Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

As I waited for five hours today in Judge Kaufman's Courtroom for one case to be confirmed and LAM motion granted, my frustration was assuaged, by my gleaning a valuable tidbit on her service requirements for Lam Motions. Her tentative rulings that came out last night took issue in several instances with service on the lenders that are subsidiary\related entities of insured depositary institutions. She demanded proof that the lender is an actual separate entity from the parent\related insured depositary institution. Otherwise she required that the motion be served on an officer of the parent\related corporation insured depository institution in compliance with FRBP 7004(h). Nate Berneman and I had the last two matters on the LAM motion calendar. In my client's instance, the lender is Chase Home Finance, LLC, not JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. Chase Home Finance, LLC is not an insured depositary institution. It is not one of the five insured deposit subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase & Co listed on the FDIC website. I was fortunately able to have the debtor promptly provide copies of the 2009 and 2010 1098 Mortgage interest payments forms issued to him by Chase Home Finance, LLC last night after I saw the tentative and file them along with his authenticating declaration. At the hearing, Judge Kaufman accepted this as evidence that Chase Home Finance, LLC is the actual lender and granted the Lam Motion. The case Nate appeared on was heard right after mine and had the same issue with Bank of America Home Loans, LP vs. Bank of America, N.A.. Judge Kaufman communicated that if she sees Bank of America, Chase, Citi anything, or any big name lender she assumes that it is the commonly known insured depository institution N.A. unless proven otherwise. She specifically cited the 1098's as acceptable proof to counter her assumption. Accordingly, unless the lender is kind enough to timely file a proof of claim listing its correct name, I suggest including such proof as an exhibit for motions in front of her.
Even if the parent/related N.A. entity is served, I would not rely on Judge Kaufman's assumption that the N.A. is the lender/servicer. I would still make sure the motion is addressed to the actual lender and served on that entity as well as the N.A. to avoid later issues with the wrong entity being the subject of the motion. An Order avoiding an alleged lien of Chase Bank, N.A. is not going to be very effective if separate entity Chase Home Finance, LLC is the lender....
Also do not forget she requires proof of the order of recording of the deeds of trust and that the judges copy must include exhibit tabs. She also wants the signer on the proof of claim served with a copy of the Lam Motion.
Mark Jessee

The post was migrated from Yahoo.