Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

IN RE SCHUESSLER

As already stated above, in In re Schuessler, Chase filed a motion for relief


from the stay that failed to contain relevant information about the debtors
failure to make postpetition mortgage payments. In re Schuessler, 386 B.R.
at 487. Bankruptcy Judge Cecilia Morris found Chases pleadings to be
sanctionable, as [w]hether deliberately or inadvertently, the process utilized
by Chase Home Finance in this case stands in the way of important rights
afforded to debtors under the Bankruptcy Code, including the right to the
protection of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(a), and the
essential concept of a fresh start. Id. at 491. Judge Morris denied Chases
motion and awarded the debtors their fees and costs in connection with
Chases motion. Id. at 493.
IN RE PAWSON
In the case of In re Pawson (Case No. 05-18439 (MG)), Bankruptcy Judge
Martin Glenn on August 13, 2008 So Ordered a stipulation between Chase
and the debtor resolving a motion
12by the debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105 and 28 U.S.C. 1927 alleging
improper filings in that case by Chase (Doc. No. 18). As set forth at the
August 13, 2008 hearing (Aug 13 Tr.) (transcript is Doc. No. 21), Chase
agreed to pay the debtors $50,000. Aug. 13 Tr. at 41: 1-4. See Zipes Decl. Ex.
M (relevant portions of the Aug. 13 Tr.).
Chase filed a letter (the Chase Letter) dated January 9, 2009 with the Court
(Doc. No. 30) after the United States Trustee conducted informal discovery in
connection with improper filings by Chase in that case. In the Chase Letter,
Chase outlined certain voluntary steps to ensure the accuracy of its
pleadings in future bankruptcy cases. These steps include: (i) the retention of
a consultant to review motions to vacate the stay before they are filed and
(ii) advance notice by letter to debtors warning that Chase intends to file a
motion to vacate the stay. At a court hearing on January 22, 2009 (transcript
is at Doc. No. 31), Judge Glenn, in directing that the letter be filed, stated
that [n]o action the Court is taking today makes [the procedures]
mandatory, but the Court will also be mindful if the procedures are changed
and any issues arise in the future. Jan. 22 Tr. at 6: 4-6.4
IN RE HUMPHREY
In In re Humphrey (Case No. 08-23404 (ASH)), Chase, as successor in interest
to Washington Mutual Bank, filed a motion to vacate the stay (the Chase
Humphrey Motion) (Doc. No. 9). Bankruptcy Judge Adlai S. Hardin, Jr.
imposed sanctions on Chase NA after finding that Chase NA filed false
documents in connection with the Chase Humphrey Motion.
4In connection with Pawson, Chase has changed its procedures in connection
with motions to vacate the stay. Specifically, the firm of Teitelbaum and
Baskin, LLP has been retained by Chase to specifically review all pleadings
filed by Chase in the Southern District of New York. This Motion For Stay
Relief was filed before the new procedures were in place. The United States
Trustee reserves her right to seek sanctions against Steven J. Baum, P.C. (the
Baum Firm), which filed the Motion For Stay Relief. In this regard, the

United States Trustee notes that the Baum Firm represented Chase in the In
re Humphrey. Further, the Baum Firm was counsel in cases in which courts
have found sanctionable conduct. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 2009
N.Y. Slip Op. 29491, 2009 WL 4544742, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 19, 2009) (Ind. No.
2005-17926).
13
At a hearing on February 24, 2009, Judge Hardin stated that I view this as
very serious. Your firm and your client, whether its WAMU or Chase,
submitted a false affidavit, a false certification as to non-payment;
demonstratively false, and violated the automatic stay. Thats really serious.
Feb. 24 Tr. at 7: 21-25. (Doc. No. 24). By order dated March 27, 2009, Judge
Hardin denied the Chase Humphrey Motion and imposed a sanction of
$15,000, among other penalties, on Chase NA (Doc. No. 29). After the
February 24, 2009 hearing, the United States Trustee filed a motion for a
Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination and, with the consent of Chase NA, has
taken the examination of Chases vice president in charge of all its national
residential mortgages in which the borrowers file for bankruptcy relief.
IN RE NUER
In re Nuer case (Case No. 08-14106 (REG)), Chase as servicer for Deutsch
Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsch"), asTrustee for Long Beach
Mortgage Trust 2006-2 ("Long Beach Trust") filed a motion for stay relief.
Bankruptcy Judge Robert E Gerber, imposed sanctions on Chase NA after it
was discovered that Chase NA filed several fraudulent documents with the
court in connection with the Stay Relief.Motion.
At the Hearing Date: January 7, 2010 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m., The United
States Trustee Diana G. Adams supported the sanction request stating Chase
has filed documents that appear to be either false or misleading. Chase took
the position that it was acting only as the servicer for the mortgage and at
the same time attached post-petition dated documents which supported a
different position by assigning the mortgage to Deutsch signed just days
before Chase's motion for stay relief. The assignment was also prepared
several years after the actual assignment of the mortgage. Given the
opportunity to cure the matter Chase through supplemental filings,
continued to file false documents with the court without regard for the court
or the rules. It was also sited in that case that this was not the first time
chase engaged in this type of conduct and in total disregard for the law
continues to do so despite sanctions.