In an 8K bid by JPMorgan Chase, it states: “As previously announced, JPMorgan Chase Bank has signed an agenda with Deutsche Bank and FDIC to resolve the ongoing disputes awarded by DBNTC against the FDIC as liquidator for the Washington Mutual Bank and its corporate capacity, as well as JPMorgan Chase Bank as a defendant in alleged breaches of certain guarantees and guarantees WMB related to mortgage contracts. All assets, but only certain debts (including deposits, secured bonds and other secured bonds) of waMu Bank were taken over by JPMorgan Chase.  As part of the agreement, JPMorgan Chase acquired all of WaMu`s banking activities, including $307 billion in assets and $188 billion in deposits, for a price of $1.9 billion, plus debt withdrawals.  JPMorgan Chase did not repurchase the bank`s unsecured priority debt, so the holders of those bonds had little reasonable source of collection.  On the morning of September 26, WaMu Bank customers were informed that all deposits held by WaMu were now JPMorgan Chase debts.  The final counsel does not recall the closure and cannot testify to the intent of WaMu or Niakaros. This was a witness to the closing postal route, one of many facts by counsel on behalf of WaMu. The final lawyer did not prepare the closing documents; In fact, he wasn`t checking them. He did not know the terms of the agreement between WaMu and Niakaros. While the final counsel testified that he had stopped a closure and that he would have asked WaMu for further instructions if a borrower had asked him to tear up the documents he had already certified notarized, I agree with Niakaros` statement, which asked him why he was asked to sign the mortgage, and that the final lawyer said he would take care of it. Niakaros, a borrower who had little bargaining power with the bank, trusted the lawyer to deal with the gap between loans and mortgages.
JPMorgan wants a ruling that reforms the mortgage to designate the Trust, not niakaros, as mortgagor, and orders the registry to accept a copy of the reformed mortgage for registration. Three issues were raised in court. The first is whether JPMorgan has an interest in the note and the mortgage, which are sufficient to give it the opportunity to take legal action.