Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
JPMorgan Chase Caught Falsifying Ownership Documents kalicki-v-chase_$255,000-attorney-fee-awarded_6-14 http://www.msfraud.org/

JPMorgan Chase Caught Falsifying Ownership Documents kalicki-v-chase_$255,000-attorney-fee-awarded_6-14 http://www.msfraud.org/

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11 |Likes:
Published by Mary Cochrane
JPMorgan Chase Caught Falsifying Ownership Documents
Homeowner Quiet Title and Award of $255,000 in Attorney Fees Upheld on Appeal
The judgment stated that the Kalickis owned the property and quieted title in their favor. It also found that Chase had executed and recorded false documentation purporting to transfer ownership of the Kalickis' mortgage to Chase and that a Chase executive created a document in which Chase fraudulently represented that a prior assignment had been lost and that Chase owned the Kalickis' mortgage. The judgment voided the fraudulent documents and enjoined Chase from recording any false or misleading documents representing that it owned the Kalickis' mortgage.
JPMorgan Chase Caught Falsifying Ownership Documents
Homeowner Quiet Title and Award of $255,000 in Attorney Fees Upheld on Appeal
The judgment stated that the Kalickis owned the property and quieted title in their favor. It also found that Chase had executed and recorded false documentation purporting to transfer ownership of the Kalickis' mortgage to Chase and that a Chase executive created a document in which Chase fraudulently represented that a prior assignment had been lost and that Chase owned the Kalickis' mortgage. The judgment voided the fraudulent documents and enjoined Chase from recording any false or misleading documents representing that it owned the Kalickis' mortgage.

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: Mary Cochrane on Jul 03, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Filed 6/30/14 Kalicki v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JAN KALICKI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant and Appellant. D063508 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00059032- CU-WE-NC) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline M. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. AlvaradoSmith, Ricardo D. Navarrette and John M. Sorich for Defendant and Appellant. Ghods Law Firm, Mohammed K. Ghods, William A. Stahr and Ruben Escobedo III for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) appeals from an order granting Jan Kalicki's and Rosalind Jones Kalicki's (together the Kalickis) motion for attorney fees and costs. Chase asserts the trial court abused its discretion by (1) failing to consider its
 
2 objections, (2) failing to assess the reasonableness of the requested fees, and (3) failing to evaluate the objective reasonableness of the fees requested based upon equitable factors. Chase requests that we reverse the order and remand the matter to the trial court to determine a reasonable attorney fee award. We reject Chase's contentions and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1998, the Kalickis obtained a residential loan (the loan) on real property located in San Marcos, California (the property). The loan was secured by a deed of trust encumbering the property. Headlands Mortgage Company was the originating lender and Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) became the servicer of the Loan. In 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision placed WaMu into receivership and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver (FDIC). Chase later purchased from the FDIC "certain interests" of WaMu in the Kalickis' loan. In 2009, the Kalickis sued WaMu alleging that WaMu wrongfully foreclosed on the  property in 2008. In early 2010, the trial court granted Chase's motion to intervene in the lawsuit because it had purchased WaMu's assets and held the interests in the loan and  property. The Kalickis later amended the complaint to add Chase as a defendant and dismissed WaMu from the action. After law and motion proceedings, the Kalickis filed an amended complaint asserting claims against Chase based upon Chase's conduct and WaMu's earlier conduct. The Kalickis alleged that Chase falsely claimed to be the assignee of the Kalickis' loan and recorded a false document fraudulently claiming ownership of certain assets.
 
3 In 2012, the FDIC moved to intervene arguing that the Kalickis' claims arising out of alleged misconduct that occurred prior to WaMu's closing (the WaMu Conduct Claims) had to be asserted against it in accordance with the mandatory administrative claims  process set forth in U.S.C. § 1821(d). In April 2012, the trial court denied the FDIC's motion to intervene, but ruled that the Kalickis' claims were limited to the post-purchase action of Chase. The parties stipulated to resolve the Kalickis' remaining claims for quiet title and unfair business practices. In September 2012, the trial court entered a judgment on the stipulation in favor of the Kalickis. The judgment stated that the Kalickis owned the property and quieted title in their favor. It also found that Chase had executed and recorded false documentation  purporting to transfer ownership of the Kalickis' mortgage to Chase and that a Chase executive created a document in which Chase fraudulently represented that a prior assignment had been lost and that Chase owned the Kalickis' mortgage. The judgment voided the fraudulent documents and enjoined Chase from recording any false or misleading documents representing that it owned the Kalickis' mortgage. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to another judge to hear the Kalickis' motion for an award of attorney fees and costs. The Kalickis' attorneys sought fees in the amount of $250,935 and costs of $30,408.70. They later increased their fee request based on the time spent responding to Chase's opposition, seeking a total fee award of $258,060. Chase opposed the motion, arguing (1) it was not liable for the Kalickis' fees as a nonsignatory to the subject contract, (2) the Kalickis did not prevail on the contract under Civil Code section 1717, (3) the Kalickis' claim for quiet title was not on the contract, and (4) even if

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->