Ennis

Ennis v. Chase Bank CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 2015A141839California3,348 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the amended complaint, Ennis obtained a variable- rate mortgage for his Walnut Creek home through Long Beach Mortgage Co. in February 2007. California Reconveyance Company was the trustee under the deed. The amended complaint alleged that Long Beach at some point removed the first pages of the mortgage document and replaced it with a substitute note. This new note allowed the interest rate to adjust between 8.975 percent and 14.975 percent, which allegedly made it a predatory

1 loan as defined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The substituted note was transferred to Washington Mutual Bank, which paid “a massive fee-origination payoff” to Long Beach knowing its “deceitful business practices.” Ennis’s mortgage was assigned to Chase in April 2011when Chase acquired Washington Mutual’s assets. According to the amended complaint, this assignment was “perjured and falsified.” Although somewhat confusing, the allegations seemingly contend that the entity purporting to assign the note lacked authority to assign it, and the ensuing notice of default amounted to a “scheme to perpetrate a theft of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.