Pacheo vs JP Morgan Chase - Class Action - alleged illegal demand of payment from junior mortgage holders who’s senior mortgages had been foreclosed. The class claims that JPMorgan’s demands violated several California laws

H/T refinblog

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN PACHEO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. d/b/a CHASE, a National Banking Association, Defendant. excerpt: 3. Defendant’s policy of routinely seeking to collect on such debts violates section 580d. Defendant’s collection practices and correspondence are unlawful because they mislead debtors into believing that these “sold-out” junior mortgage debts are legally enforceable when, in truth, the debtors have no legal obligation to pay them. Defendant’s policies and practices are also unlawful because, on information and belief, defendant fails to report to credit agencies the true non-recourse nature of these debts. 4. Plaintiff was a victim of these unlawful policies and practice with respect to his former-property located at 2471 South Manila Avenue, Fresno, CA 93727 (the “property”). Specifically, the defendant foreclosed on the first mortgage of the property but continued (and continues) to demand routine re-payment on the second mortgage debt without disclosing (or admitting) that the debt was not (and is not) legally enforceable. To the contrary, following the foreclosure of the property, the defendant affirmatively represented that the plaintiff was required to pay the debt and that the debt remained legally enforceable notwithstanding the foreclosure. As a result, the plaintiff made thousands of dollars in monthly payments to avoid legal enforcement of a debt that was not legally enforceable in the first instance. [...]