JP Morgan Chase lawsuit attracts other military members

Written by Biloxi

There is more fall out from JP Morgan Chase's announcement yesterday that they admitted to overcharging on mortgages or wrongfully foreclosed homes of military families. The bank said to be mailing $2 million in refunds to the military families and looking to other military families' accounts. Well, the bank's story didn't sit with other military families that may have been victims of excessive overcharges and may have had their homes foreclosed. Richard Harpootlian, a South Carolina attorney who has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Marine Corps Capt. Jonathan Rowles, and his wife, Julie, of Colorado, said that his phone is ringing off the hook from other military members. Mr. Harpootlian is looking beyond a class action lawsuit. He wants a criminal investigation to the bank. Mr. Richard Harpootlian said,"Foreclosing on someone or repossessing their vehicle while they're on active-duty deployment does not only give rise to a civil suit, the United States attorney has the authority to prosecute people for that, so there's a potential criminal case here."

In addtion, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) sits on the Senate Banking Committee, wrote a letter yesterday to Attorney General Eric Holder that he wants an investigation. Senator Reed said, "JPMorgan Chase was violating the law, and I am concerned other banks may also be wrongly overcharging our troops or taking unfair advantage of their situation. "I urge all the banks to review, acknowledge, and rectify any and all violations.'

Marine Corps Capt. Jonathan Rowles, and his wife, Julie has released their class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase today. The lawsuit is an eye opener which proves the bank continue to violate the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which protects active-duty personnel from foreclosure and prohibits banks from charging more than 6 percent for a mortgage. Here is an excerpt of the complaint:

COMPLAINT




FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 527(b)(2)—Failure to properly implement


the protection of the SCRA)


32. Plaintiff Rowles was called to active duty in the United States Marine Corps on


January 22, 2006. Plaintiff Rowles promptly notified Defendant Chase of his calling to active


duty pursuant to the requirements set forth within Section 527(b)(1) of the SCRA.


33. Section 527(b)(2) of the SCRA requires creditors to apply the 6% interest rate


limitation to an eligible servicemember’s debt “effective as of the date on which the


servicemember is called to military service.”


34. Despite receiving prompt notification of Plaintiff Rowles’ calling to active duty,


Defendant Chase failed to apply the statutorily-mandated 6% rate until Rowles’ August 2006


payment. Upon information and belief, Chase has invoked the same unlawful procedure for all


members of Plaintiff Class. Defendant Chase’s violation of the SCRA has caused the Plaintiff


and the Plaintiff Class actual damages, including consequential damages.


34. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including


actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.


SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION


(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 527—Failure to maintain the 6% rate during the


servicemember’s active duty status)


35. Between December 2007 and March 2010, Chase required Rowles to re-verify his


active duty status in writing on six separate occasions despite having written notice of the


duration of his active duty term. And no fewer than four times per year between August of 2006


and the date of this filing, Chase essentially required Rowles to re-apply for SCRA protections


by forcing him to call various company customer service representatives after being verbally


informed or receiving documentation that the interest rate on the loan was going to be adjusted


above 6%.


36. Section 527(b)(2) of the SCRA requires creditors to apply the interest rate


limitation to an eligible servicemember’s debt “effective as of the date on which the


servicemember is called to military service.” This action is to be taken “[U]pon receipt of


written notice and a copy of orders calling a servicemember to military service.”


37. Section 527(a)(1) requires the creditor to maintain the 6% interest rate limitation


“during the period of military service.” Defendant Chase’s violation of this statutory mandate


has caused the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class actual damages, including consequential damages.


38. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including


actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 518—Employment of collection methods


unlawful under the SCRA)


39. After unlawfully adjusting the interest rate on the loan above 6% and determining


that Rowles had a past-due balance, Chase began to employ collection methods which included


repeated phone calls and correspondence from Chase debt collection departments in various


locations. These calls often came at a rate of three per day and included calls to his workplace


and his mother – who lives at a different address – as well as calls made to his residence after


midnight. In telephone conversations, voicemails and correspondence during this time, Chase


representatives repeatedly threatened to report Rowles to the credit bureaus and to initiate


foreclosure proceedings on the house in Castle Rock, CO.


40. This pattern of conduct by Chase caused Rowles to spend considerable time


communicating with Chase via telephone, email and written correspondence and to take leave


from his unit to travel from South Carolina to Colorado in order to preserve protections to which


he was already entitled and to prevent the carrying out by Chase of threatened actions which are


unlawful under the SCRA.


41. Section 518 (1) of the SCRA makes it unlawful for a creditor to determine that a


servicemember’s invocation of protection under the act renders him “unable to pay the civil


obligation or liability in accordance with its terms.”


42. Section 518(3) of the SCRA makes it unlawful for a servicemember’s invocation


of protection under the act to serve as the basis for a creditor to provide “an adverse report


relating to creditworthiness of the servicemember by or to a person engaged in the practice of


assembling or evaluating consumer credit information.”


43. Defendant Chase’s willful breach of these provisions of the SCRA has caused the


Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class actual damages, including consequential damages.


44. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including


actual damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, prays for relief and


judgment as follows:


a. Determining that this action is a proper class action, and certifying Plaintiff as


Lead Plaintiff and as Class Representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil


Procedure;


b. Awarding compensatory and consequential damages in favor of Plaintiff and all


other Class Members against Defendant for all damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s


wrongdoing in an amount to be proven at trial;


c. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their costs and disbursements of this suit,


including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and experts’ fees;


d. Awarding Plaintiff an incentive payment for serving as Class Plaintiff; and


e. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Read more on the FULL COMPLAINT, PETITION FOR TRO, CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, and REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Click here.

While JP Morgan Chase admitted their mistakes in a statement yesterday and are fixing the problem, this is not simply an "error" made my the bank. They continued to overcharge and foreclosed on the military families  and violate Servicemembers Civil Relief Act month after month and year after year. I have noticed that the Rowles filed their complaint in July 2010 which tells me that the bank knew for 6 months that they violated the law and continued to harrass and threaten the Rowles with foreclosure even though they were current on their mortgage. Isn't it interesting that JP Morgan Chase admitted their mistake on a federal holiday yet, the bank announced last week's their fourth-quarter earnings climbed to $4.8 billion, or $1.12 a share. JP Morgan Chase's profits continue to soar while dishing out millions in blunders and fraudulent mistakes. What other shoe will drop on JP Morgan Chase?