HOME > NEWS > Washington Mutual Chase Purchase And Assumption Agreement

Washington Mutual Chase Purchase And Assumption Agreement


Point 3.2 states in part that “all assets and assets of Failed Bank subject to an option to purchase by the recipient bank are acquired for the amount specified in Schedule 3.2, unless otherwise stated.” Section 3.3 states in part that “the transfer of all assets acquired by the beneficiary bank under this agreement will be made, if necessary, by the declaration of sale of the beneficiary or by the beneficiary`s sales account.” Section 6.2 requires the FDIC to “deliver assets, including loan documents, as soon as possible on the date or date of this agreement.” As no one of WaMu testified with the knowledge or memory of the credit, WaMus`s intention can only be inferred from his actions and the words of his contracts with Niakaros. In general, “a court examines the terms used by the parties, the agreement as a whole, and the facts and circumstances surrounding it.” Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. Danvers, 411 Mass. 39 , 45-46 (1991). Even if mortgages are to be construed as liberal contracts by “[i]s common sense and the likely intent of the parties . . . The words themselves remain the main proof of intent. Shane v. Winter Hill Federal Sav.

Loan Ass`n, 397 Mass. 479 , 483-484 (1986), cites Stop – Shop, Inc. v. Ganem, 347 Mass. 697 , 701 (1964) and Robert Indus., Inc. v. Spence, 362 Mass. 751 , 755 (1973).

The clear terms of the note and the mortgage correspond to Niakaros` description of the loan that it was a loan granted to him individually and that was not to be secured by a mortgage on the property of the trust. This suggests that the note was conceived only as evidence of a loan to Niakaros individually and not to Niakaros as an agent. A branch in Idaho Falls was acquired by the Utah-based United Savings Bank when WaMu purchased the Savings Bank in January 1997. [99] “The agreements also resolve all disputes between Deutsche Bank, FDIC and JPMorgan Chase regarding the purchase of mortgages and other liabilities other than DBNTC, as the agent of 99 mortgage funds issued or sponsored by the WMB or its related companies, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C After WaMu was seized, they were unable to claim guilt because they did not have a contract/note and were ready as lenders, and Ginnie Mae did not take the blame. 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.

The second is whether there is a mutual error in the designation of Niakaros as Mortgagor in the mortgage justifies the reform of the mortgage and the registration of a copy. The third question is whether the non-reform of the mortgage unjustifiably enriches Niakaros for reform.