1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al Case # MSC10-02914 Page 1 Declaration of Leighton Lee Perry in Support of Opposition to MSJ by Fannie Mae Leighton Lee Perry Plaintiff Pro Se IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA LEIGHTON LEE PERRY, Plaintiff, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title estate, lien or interest in the property described in this Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’ title thereto and as DOES 1- 100, Inclusive, Defendant. Case No. MSC10-02914 DECLARATION OF LEIGHTON LEE PERRY IN OPPOSITION TO QUALITY LOAN SERVICE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Judge: Hon. Laurel S. Brady Dept: 31 Date: May 23, 2013 9:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF LEIGHTON LEE PERRY Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry makes the following declaration in opposition to statements, issues, and defenses presented in this Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. (“QLS”). 1.) I received an email from the law firm representing JPMorgan stating that according to Juan C. Sierra, the person who verified the First Amended Answer of JPMorgan, the Subject Loan has no pooling and servicing agreement, but that there is a Power of Attorney for JPMorgan to act as an agent for FNMA. I was able to confirm such a document is publicly recorded by searching online. See EXHIBIT “A”. 2.) Among other options I was investigating obtaining a reverse mortgage in early 2010 and have
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al Case # MSC10-02914
Page 1 Declaration of Leighton Lee Perry in Support of Opposition to MSJ by Fannie Mae
Leighton Lee Perry 6724 Waverly Road Martinez, Ca 94553 Phone (925) 949-8377 Email: [email protected]
Plaintiff Pro Se
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
LEIGHTON LEE PERRY, Plaintiff, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title estate, lien or interest in the property described in this Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’ title thereto and as DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Defendant.
Case No. MSC10-02914 DECLARATION OF LEIGHTON LEE PERRY IN OPPOSITION TO QUALITY LOAN SERVICE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Judge: Hon. Laurel S. Brady Dept: 31 Date: May 23, 2013 9:00 a.m.
DECLARATION OF LEIGHTON LEE PERRY Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry makes the following declaration in opposition to statements, issues,
and defenses presented in this Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp.
(“QLS”).
1.) I received an email from the law firm representing JPMorgan stating that according to Juan C.
Sierra, the person who verified the First Amended Answer of JPMorgan, the Subject Loan has no
pooling and servicing agreement, but that there is a Power of Attorney for JPMorgan to act as an agent
for FNMA. I was able to confirm such a document is publicly recorded by searching online. See
EXHIBIT “A”.
2.) Among other options I was investigating obtaining a reverse mortgage in early 2010 and have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al Case # MSC10-02914
Page 2 Declaration of Leighton Lee Perry in Support of Opposition to MSJ by Fannie Mae
attached emails of a conversation I had with my brother as EXHIBIT “B”. I had an active reverse loan
application in late 2010 and evidence of my intent is shown in the certificate of counseling I obtained as
a prerequisite for acquiring a reverse mortgage.
3.) About the time of the Notice of Default Defendant QLS received a ‘referral’ for a non-judicial
foreclosure. Per QLS there were two beneficiaries indentified 1) FNMA as ‘investor’ (for a loan that has
no pooling and servicing agreement but has a different loan number than the Subject Loan) and
JPMorgan as ‘beneficiary’. See EXHIBIT “C”, “D”.
4.) The only documents referencing a document vault system returned the message “This credit file
was received by image only so there is no paper file for research under CHFSCANFED”. See EXHIBIT
“E”.
5.) Exhibit “F” is a letter received by Chase from Plaintiff where Plaintiff states his income had been
overstated by Chase on their application for a loan mod.
6.) Exhibit “G” – FNMA Workout Profile shows FNMA has a different loan number than the
Subject Loan which raises the question of which loan is allegedly defaulted?
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed: May 2, 2013, in Martinez, California.
___________________ LEIGHTON LEE PERRY
Plaintiff pro se
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al Case # MSC10-02914
EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
A. Email from counsel of record for JPMorgan depicting Power of Attorney granted by Fannie
Mae to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA.
B. Pg 108 of Plaintiff’s response to Request to Produce Documents at Plaintiff’s Deposition
depicting a required counseling certificate from HUD as pre-requisite for acquiring a reverse
mortgage. Emails to Plaintiff’s brother showing intent and research into reverse mortgages follow on
second page.
C. Copy of JPMorgan Response to Discovery SETONE Bates-000227, 000232 depicting Trustees’
Sale Guarantee by Stewart Title Company for the Beneficiary JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. dated
6/15/2010.
D. Amended Response to Request for Production Set 1 provided by Quality Loan Service Corp.
E. Copy of pages 1 and 3 of the database inquiries made on 8/3/10 and 8/4/10, for the promissory
note in the document vault system (IVault). The ‘Root Cause’ entry states “Available in External
Image Repository”. The comment on page 3 states “This credit file was received by image only, so
there is no paper file to research under CHFSCANFED.” It would appear the primary vault system
was queried on 8/3, no document found, so the Collateral File (External Image Repository) was
ordered. Exhibit was attached to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and accepted without objection at hearing on 9/27/12.
F. Copy of letter sent to Chase in response to their letter of June 23, 2010, stating reason for not
responding to their loan application program is that they had overstated my income in the application
they had sent me.
G. Internal Chase document showing different Fannie Mae Loan No. above the Servicer Loan No.
(1/2 way down on right). Document shows WAMU servicer lineage of the Subject Loan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al Case # MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “A” - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERRY v. JPMorgan Chase et al Case # MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “A” - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “B” - 1 – Certificate and discussion by email of reverse mortgages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “B” - 2 – Certificate and discussion by email of reverse mortgages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “C” - 1 – Stewart Title Trustee Sale Guarantee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “C” - 2 – Stewart Title Trustee Sale Guarantee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “D” Page 1 of 5 Amended Response of QLS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “D” Page 2 of 5 Amended Response of QLS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “D” Page 3 of 5 Amended Response of QLS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “D” Page 4 of 5 Amended Response of QLS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “D” Page 5 of 5 Amended Response of QLS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “E” Page 1 of 2 Inquiry into document vault system results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “E” Page 2 of 2 Inquiry into document vault system results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “F” Page 1 of 1 Reply by Plaintiff to Letter of June 23, 2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Perry v JP Morgan Chase et al CASE NUMBER: MSC10-02914
EXHIBIT “G” Page 1 of 1 Internal Chase ‘Workout’ document
