Chase Manhatten Mortgage
Chase Manhatten Bank
upland California 91786
U.S.A.
|
- Phone: 760-242-3629
- Web:
- Category: Banks
|
Chase Manhatten Mortgage Illegal Forclosure, fraudulent ripoff business upland California
2Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner
We were illegally forclosed on our house in Upland, we had no notice of the forclosure, they never first classed , certified or posted anything at our house. We found out when the sheriff locked our doors. We filled a lawsuit and were supposed to go to court in August 2002, but the SOB's snuck in a Demuer and we could not attend, and we lost because the (@#$%$%)judge didnot want to hear anything because there is a new law as of January 2001, that if you present your case once, it cannot be presented again.
The first time the case was presented was at the unlawful detainer, which we were told by Chase Manhatten Bank that everything was taken care of and we did not have to be present, so we never even got notice of the date for this, Our attorney, who is very good was surprised by this verdict, and so were we. Chase does not deny any of these acusation for not notifing us of the forcloser, but the judge did not care and now chase is walking tall now that they ripped off another innocent victum. Maybe there is someone who can help us, we will really appreciate it. Thankyou
Kathie
Applevalley, California
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Chase Manhatten Mortgage
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals
#1 Update By Author
AUTHOR: - ()
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 20, 2002
POSTED: Tuesday, August 20, 2002
We try to apeal this with the court and loose because chase knows how to f@#$k people very good. I wish there was a way that I could get back at these people, if anyone knows how please let me know.
#2 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Debby - Carson City ()
SUBMITTED: Sunday, October 06, 2002
POSTED: Monday, October 07, 2002
Failure to notice is a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. From the complaints I have been reading it appears this is common practice in the banking community.
Turn the judge into a Judicial Review Committee, which you will have to research who his peers are, but judges are reviewed by a judicial committee and receive and answer complaints.
Generally the judicial committee will side with the judge, but reiterate due process and failure to notice.
