On its corporate website, JPMorgan Chase makes a noble pledge: "We are committed to doing the right thing." Public Justice is out to make them keep that commitment, having just filed an opening brief in the Fourth Circuit in Epps v. JPMorgan Chase Bank.
When Maryland resident Donna Epps became unable to make payments on her car, Chase repossessed the car and then sold it. (Many consumers don't know that car dealerships often assign financing contracts to national banks like JPMorgan Chase.) Now, Chase is trying to sue Ms. Epps for money it claims she owes. Under Maryland law, Chase is legally allowed to sue for that kind of deficiency. But, before it can do so, the bank is required to make accurate disclosures about the repossession and sale of the vehicle -- i.e. explain to Ms. Epps how much her car is worth, how much they can sell it for, and, if applicable, any outstanding money that she owes the bank. Essentially, state law says that the bank can only sue for the deficiency if it provides the consumer with accurate and complete disclosures.
But Chase did not hold up its end of the bargain. And when that happens, Maryland law takes the next step to protect the consumer: it says that if the bank fails to disclose the repossession and sale information, then the bank cannot sue for any deficiency judgment at all. So, under Maryland law, Chase should get nothing from Ms. Epps.
Nevertheless, Chase argues that, as a national bank, it is immune to selected parts of state law (like the part that says it has to disclose information) yet is also entitled to the benefits of other parts of state law (like the part that says a bank can sue for a deficiency judgment).
The Public Justice brief argues that the bank cannot take a contract that requires it to follow state law, and then claim that state law is wiped away because it's a national bank. In other words: Chase, you can't have it both ways! Do the right thing.
To read the Public Justice brief, click here.
When Maryland resident Donna Epps became unable to make payments on her car, Chase repossessed the car and then sold it. (Many consumers don't know that car dealerships often assign financing contracts to national banks like JPMorgan Chase.) Now, Chase is trying to sue Ms. Epps for money it claims she owes. Under Maryland law, Chase is legally allowed to sue for that kind of deficiency. But, before it can do so, the bank is required to make accurate disclosures about the repossession and sale of the vehicle -- i.e. explain to Ms. Epps how much her car is worth, how much they can sell it for, and, if applicable, any outstanding money that she owes the bank. Essentially, state law says that the bank can only sue for the deficiency if it provides the consumer with accurate and complete disclosures.
But Chase did not hold up its end of the bargain. And when that happens, Maryland law takes the next step to protect the consumer: it says that if the bank fails to disclose the repossession and sale information, then the bank cannot sue for any deficiency judgment at all. So, under Maryland law, Chase should get nothing from Ms. Epps.
Nevertheless, Chase argues that, as a national bank, it is immune to selected parts of state law (like the part that says it has to disclose information) yet is also entitled to the benefits of other parts of state law (like the part that says a bank can sue for a deficiency judgment).
The Public Justice brief argues that the bank cannot take a contract that requires it to follow state law, and then claim that state law is wiped away because it's a national bank. In other words: Chase, you can't have it both ways! Do the right thing.
To read the Public Justice brief, click here.
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
SUBSCRIBE
CONTACT
Chase Bank allowed someone to open accounts with my daughter's information. She has had hell with this for a very long time. Now that she filed the police report they are saying that they aren't responsible for clearing her name with the credit bureaus etc. When she went to them in the beginning they knew damn well she was not the one who opened the account since the person who opened it was black and don't tell us they don't have a picture and info from the driver's license that was fraudulent. They were hoping to scare my daughter into paying this debt and not prosecuting the thief. It appears the thief is going to get away with this and move on to someone else. Thanks Chase Bank. The stress has caused my daughter to become so sick and now I am going to go after this damn bank.
Many like us cannot afford a lawyer, so our lie and deny loan modification, we will never see, this story is important, but the loan modification lie and fraud like the above links to BOA and Chase, they mean the middle and lower and or working class, will now lose millions of homes to the wealthy who will scarp them up, and Jaime Dimon of, CEO of Chase will get wealthier, on 8-14-13, we received a letter stating we talked to someone name Allison Smart, a female, we talked to someone in Chase named "Al Smart" a male, saying we did not want the loan modification that took 8 months and was denied, we never said we would not use the prior information to revisit the loan modification, the American Dream for many of us was and is a American Nightmare, as Rome burns... (DC).
Bank of America former employees: 'We were told to lie'
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/woman-tags-home-with-message-to-her-bank-jpmorgan-chase-is-stealing-this-home
add massive trading losses and manipulation of energy markets, and billions in overseas investments!