COVID-19 Notice: We want to assure you that we remain open to help you manage any personal or small business financial challenges that may occur due to Governor Baker's March 24, 2020 Order requiring all "non-essential" businesses to close. Please give us a call to schedule a virtual consultation (video, phone, or email) or if you have any questions.

Call Our Office Today 888.400.9318
Debt Relief Blogs Informational Massachusetts's Consumer Blog

Firm Successfully Argues Denial of Further Appellate Review In Starkey v. Deutsche Bank, N.T. Co.

Today, the Firm was informed that the Petition for Further Appellate Review (FAR) filed by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank, N.T. Co. in its capacity as a "Trustee" was Denied see http://ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?src=party&dno=FAR-26395

This is a significant achievement by the Firm, as it was opposed by the "litigation firm of last resort" Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, including a blue ribbon committee of four attorneys who have all had significant experience before the United States Supreme Court.

Indeed, three of the four attorneys assigned to draft the FAR petition clerked for Untied States Supreme Court Justices; Arpit Garg [Hon. Breyer, J. and Souter, J.], Alan Shoenfeld [Hon. Sotomayor, J. at 2nd Cir,], and Mark C. Fleming [Hon. Souter. J.]

The upshot of this denial is the fact that now the matter will be remanded under theoriginal Appeal Court ruling, and the Firm will now be allowed to seek discovery regrding an issue that has eluded examination for the past decade, namely, what specific assets were owned by Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. at the time of its failure and takeover by the FDIC, and further what specific assets of Washington Mutual [purportedly the Starkey Note and mortgage] were thereafter actually sold/transferred to JP Morgan Chase Bank through the FDIC.

The preceding is a critically important question where the publicly available 39 page Purchase and Assumption Agreement between the FDIC and JP Morgan Chase omits the schedule of the "certain assets" purportedly transferred thereunder. However, cases such as Jolley. v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et. al. 213 Cal. App. 4th 872 (Cal. App. 2013) have identified a potential 119 page version of this Purchase and Assumption Agreement that has never been made public.

The Firm will be digging in on this issue, and we will keep you updated!

See the Briefs below

Petition for Further Appellate Review

Firm's Opposition