J. 32.

with no negotiation of the Note by endorsement by WAMU to Chase Bank. 33.

Prior to the Sheriffs Sale, the original published sale date was April 28,

2009, but was allegedly adjourned for over seven (7) months by Foreclosing Lender until December 1, 2009, with an interceding 6-month loan modification in which loan payments were accepted by Foreclosing Lender from Dickow. 34.

week intervals from April 28, 2009 to December 1, 2009, as required by MCL 600.3220 and, to this end, produced Affidavits of the adjournments (the Adjournment Affidavits)

K, which are stamped, not signed, and allegedly from the various deputy sheriffs and/or

35.

The signatures on the Adjournment Affidavits were not actually ever

reviewed by the party attesting to the facts. 36. As of May 6, 2011, the law firm for Foreclosing Lender had an attorney

grievance complaint filed and pending against it for allegedly participating in robo-

(Exhibit L, evidence of the grievance). There is also an apparent investigation underway

ww

w.

by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission of the Oakland County Circuit Court Judge who did not investigate these allegations but, instead, summarily dismissed the allegations. Id.

St

signing of affidavits and committing fraudclosure on behalf of its lending clientele

op Fo

re

the sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan.

clo

allegedly undertaken pursuant to MCL 600.3220, copies of which are attached as Exhibit

su re
8

The Foreclosing Lender asserts that it adjourned the Sheriffs Sale for one

Fr au d. co

The Note was paid to the order of WAMU at the time of the Sheriffs Sale,

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 9 of 33

Pg ID 9

37.

Dickow was granted a loan modification and timely paid their loan

payments during the six (6) months between April, 2009 and November, 2009, had no change in their income or other revenue related matters, but were denied the continuation

of the loan modification and, without any additional notice, were foreclosed upon by Foreclosing Lender. 38.

Dickow has attempted to purchase the Property for the redemption amount

plus per diem, paid taxes and attorneys fees and has demonstrated proof of funds for such purchase, but has been rejected by the Foreclosing Lender, who has indicated to

vacate the Property. 39.

Mrs. Dickow filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief on May 31, 2011, and

2010 (Exhibit M, Bankruptcy Docket Entries for Mrs. Dickow).

proceeding against Dickow, who were to have had a hearing on November 3, 2010 (Initial Hearing Date). 41.

affirmative defenses and a jury demand (Exhibit N, Responsive Pleadings).

hearing dates as they attempted to work out an amicable resolution to repurchase the

ww

w.

Property, as set forth above, with the Court scheduling the matter for a trial on May 16, 2011 (Exhibit O, District Court Register of Actions).

St

42.

op Fo

On the Initial Hearing Date, Dickows attorney filed an answer,

The parties adjourned the Initial Hearing Date and several subsequent

re

40.

After the order of discharge, the Foreclosing Lender filed a summary

clo

was converted to Chapter 7 on August 2, 2010, receiving her discharge on October 26,

su re
9

Dickow, though its agents that before Dickow can purchase the Property, they must

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 10 of 33

Pg ID 10

43.

The Foreclosing Lender filed a pre-trial motion and brief (the Motion)

pursuant to MCR 4.201(J) (2), alleging there was no triable issue and the Motion hearing date was scheduled before trial for May 13, 2011 (the Hearing), with service upon Dickows counsel by overnight mail on May 2, 2011. 44.

Dickows counsel did not receive the overnight package until May 3, 2011

(Exhibit P, Notice of Hearing and Proof of Service). 45.

Dickows counsel filed their response on May 12, 2011, the day before the

hearing (Exhibit O, District Court Register of Actions) and, at the Hearing, the trial court

as follows: Nope. Unless theres anything further the Courts ready to rule. (Exhibit Q, Transcript at p. 3). Nevertheless, Dickows counsel orally argued prior to the Judges

the mortgage obligations, which it was not, and there is no exception to the non-judicial

Foreclosing Lender, the buyer of the taken over banks assets from the FDIC, to not have to have the Mortgage in record chain of title prior to First Publication or to have the Note endorsed to it (Id. at pp. 4-5). 46.

counsels firm for participating in robo-signing affidavits and the judicial grievance

ww

w.

against the judge for not investigating the allegations (Id. at p. 6). Counsel then indicated that he had filed his brief late and whether this was affecting the Courts decision to

St

raised issues of fact especially in light of the recent grievances filed against opposing

op Fo

Counsel further argued the factual validity of the Adjournment Affidavits,

re

foreclosure statute where there is a FDIC receivership takeover of a bank to allow the

clo

ruling that at the time of First Publication, the Foreclosing Lender must be in control of

su re
10

answered opposing counsels inquiry as to whether the court would allow oral argument

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 11 of 33

Pg ID 11

which the trial court stated: Its only affecting it that I surely didnt read it Id. (Emphasis added). 47.

Dickows counsel argued that whether the trial court read his response was

not relevant to the issue of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred by consent and can be raised sua sponte (Id. at pp. 6-7). 48.

The trial court ignored counsels arguments, finding no defect or

irregularity in the foreclosure process, that the Foreclosing Lender had standing, and that

the trial court had the subject matter jurisdiction to grant a judgment of possession (Id. at

49.

Dickow appealed the ruling of Judge Barron to Oakland County 6th Circuit

Court and drew Judge Bowman as their Appellate Judge, serving their Appellate Brief on

2011, and at that hearing, Judge Bowman dismissed the appeal over the arguments of

at First Publication or prior to the Sheriff Sale as is required under the Foreclosure Act and there is no exemption under the Act for Chase Bank receiving the assets from the FDIC. (Exhibit R, Appellate Transcript). 50. Dickow filed a motion for reconsideration before Judge Bowman (Exhibit

ww

w.

be heard on October 17, 2011, and Mr. Dickow filed for Chapter 13 Bankrutpcy protection on the day before the hearing on the eviction order on October 16, 2011(Exhibit U, Bankruptcy Docket Entries for Mr. Dickow).

St

S), which Judge Bowman denied by written opinion on October 10, 2011(Exhibit T). 51. Chase then filed a motion for an order of eviction before Judge Barron to

op Fo

re

Dickow that there was no assignment of mortgage to Chase Bank in record chain of title

clo

Judge Bowman on July 25, 2011, with oral argument before the Judge on August 31,

su re
11

pp. 7-8).

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 12 of 33

Pg ID 12

52.

The Bankruptcy Judge in Mr. Dickows bankruptcy granted the motion of

Chase to lift the stay to allow Chase to proceed with the eviction of Dickow from the

Property over the objections of Dickows counsel that Dickow had received the IFR form from the FRB and OCC, had experienced financial harm and would not receive any determination until after April 30, 2012. 53.

Dickow has completed and sent their IFR form to the FRB and OCC, a

copy of which is attached as Exhibit V. 54,

Dickow has filed before Judge Bowman with the Oakland County Circuit

copy of which is attached as Exhibit W. 55.

The law and precedent in the State of Michigan is that Chase Bank does

not have standing under the Foreclosure Act and that Michigan courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a Chase Bank Sheriff Deed issued in connection with a Sheriff Sale pursuant to the Foreclosure Act where Chase Bank was enforcing mortgage

(Ex. J), from the FDIC and failed to record an assignment of the mortgage in chain of title prior to the Sheriff Sale as required by MCL 600.3204(3) rendering the Sheriff Sale void ab initio.

St

ww

w.

56.

maintenance of a Class Action as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as set forth below: A. Class Definition. Plaintiff, Therese Dickow, brings this action

individually and on behalf of the following class of similarly situated persons (the
12

op Fo

obligations originated by WAMU which Chase Bank acquired on September 25, 2008

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

This lawsuit and the allegations herein satisfy the prerequisites for the

re

clo

su re

Court a motion to set aside the dismissal of the appeal based upon the Kim, supra, case, a

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 13 of 33

Pg ID 13

Class and/or Class Members), of which she is a Class Member: Persons in the State of Michigan (collectively, homeowners), who had as the originated lender WAMU and had or have Chase Bank as their Foreclosing Lender and/or have

received the IFR and either have been non-judicially foreclosed upon pursuant to the Foreclosure Act and evicted from their homes, are in the process of being

evicted from their homes pursuant to the Foreclosure Act, have been foreclosed upon pursuant to the Foreclosure Act and are in their redemption period and are in

the process of foreclosure pursuant to the Foreclosure Act and have a pending

residents but were judicially foreclosed upon pursuant to Chapter 31 of Michigan compiled laws, homeowners who are not Michigan residents, Chase Bank and any

her immediate family, and members of any class or classes previously certified.

and the proofs at trial; B.

joinder of all Class Members is impracticable. While the exact number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through

w.

St

appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are over five thousand (5,000) persons in the Class and at least one thousand (1000) persons in each sub-class or combination thereof from the State of Michigan; C. Commonality. There are questions of law or fact common to the

ww

Class including, inter alia, the following;

op Fo

Numeriosity. The members of the Class are so numerous that

re

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the above class definition based on discovery

clo

of its officers, directors or employees, the presiding judge or any member of his or

su re
13

foreclosure sale date. Excluded from the class are homeowners who are Michigan

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 14 of 33

Pg ID 14

a.

Whether Foreclosing Lender recorded an assignment of the

WAMU mortgage in chain of title before the Sheriff Sale of any of the homeowners pursuant to Foreclosure Act; b.

Whether Foreclosing Lender was the holder of the Note of the

homeowner at the commencement of the foreclosure proceedings under

non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to the Foreclosure Act as holder ship

is defined under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as adopted by the State of Michigan; c.

the Foreclosure Act; d.

Whether a Michigan Court has subject matter jurisdiction to evict

had acquired the WAMU loan of homeowners from the FDIC and failed to

Sheriff Sale and/or was not a holder of the WAMU notes as defined by the

w.

ww

St

op Fo

UCC at the commencement of the foreclosure proceedings under the Foreclosure Act; e.

Whether Chase Bank must disgorge proceeds received from a

foreclosure sale pursuant to the Foreclosure Act where it failed to hold the WAMU note it acquired from the FDIC and record an assignment of the WAMU mortgage it acquired from the FDIC prior to the Sheriff Sale in violation of the Foreclosure Act and/or the UCC; f. Whether Chase Bank has violated of The Fair Debt Collection Act

re

record the assignment of the WAMU mortgages in chain of title prior to any

clo

homeowners from their foreclosed upon homes where Foreclosing Lender

su re
14

Whether Foreclosing Lender had or has standing to foreclose under

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 15 of 33

Pg ID 15

(the FDCA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(A)(6), where it failed to hold the WAMU note it acquired from the FDIC and record an assignment of the WAMU mortgage it acquired from the FDIC prior to the Sheriff Sale in violation of the Foreclosure Act and/or the UCC; g.

Whether Chase Bank by foreclosing in violation of the Foreclosure

Act as set forth above has financially injured homeowners pursuant to the IFR; h.

Whether a declaratory judgment providing that Chase Bank has

applicable, financial injury or harm to homeowners pursuant to the IFR is appropriate; i.

evictions in process which have WAMU in chain of title;

proper measure of those damages; and

St

claims of the Class; E.

ww

w.

of the Class. The interests of the Plaintiff are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of complex fact litigation and an expert on foreclosures, the mortgage

op Fo

k.

Whether the Class is entitled to the relief sought, including

attorneys fees. D.

Typicality. The claims and defenses of Plaintiff are typical of the

Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests

re

j.

Whether the Class has sustained damages and, if so, what is the

clo

Whether injunctive relief is appropriate to stop all foreclosures and

su re
15

violated the Foreclosure Act, the UCC, the FDCA and caused, where

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 16 of 33

Pg ID 16

industry and the UCC and satisfies the adequate representation requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). 57.

Certification of the Class is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(1)(A) as inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to Chase Bank would create incompatible, inconsistent and non-uniform rulings. 58.

Class Certification is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(B)

(2) as final injunctive relief is appropriate with respect to the Class to stop the violations of Chase Bank of the Foreclosure Act, UCC and FDCA, which continue to be perpetrated

Chase Bank pursuant to the IFR. 59.

A class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) (3) is superior

herein related to the common scheme and course of conduct of Chase Bank because: (i)

(ii) It does not appear that any particular member of the Class has any unique or special interest in individually controlling the prosecution of these claims; (iii) A class action would not present any difficult case management issues; and/or (iv) Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members.

23(b) (3), where in view of the complexity of the issues or the expense of litigation, the

ww

w.

separate claims of individual Class Members are insufficient to support separate actions and a class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted herein.

St

60.

op Fo

Class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

re

A class action will allow streamline litigation to proceed in a court of law, before a jury;

clo

to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted

su re
16

on Plaintiff and the Class and the continuing financial injury or harm being inflicted by

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 17 of 33

Pg ID 17

61.

Class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(3), since joinder of the individual Class Members is impracticable given the large

number of Class Members and the fact that they are dispersed across the State of Michigan, as well as the fact that the expense and burden of individual litigation would

make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the Class to: (i) redress wrongs done to them; (ii) justify the cost to the court system of adjudicating thousands of

individual cases as it would be enormous; (iii) individualize litigation which would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system; and, by contrast (iv)

difficulties, conserve the resources of the parties and the court system and protect the rights of each member of the Class. 62.

a significant interest in controlling the prosecution of separate actions and, as previously

the court system, as well as make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the Class to redress wrongs done to them. 63. Notification is not an issue in that Chase Bank and the FDIC has a loan

file record for each and every Class Member permitting direct notification and there is

w.

ww

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 65. Chase Bank is, and has been at all times pertinent hereto, and will in the
17

St

either court or other public records that can be readily and easily accessed. COUNT I. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST CHASE BANK

64.

op Fo

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-63 above of the Verified

re

stated, individualized litigation would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and

clo

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) (3) (A), Class Members have

su re

conduct this action as a class action in this Court shall present far fewer management

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 18 of 33

Pg ID 18

future engage in conduct, in direct violation of the Foreclosure Act, the UCC and the FDCA. 66.

That unless enjoined by this Court, Chase Bank will continue in its illegal

practices as enumerated in this Complaint to the detriment of the named Plaintiff, and all members of the Class. 67.

That unless enjoined by this Court, Class Members are in imminent threat

that the illegal actions of Chase Bank will result in the loss of their homes, and the eviction from their homes and will suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of the

68.

There is no adequate remedy at law for the damages which will be

inflicted upon and suffered by Class Members if Chase Bank, as successor in interest to

foreclosure or mortgage collection activities in the State of Michigan.

claims that Chase Bank is violating and has violated the Foreclosure Act, the UCC and the FDCA given the Kim, supra (Ex. C), precedent of the Michigan Court of Appeals. 70. Public policy requires that injunctive relief must be granted in this matter

to stop the violations of the Foreclosure Act, the UCC and the FDCA by Chase Bank, to

and to prevent and further loss and/or harm to Michigan homeowners.

ww

w.

requests that this Court grant their request for injunctive relief enjoining Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, from engaging in, continuing with or commencing any

St

prevent any further financial injury or harm to Class Members who have received the IFR

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all Class Members,

op Fo

re

69.

Plaintiff and the Class Members will likely prevail on the merits of their

clo

WAMU, is not immediately enjoined from continuing with or commencing any eviction,

su re
18

wrongful conduct of Chase Bank.

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 19 of 33

Pg ID 19

eviction, foreclosure or mortgage collection activities in the State of Michigan during the pendency of this litigation and grant such other relief that the Court may deem just, necessary, equitable or appropriate.

COUNT II. DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 71.

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-70 above of the Verified

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 72.

The following issues are ripe and need a speedy determination by this

Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57: A.

Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, has violated the

Foreclosure Act as set forth above and the Sheriff Deed and Sheriff Sale are void ab initio as to any Class Member; B.

Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, violated the UCC

and the Sheriff Deed and Sheriff Sale are void ab initio as to any Class Member; C. Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, violated the

violations of the Foreclosure Act and UCC causing direct financial injury or harm to Class Members and that Defendants, FRB and OCC, must expedite the process of awarding to these Class Members compensation for the damaging actions of Chase Bank.

ww

w.

engaging in, continuing with or commencing any eviction, foreclosure or mortgage collection activities in the State of Michigan by Chase Bank as void against Class Members.
19

St

73.

op Fo

FDCA as it was not a proper creditor of a Class Member for violating the UCC; and, D. Chase Bank has caused financial injury or harm due to its

Any one of the foregoing enumerated in paragraph 72 above render

re

clo

su re

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 20 of 33

Pg ID 20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all Class Members, requests that this Court order a speedy hearing on this matter and at such hearing

determine and adjudge that Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, has violated the Foreclosure Act, UCC and FDCA, by failing to record into chain of title the mortgage

acquired from WAMU and/or obtain the status of a holder of the WAMU note before attempting to collect on the note, that the actions or lack thereof of Chase Bank, as the

successor in interest to WAMU, has caused financial injury or harm to Class Members as the term financial injury or harm is or will be defined by the FRB and the OCC

Members must be determined without further delay and for those Class Members who have lost their homes, damages must be determined and adjudged to be equal to the loss

COUNT III. SLANDER OF TITLE AGAINST CHASE BANK 74. Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-73 above of the Verified

75.

and occupants of their homes and the real property upon which it stood. 76. The Sheriff Sale of Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, on the

Property is void ab initio for violating MCL 600.3204(1)(d) and 600.3204(3) pursuant

w.

to the precedent of Kim, supra. 77. The Sheriff Sale of Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, on the

ww

Property is void ab initio for violating the UCC as Chase Bank was not a holder of the WAMU Note at the time of the Sheriff Sale.
20

St

op Fo

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. Plaintiff, Therese Dickow, and the Class Members are and/or were owners

re

clo

of their homes.

su re

pursuant to the IFR and that the compensation due under the IFR for applicable Class

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 21 of 33

Pg ID 21

78. 79.

Chase Bank did not foreclose in good faith pursuant to MCL 600.3228. Chase Bank violated MCL 600.3220 as to Plaintiff and, upon

information and belief, all other Class Members. 80.

For the reasons set forth above, the Sheriff Sale is void ab initio and the

claim of ownership by Chase Bank and/or any successor in interest of Chase Bank to the Property of Plaintiff and all other property of Class Members is slander of title. 81.

Chase Bank and/or any successor in interest alleged ownership of the

Property and attempt to enforce an action of eviction on Plaintiff or any Class Member,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Class Members, respectfully requests that this Court require the immediate revocation of any Sheriff Deed

Class Members ownership of their homes and that the Property ownership be restored to

of $100 Million, treble damages, Chase Bank to disgorge to Class Members any proceeds received from sale of homes wrongfully foreclosed upon or from payoffs which Chase Bank was not entitled to receive as illegally received due to their slander of title plus attorneys fees, interest and costs incurred, lost profits, exemplary damages, non-

Class Member is entitled and any other relief which is equitable, just, proper and

ww

w.

appropriate.

St

economic damages, any other damages of any kind and nature to which the Class and/or

COUNT IV. VIOLATION OF FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. AGAINST CHASE BANK

op Fo

re

Plaintiff and all Class Members, where necessary, actual damages to the Class in excess

clo

obtained by Chase Bank, as successor in interest to WAMU, as slander of title to the

su re
21

the actual owner of the Property or property, respectively, is slander of title.

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 22 of 33

Pg ID 22

82.

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-81 above of the Verified

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 83.

Chase Bank is a Third Party debt collector subject to the FDCA when

acting as the servicer of the WAMU loan. 84.

Chase Bank by bringing foreclosure lawsuits as a servicer is attempting

to collect, (either) directly or indirectly debts within the meaning of the statute. 15 U.S.C. 1692(a)(6); Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S.291, 115 S.Ct. 1489 (1995). 85.

Upon information and belief, Chase Bank acted as a servicer to many of

securitized pool or Mortgage Backed Security (MBS). 86.

FDCA was passed to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt

collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged and to promote consistent State

87.

Under the FDCA, a consumer is any natural person obligated or

allegedly obligated to pay any debt. 88. Any obligation or alleged obligation of any consumer to pay money

arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are

under the FDCA.

w.

ww

instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is to collect debts, or who regularly collects debts or attempts to collect debts,

St

the subject of a transaction and primarily for personal, family, or household purposes are

89.

op Fo

Under the FDCA, a debt collector is any person who uses any

re

action to protect consumers against debt collection abuse.

clo

collectors to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt

su re
22

the loans acquired from WAMU, including Plaintiffs loan, which were sold to a

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 23 of 33

Pg ID 23

directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another. 90. A debt collector may or may not use any false, deceptive or misleading

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 91.

A debt collector may not violate the FDCA by using either unfair or

unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 92.

Any debt collector who fails to comply with the provisions of the FDCA is

liable for any actual damages sustained, statutory damages up to $1,000,000.00 for each violation, attorney fees as determined by Court and costs of this action.

alleged in this Verified Complaint has violated the FDCA by use of false representations and deceptive means in pursuing Plaintiff and other Class Members for payment of a debt

initio and unenforceable. 94.

alleged in this Verified Complaint has violated the FDCA by use of false representations and deceptive means in pursuing Plaintiff and other Class Members for payment of a debt given that the basis of Chases ability to collect was a Note that is was not a holder thereof. 95.

engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress or abuse

w.

any person in connection with the collection of its debt. 96. Chase Bank and/or legal counsel on its behalf has violated FDCA by

ww

falsely representing the character amount or legal status of the debt.

St

op Fo

Chase Bank and/or legal counsel on its behalf has violated the FDCA by

re

Chase Bank and/or legal counsel on its behalf as a result of the allegations

clo

given that the basis of Chases ability to collect was a mortgage lien that was void ab

su re
23

93.

Chase Bank and/or legal counsel on its behalf as a result of the allegations

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 24 of 33

Pg ID 24

97.

Chase Bank and/or legal counsel on its behalf has violated FDCA by

collecting amounts not permitted by law. 98.

Chase Bank and/or legal counsel on its behalf has violated FDCA by

communicating with consumers at any unusual time or place which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. 99.

The Class, as a result of these violations of the FDCA, have suffered

statutory, actual, financial, and emotional damage and seek their attorney fees and costs as allowed for under the FDCA. 100.

Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned counsel who is an attorney in good standing and has personally represented hundreds of consumer cases and has been involved with thousands

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant the following

C. D. E.

ww

w.

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 102. Chase Bank is and has been in the ongoing process of charging and

collecting monies for services it has performed that are illegal in law and equity.
24

St

101.

op Fo

A. B.

Compensatory damages in excess of $100 Million for the Class; Statutory damages in excess of $100 Million to be allocated to each Class Member; Punitive damages in excess of $100 Million for the Class; Attorney fees, interest and costs pursuant to statute and incurred in this action; and, Grant such other relief as the Court may deem equitable, proper and just. COUNT V. UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST CHASE BANK

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs, 1-100, above of this Verified

re

relief as provided for under FDCA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e:

clo

of consumer loans.

su re

As a result of the conduct of Chase Bank in violation of the FDCA,

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 25 of 33

Pg ID 25

103.

Chase Bank should not unjustly benefit from collection and receipt of

monies under the guise of a legal foreclosure and/or payoff of secured liens presumed to be valid while in effect illegal in law and equity.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter an Order disgorging from

Chase Bank the unjust benefits received by their wrongful and illegal conduct as alleged

in this Verified Complaint in excess of $100 Million, plus attorneys fees, interest and costs incurred and any other relief which is equitable, just and proper. COUNT VI. FRAUD AGAINST CHASE BANK 104.

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-103 above of the Verified

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 105.

Chase Bank made statements to Plaintiffs that they knew were not true or

had reason to know were not true, including, without limitation, the following: A. Chase Bank had the right to enforce the first lien on the subject

properties and to non-judicially foreclose as to the properties knowing that the neither the

Chase.

eviction proceedings as to the subject properties knowing that Chase Bank had no right to evict nor did any successors in interest as such non-judicially obtained sheriff deeds were

w.

of no force and effect as no interest was transferred. 106. Chase Bank engaged in a scheme, course of conduct, and conspiracy to

ww

defraud Plaintiff and Class Members. 107. As part of this scheme, Chase Bank failed to state facts or misrepresented
25

St

op Fo

mortgage assigned were recorded in chain of title prior to sale nor the notes endorsed to

B.

Chase Bank and/or successor in interest had the right to initiate

re

clo

su re

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 26 of 33

Pg ID 26

facts necessary, in order to make the statements made or omitted, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 108.

Chase Bank intentionally and knowingly and with reckless disregard for

the truth represented or made statements to Plaintiffs which were false and/or misleading. 109.

Chase Bank knew that such statements were material to the transaction

and that non-disclosure would tend to mislead and had a duty to Plaintiffs to disclose such facts, and to ensure that all of its statements and representations were complete, truthful and not false or misleading. 110.

with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class is entitled to exemplary damages. 111.

and/or omissions, Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged.

requests that this Court enter Judgment against Defendants for fraud awarding compensatory damages to the Class in excess of $100 Million, exemplary damages to the class in excess of $100 Million, plus attorneys fees, interest and costs incurred and any other relief which is equitable, just and proper.

ww

w.

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 113. Chase Bank intentionally invaded Plaintiffs and other Class Members

property.
26

St

112.

op Fo

COUNT VII. TRESPASS AGAINST CHASE BANK

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-111 above of the Verified

re

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all Class Members,

clo

As a direct and proximate result of Chase Banks fraudulent statements

su re

Chase Banks conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, and outrageous and

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 27 of 33

Pg ID 27

114.

Chase Banks invasion of Plaintiff and the Class Members property was

unauthorized and illegal as Chase Bank was forbidden to foreclose pursuant to the Foreclosure Act. 115.

Any authorization Chase Bank claim pursuant to the mortgage documents

was rendered invalid by Michigan statutes and case law, to wit: Kim, supra. 116.

Chase Banks invasion of Plaintiff and the Class Members private

property was an illegal trespass, and was willful, wanton and malicious.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to their actual

Plaintiffs and the Class Members property.

117.

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-116 above of the Verified

118.

Chase Bank had no standing under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) due to its

failure to comply with MCL 600.3204(3) of the Foreclosure Act and the failure to hold the WAMU Note pursuant to the UCC which also violated MCL 600.3204(1)(d) of the Foreclosure Act to foreclose upon Plaintiff and/or the Class Members.

foreclosure activities pursuant to the Foreclosure Act involving an originated WAMU

ww

w.

loan acquired by Chase Bank from the FDIC were illegal and invalid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to this Court

entering an Order voiding the foreclosure sale of Plaintiff and any of the Class Members,

St

119.

op Fo

Any Sheriff Sales and Sheriff Deeds associated with Chase Bank

re

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein.

clo

COUNT VIII. ACTION TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURE SALE/QUIET TITLE AGAINST CHASE BANK

su re
27

damages, exemplary damages, and an injunction barring the continuing trespass on

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 28 of 33

Pg ID 28

the subsequent sales of the mortgaged property, if any, ordering the return of the mortgaged property to Plaintiff and the Class Members, if applicable, and voiding the mortgages on the properties of Plaintiff and the Class Members.

COUNT IX. ACTION FOR POSSESSION AGAINST CHASE BANK 120.

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-119 above of the Verified

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 121.

Under Michigan law, a person entitled to the premises may recover

possession of the premises when possession is taken by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. 122.

Chase Bank had no right to foreclose under the Foreclosure Act, and any

title obtained by the relevant and applicable Sheriff Deed was void. 123. The taking of possession of Plaintiffs and the Class Members property

by Chase Bank and its successors in interest was a trespass and without color of title or other possessory interest. 124.

mortgaged properties wrongfully dispossessed by Chase Bank as successor in interest to a WAMU loan acquired from the FDIC. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to this Court entering an Order voiding the foreclosure sale of Plaintiff and any of the Class Members,

ww

w.

the subsequent sales of the mortgaged property, if any, ordering the return of the mortgaged property to Plaintiff and the Class Members, where applicable, and voiding the mortgages on the properties of Plaintiff and the Class Members.

St

op Fo

Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to recover possession of their

re

clo

su re
28

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 29 of 33

Pg ID 29

125.

Plaintiff re-alleges and restates paragraphs 1-124 above of the Verified

Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 126.

Plaintiff and the Class Members had a possessory interest in their

mortgaged properties. 127.

Chase Bank interfered with those interests forcibly and in an unlawful

manner by foreclosing under the Foreclosure Act as the successor in interest to a WAMU

Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to their actual and

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

A. B. C. D.

Certification of the Class;

w.

ww

St

E.

op Fo

The appointment of Plaintiff as class representative; The appointment of Plaintiffs counsel as the Class counsel; Injunctive relief enjoining the Chase Bank and/or successor in interest from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein during the pendency of this trial; Declaratory relief as to the unlawful conduct described herein by Chase Bank and/or successor in interest and to FRB and the OCC to compel the immediate determination and award of the financial injury

re

Based upon the foregoing, this Court must grant the following relief:

clo

treble damages, as well as recovery of possession of their mortgaged properties.

su re
29

loan acquired from the FDIC and without standing to foreclose under the Foreclosure

Fr au d. co

COUNT IX. ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSORY INTEREST AGAINST CHASE BANK

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 30 of 33

Pg ID 30

or harm caused by Chase Bank and/or its successor in interest to Class Members; F.

Returning to the possession of Plaintiff and the Class Members all

mortgaged properties so wrongfully obtained by Chase Bank and/or successor in interest and awarding to Plaintiff and the Class Members

actual, exemplary, punitive, economic, non-economic and treble damages sustained; G.

Voiding all Chase Bank foreclosure sales of WAMU loans pursuant to

facts set forth herein; H.

Chase Bank and/or successor in interest Sheriff Deeds as slander of

than $100 Million; I.

and/or its successor in interest violations of the FDCA as set forth

J.

w.

ww

St

K.

L.

op Fo

herein;

Awarding damages of not less than $100 Million for Chase Bank and/or its successor in interest fraud as set forth herein; Compensatory damages for the Class to be determined at trial but not less than $100 Million; Exemplary damages to be determined at trial but not less than $300 Million;

re

Awarding damages of not less than $100 Million for Chase Bank

clo

title and awarding damages in connection with such slander of not less

su re
30

the Foreclosure Act based upon the precedent of Kim, supra, and the

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 31 of 33

Pg ID 31

M.

Punitive damages to be determined at trial but not less than $1.0 Billion;

N. O.

Treble damages of not less than $300 Million;

Disgorging the unjust enrichment of Chase Bank and/or its successor in interest wrongful receipt of proceeds from payoffs and foreclosures which were not valid in excess of $100 Million;

P. Q. R.

Awarding lost profits;

Awarding all non-economic damages of any kind and/or nature;

and/or sustained both pre-filing and post filing; S. Awarding all other damages of any kind and nature to which Plaintiff

T.

Granting such other relief as is equitable, just, proper and appropriate

The foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Therese Dickow Therese Dickow

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 24th day of January, 2012 /s/Harvey D. Moorer Harvey D. Moorer, Notary Public Oakland County, MI My commission expires: 1/4/2014

ww

w.

St

op Fo

re

under the circumstances.

clo

and the Class Members are entitled; and,

VERIFICATION

su re
31

Awarding interest, costs and attorneys fees so wrongfully incurred

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 32 of 33

Pg ID 32

Respectfully submitted, WOLFE LAW GROUP, PLLC By:

/s/Jack B. Wolfe JACK B. WOLFE (P39667) Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 24901 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 212 Southfield, Michigan 48075 (248) 809-2205(w); (248)809-9969(f) (248) 229-1187 (m1) (248) 228-6307 (m2) thewolfelawgroup@yahoo.com

Dated: January 24, 2012 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

Dated: January 24, 2012

ww

w.

St

op Fo

re

clo

su re
By:
32

Respectfully submitted, WOLFE LAW GROUP, PLLC /s/Jack B. Wolfe JACK B. WOLFE (P39667) Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 24901 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 212 Southfield, Michigan 48075 (248) 809-2205(w) (248) 809-9969(f) (248) 229-1187 (m1) (248) 228-6307 (m2) thewolfelawgroup@yahoo.com

Fr au d. co

2:12-cv-10337-SFC-LJM Doc # 1

Filed 01/25/12 Pg 33 of 33

Pg ID 33

EXHIBIT LIST

A B C

Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR)

Purchase and Assumption Agreement between FDIC and Chase Bank

Case Law Euihyung Kim and In Sook Kim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 302528 (January 12, 2012) Warranty Deed Mortgage Note

D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

Recorded Sheriffs Deed and all accompanying attachments First Publication Oakland County Public Records Report FDIC Affidavit Adjournment Affidavits Evidence of Grievance

Bankruptcy Docket Entry for Mrs. Dickow Responsive Pleadings to Eviction Complaint District Court Register of Actions Notice of Hearing and Proof of Service (District Court) Transcript (District Court)

ww

w.

U V

St

Appellate Transcript Motion for Reconsideration to Appellate Court Written Opinion and Order on Recon Motion / Appellate Court Bankruptcy Docket Entry for Mr. Dickow Completed IFR, and confirming Letter that IFR has been received by FBR and OCC Motion to set aside dismissal in Appellate Court based upon Kim, supra
33

op Fo

re

clo

su re

Fr au d. co