Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 7

EXHIBIT 25
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

S&A CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.,

MORTGAGE RESOLUTION SERVICING,
LLC, and 1ST FIDELITY LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,

Plaintiffs
No. 1 :15-cv-00293-LTS-JCF
v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, and
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC.

Defendants.

EXPERT REPORT OF ZACHARY ALLEN BUMPUS

JULY 9, 2018

Page 1 of 21
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 3 of 7

there are no duplicates of that number, but that's how we track it through our system instead of
utilizing the loan number which can be considered proprietary.” 6

She was then asked, “So with regards to the order number, would a client such as Chase be able to
track this particular order number in TrackingLINK?” Ms. Lance replied “yes”. 7

Also in the deposition of Erika Lance, she admitted that the mail merged documents prepared by
NTC and sent to the lien release group in Monroe, LA, Q. It's the lien release group. A. That's
the group out of Monroe, Louisiana? I believe so, yes.”.8

“There is a 30-day SLA to begin the review. A Third-Party Vendor (NTC) validates the lien and
prepares the Lien Release documents. Once prepared, the documents are printed to PDF and sent
via sftp to Lien Release team to sign and notarize. The executed documents are shipped via Fedex
to the vendor. The vendor files the lien release documents with the appropriate county recorder
within in two to three business days.” 9

Erika Lance further states, “When we create them lien releases, vacations of lien releases and
vacations of modifications of mortgage, we send them via secure FTP. They print them and then
they execute them and notarize them and return them to NTC.”10

This process then continues with Chase employees executing the documents without review. As
stated by DeAndrea G. Chapman, Loan Administration, Lien Release, “I only sign the documents.
I do not do any research on the documents.”11

In a deposition, Brian Bly, an NTC employee, states that NTC did not engage in any quality control
prior to creating the documents, had no personal knowledge of the contents of the documents and
did not check to determine if Defendant owned the mortgage prior to releasing the lien.12 With
neither Chase nor NTC engaging in any quality control, there appear to be no checks on how sworn
documents were verified before execution and recording.

The “Certification of Patrick M. Boyle as to JPMorgan Chase, N.A.’s Intact Lien Validation
Process” signed (9/06/14 exhibit 43, 11/8/13 exhibit 42 of Solomon deposition) references using
CoreLogic and Decision Science as outside vendors to scrub data. Internal reviews by Chase’s
MIS Scrubs were used to review bankruptcy status, POTS Lien Release and indicators as to
excluding loans coded “repurchased, part of a note sale, or in a litigated status.” Despite this

6
See, deposition of Erika Lance taken on October 15, 2017 (Bly Tr.), at 63:3-12
7
Id.
8
See, deposition of Erika Lance taken on October 15, 2017 (Bly Tr.), at 63:3-12
9
See, JPMC-MRS-00084196
10
See, deposition of Erika Lance taken on October 15, 2017 (Bly Tr.), at 104:16-22
11
See, JPMC-MRS-00096383
12
See, deposition of Brian Bly taken on March 21, 2017 (Bly Tr.), at 14:15-25 and 15:1-8

Page 13 of 21
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 4 of 7

certification, and though details may have been summarized in the designation “part of a note
sale,” training as to responsibilities for recording assignments of mortgage deeds for the Plaintiff
was unclear. It is telling that Mr. Jason Oquendo states in his deposition that loans in the RCV1
“SOLD” queue are excluded from lien release projects, though how these loans were reviewed
against mortgage loan sales agreements was not clear. Limited system description documents and
training materials were provided to review.

While there were no external or internal audits assessing the efficacy of training and execution of
operational protocols available for my review, the internal audit report provided rated the “current
operational and technology controls over Recovery operations . . . [as] inadequate” and points out
that “[a]dequate controls do not exist to ensure sworn documents (e.g. Affidavits) are completed
appropriately and in adherence with Bank’s procedures, and all laws, regulations and statutes.”13
How procedures and systems, beyond the “SOLD” queue in a secondary system of record for non-
performing loan units, were designed to prevent or detect when mortgage liens being released after
the loan asset was sold to another entity was not described in procedures reviewed. Recovery
operations had not yet responded to internal audit as of January 1, 2013. The response to internal
audit dated January 1, 2013 states management’s action plan to remediate audit findings was
“TBD” regarding deficiencies noted for “Bankruptcy/Foreclosure Activities performed by
Recovery Operations,” “. . . Specifically, chain-of-title reviews are not being performed to verify
and document ownership of Notes prior to a POC or a surplus funds foreclosure filing.”14

When loan portfolios, including non-performing loan portfolios are sold, the loans should be
removed or at least segregated from the loans owned by investors being serviced by another. The
Plaintiff has identified 780 loan units where Defendant released the lien or provided the borrower
with a forgiveness letter even though the loan asset had been sold to the Plaintiff. These releases
were noted from review of Defendant’s iVault system and from the POTS system. These releases
are noted to have generally been executed after the Defendant sold the loan to the Plaintiff;
however, whether the lien release occurred prior to the sale or after, the Plaintiff’s capacity to
perfect interest in the underlying collateral is difficult not only because of the cloud on title but
also because the borrower is confused about their continued obligations to pay the Plaintiff and
the consequences of the release on the mortgage lien.

In paragraph 201 of the Defendant’s response to the Fourth Amended Claim, the Defendant
indicates that an offer was made to the Plaintiff to repurchase certain loans sold and handled in
error. Plaintiff also identified as many as 202 incidences where the Defendant took corrective
action for mortgage liens released or mortgage notes modified via a “Vacation and Rescission of
Lien Release” or a “Vacation and Rescission of Modification of Mortgage” presumably after
JPMC identified an error releasing a lien or modifying a mortgage note it did not own.

The Defendant’s mortgage servicing control environment for foreclosure processes during the
period of these loan sales to the Plaintiff came under the scrutiny of its regulators, as advocates for
the U.S. public. The Defendant’s operational controls environment to file appropriate documents
for foreclosure activity is sufficiently like transferring mortgage notes and liens to a mortgage
13
See, JPMC-MRS-00319626
14
See, JPMC-MRS-00208918

Page 14 of 21
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 5 of 7

purchaser to serve as a proxy for having authorized agents assign mortgage deeds or deeds of trust
pursuant to the Agreements. In the Matter of: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. a "Stipulation and
Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order," dated April 13, 2011, page 2, that while the Defendant
neither admits or denies, the Comptroller found:

ARTICLE I COMPTROLLER’S FINDINGS

The Comptroller finds, and the Bank [JPMC] neither admits nor denies, the following:
(1) The Bank is among the largest servicers of residential mortgages in the United States,
and services a portfolio of 6,300,000 residential mortgage loans. During the recent housing
crisis, a substantially large number of residential mortgage loans serviced by the Bank
became delinquent and resulted in foreclosure actions. The Bank’s foreclosure inventory
grew substantially from 2008 through 2010.
(2) In connection with certain foreclosures of loans in its residential mortgage servicing
portfolio, the Bank:
(a) filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts affidavits executed by its employees
or employees of third-party service providers making various assertions, such as ownership
of the mortgage note and mortgage, the amount of the principal and interest due, and the
fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the
assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review
by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based
on such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records;
(b) filed or caused to be filed in state and federal courts, or in local land records offices,
numerous affidavits or other mortgage-related documents that were not properly notarized,
including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;
(c) litigated foreclosure proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings
without always ensuring that either the promissory note or the mortgage document were
properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party
at the appropriate time;
(d) failed to devote sufficient financial, staffing and managerial resources to ensure proper
administration of its foreclosure processes;
(e) failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls,
policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party
management, and training; and
(f) failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling
foreclosure-related services.
And, in 2014, three years later, while JPMC continued to neither admit nor deny, NSMA called
for JPMC to:

RETURN INTEGRITY & ACCURACY TO FORECLOSURE AND BANKRUPTCY

PROCEEDINGS
A. Put an end to robo-signing - signing affidavits filed with the court without personal
knowledge.

Page 15 of 21
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 6 of 7

• Affidavits/sworn statements utilized in foreclosure proceedings must be accurate

as to the amounts owed and the standing of the bank/servicer to file for foreclosure
and must be based on the signor’s personal knowledge of the facts. The affiant must
review the bank/servicer records before signing.
• Assertions made in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings shall be accurate,
complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. Affidavits shall be
signed in the presence of a notary.
• Banks/servicers may not rely on an inaccurate affidavit to obtain a foreclosure
judgment.
• Banks/servicer must have standards for qualifications, training and supervision of
employees that sign affidavits; and shall ensure that they have an adequate number
of employees with reasonable time to prepare, verify and execute affidavits.
• Banks/servicers shall not pay incentives to employees or third parties to
encourage speed in the signing of affidavits.
...
C. Banks/Servicers shall properly document their authority to file a foreclosure action.
• The bank/servicer must document its right to foreclose on a borrower.
• The bank/servicer must plead the basis for its authority to foreclose.
• The bank/servicer shall summarize this authority to foreclose in the 14-day pre-
foreclosure notice to the borrower.
It is therefore clear that the Defendants were aware of the requirements for sufficient analysis
of and proper research necessary to support the accuracy of documentation recorded to
establish loan ownership and monies due and owing to various parties. The regulatory
expectations that the execution of sworn documents related to mortgage loans and liens,
including lien releases, include the affiant’s personal knowledge regarding the standing of the
bank/servicer and after conducting an actual review of the bank/servicer records are clear.
Maintaining standards of employee-training and supervision of the those signing affidavits are
also a clear regulatory mandate regarding mortgage lending activities. While the regulatory
mandates are directed primarily at mitigating the consumer mortgage borrowers, failures in the
mortgage loan servicing environment as to non-performing loan sales impacted distressed
borrowers as well as buyers of mortgage loans like the Plaintiff. JPMC’s actions against the
Plaintiff’s assets is therefore indicative of a failure to meet known obligations.

Mortgage Loan Ownership and Authority to Execute Mortgage Assignments, Releases,

While questions were asked, and answered regarding authority of Ms. Solomon and other
employees as agents JPMC, I have not read corporate resolutions stating that the NTC or JPMC
employees, both JPMC corporate officers and employees without title, are granted authority to act
on JPMC’s behalf. Statements from Ms. Launi Solomon specify no responsibility for assigning
MRS MLPA liens, no procedures, training material or audit findings as to the efficacy of training
and supervision of employees that sign affidavits were reviewed for purposes of this document.

Page 16 of 21
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 424-25 Filed 09/30/19 Page 7 of 7

The Brooks loan had been noted

as sold in the MLPA to Plaintiff
Mortgage Resolution Serving,
LLC (MRS) on 25 February
2009. There are several issues
with this loan, now recorded
under the name of “In the estate
of Ms. Brooks.” Defendant,
while working through the
issues with a second mortgage in
foreclosure, knew the loan sold
in 2009 had not been assigned to
MRS per the MLPA and that
MRS could not provide first lien
mortgage satisfaction until it
was assigned to MRS. The
Defendant’s staff, Ronnie
Sanders, who may be a Vice
President, assigned the deed of
trust to Plaintiff S&A Capital
Partners, Inc., rather than the
owner of the mortgage, Plaintiff,
MRS.

The Plaintiff identified 780 loan

units where the Defendant
released the lien or provided the
borrower with a forgiveness
letter even though the loan asset had been sold to a Plaintiff entity. These loan units represent at
least a 17% error rate for asserting ownership where Defendant cannot assert ownership. The error
rate might be considered 12.7% after subtracting the 202 incidences identified where the
Defendant took corrective action via a “Vacation and Rescission of Release of Lien” or a
“Vacation and Rescission of Modification of Mortgage” and assigned the mortgage and mortgage
deed or deed of trust but only if that “Vacation and Rescission of Release of Lien” or a “Vacation
and Rescission of Modification of Mortgage” was effective in doing so.

Page 20 of 21