Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 427-90 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT 90
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 427-90 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 4

WALKER & DI MARCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

July 23, 2018

Via Email

CONFIDENTIAL
Christian Pistilli, Esq.
Covington & Burling LLP
One City Center
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956

Re: S&A Capital Partners, Inc., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
et al.
Civil Action No. 15-CV-293 (LTS) (RWL)

Dear Chris:

We write in response to your correspondence of July 20, 2018 regarding

Stephen McCarthy (“July 20 Letter”). Additionally, we take this opportunity to
discuss another action recently taken by JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JPMorgan” or
“Chase”) regarding the Assignment of Betty Brooks’ loan on July 2, 2018. These
two matters together demonstrate Chase’s ignorance of its own records and negligent
(or intentional) actions that continue to harm my clients.
First, Plaintiffs categorically deny your assertion that there was some
agreement between the parties that Chase would only assign loans upon the request
of Mr. Schneider. In fact, the MLPA that your clients drafted and that was signed
by Chase on February 25, 2009 is in direct contradiction to any such assertion. Your
July 20 Letter states that “Chase never received a request from [Mortgage Resolution
Servicing, LLC (“MRS”)] for an assignment relating to the McCarthy Loan.” Such
statement is curious when we consider the recorded assignment (SA0001374) of the
mortgage (JPMC-MRS-LOANFILES-00336668) from Stephen J. McCarthy to
JPMorgan.1 This loan is listed on Exhibit A of the MLPA (JPMC-MRS-00014130).
These documents are part of the record in this case and are easily accessible by you
and your client, and our clients have provided you with this list of loans multiple
times in various formats. These documents also directly contradict your

1
The mortgage, a publically recorded document, is yet another example of Chase’s improper use of its
“Confidential/ Subject to Protective Order” designation in its document production.

Walker & Di Marco, P.C. │ 350 Main Street, Third Floor, Malden, MA 02148
T 781-322-3700 │ F 781-322-3757 │ www.walkerdimarcopc.com
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 427-90 Filed 09/30/19 Page 3 of 4
Letter to Christian Pistilli, Esq.
July 23, 2018
Page 2 of 3

representations in your July 20 Letter.2 If your client had reviewed either its own
records or the public record, it would have discovered that this was the second
mortgage from Mr. McCarthy to JPMorgan.3 The first mortgage from Mr. McCarthy
to JPMorgan was recorded on April 18, 2005. There is also a mortgage from Mr.
McCarthy to JPMorgan on a different property. Despite three mortgages to your
client on the record of Marion County, only one discharge exists; and only one of
those mortgages has been assigned to my client. Clearly, as a result of your client’s
corrupted records, your client is unable to differentiate between the records for these
various loans. Your error is proof of that and of the failure of your so-called “Ring
Fence,” the highly touted process that was described by Michael Zeeb in his
Declaration of June 27, 2017 (ECF 202) and was represented to the Court as a means
of mitigating future issues.
The second issue concerning your client’s records relates to an assignment
recorded on July 2, 2018 regarding Betty Brooks. In that assignment, your client
claims to pass ownership of a mortgage to our client S&A Capital Partners, Inc
(“S&A”). In the very midst of litigation, this assignment is glaring in its material
errors. Specifically, Chase is attempting to pass liability for a missing satisfaction
of mortgage onto S&A. You have represented to the attorney for the City of El
Centro that S&A is the owner of this troubled loan. In order to avoid the costs
involved in the matter, Chase illegally assigned the attached Deed of Trust to S&A
on July 2, 2018, without the knowledge or consent of S&A. Not only that, but this
specific loan is listed on Exhibit A to the MLPA entered into between Chase and
MRS, not S&A (see JPMC-MRS-00014130). As you are well aware, MRS and S&A
are not the same entity, and this action has and/or will potentially cause S&A and/or
MRS further monetary damages.
Despite previous assurances by Chase to the Court during our May 2017
hearing, specifically that Chase had put a “Ring Fence” around any loans included
in the MLPA so that these types of incidents would cease to occur, Chase has yet
again caused another issue, nine (9) years after the MLPA was signed. Once again,
it is clear that Chase cannot stop itself, its records are corrupted (or, as is becoming
more likely, it is acting intentionally) and there is no clear end in sight to these
actions against my clients.
Due to these recent actions, we demand that Chase provide us with all
information related to these loans, and your so called “Ring Fence,” as it is obviously

2
It is also curious that these documents, in part, come from your last production of documents, which you claimed
contained no useful information.
3
Of course, you are aware that the MLPA claims to only possess 1 st lien loans.

WALKER & DI MARCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 427-90 Filed 09/30/19 Page 4 of 4
Letter to Christian Pistilli, Esq.
July 23, 2018
Page 3 of 3

not working. This information should include, but is not limited to, any and all
communications, internal or external, concerning the filing, drafting and accountings
for these loans; all authorizations naming the signatories of the recorded documents;
all policies related to the recording of such documents; and any and all other
document(s), however kept, that relate(s) to these loans. Such request is consistent
with the obligations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which obligate
your client to supplement discovery as information becomes available. While there
is no indication that this information is new, it does appear to be newly discovered
by you and should, therefore, be produced immediately.
Very truly yours,
Walker & Di Marco, P.C.

Roberto L. Di Marco, Esq.

cc: Robert Wick, Esq.

Brent Tantillo, Esq.

WALKER & DI MARCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW