JP Morgan Chase Wants MI Supreme Court To Decide If “Operation of Law” Applies To Loans Acquired From The FDIC
Last month, the MI Supreme Court accepted an appeal by JPMorgan Chase. The bank wants the Supreme Court to hear Kim v. J.P. Morgan Chase.
In January, the Michigan Court of Appeals shot down JPMorgan Chase’s claims thay don’t need to record a mortgage assignment. They argue that the requirements under MCL600.3204(3) doesn’t apply to loans they acquired from Washington Mutual.
MCL 600.3204(3) states:
If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertisement is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title shall exist prior to the date of sale under section 3216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the mortgage.
JPMorgan Chase argued MCL600.3204(3) doesn’t apply to to the loans they acquired from Washington Mutual. They argue they acquired the loan “by operation of law.” This means they acquired the loan from Washington Mutual.
JPMorgan is claiming they don’t need to show a recorded chain of ownership. They claim they acquired the note through their acquisition of Washington Mutual’s assets. However, they acquired them from the FDIC after Washington Mutual was placed into FDIC receivership in 2008.
On the contrary, the Court of Appeals disagreed and said that a claim of “by operation of law” could only be claimed by the FDIC. Therefore, Chase is required to record a mortgage assignment from the FDIC to JPMorgan Chase. Chase disagreed by saying the FDIC’s involvement in in the failure of WaMu is irrelevant.
The appeal to the Supreme Court will be limited to the issues of whether the defendant acquired the couple’s loan by operation of law and, if so, whether the foreclosure by advertisement statute applies to the acquisition of a mortgage by operation of law.
Write A Comment