Chase v Cassino Partial Settlement Agreement
In late 2011, Chase filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County District Court in Chase v. Cassino (Case Number 2011CV4858) to reform the deed of trust and then foreclose.
The end result was a "partial" settlement with both Chase and Cassino dismissing the state case without prejudice and Chase paying Cassino $10,000 for attorney's fees. Cassino was demanding for Chase to quiet the title to be included at the time, but did not per his attorney's advice - to wait and see result's of other upcoming related cases and disclosures that would better guarantee a future quiet title action. My attorney of record, Steve Navaro, recommended doing this for the time being, because Chase had no capacity or standing to enter into the "contract" for a Settlement Agreement making it worthless to enforce from the start. He felt this would buy time until more case law decisions were available for citing in a quiet title action to get a FULL settlement. Some of those additional major citations happened with:
1. Lawrence Nardi deposition in 2012 in a Florida State appeals case stating that WaMu loans did not go to Chase.
2. Chase admitting in FDIC v. Chase $13 billion settlement in November 2013 that Chase is not successor-in-interest to WaMu loans.
The "partial" Settlement Agreement below - without the desired and "deserved" quite title - left Cassino in a stalemate along with Chase. Cassino could not sell some of his 45 acres or refinance on just the home and 10 acres to get on with his life financially and Chase could not foreclose because of not having jurisdictional standing which was shown in the state case.
The end result was a "partial" settlement with both Chase and Cassino dismissing the state case without prejudice and Chase paying Cassino $10,000 for attorney's fees. Cassino was demanding for Chase to quiet the title to be included at the time, but did not per his attorney's advice - to wait and see result's of other upcoming related cases and disclosures that would better guarantee a future quiet title action. My attorney of record, Steve Navaro, recommended doing this for the time being, because Chase had no capacity or standing to enter into the "contract" for a Settlement Agreement making it worthless to enforce from the start. He felt this would buy time until more case law decisions were available for citing in a quiet title action to get a FULL settlement. Some of those additional major citations happened with:
1. Lawrence Nardi deposition in 2012 in a Florida State appeals case stating that WaMu loans did not go to Chase.
2. Chase admitting in FDIC v. Chase $13 billion settlement in November 2013 that Chase is not successor-in-interest to WaMu loans.
The "partial" Settlement Agreement below - without the desired and "deserved" quite title - left Cassino in a stalemate along with Chase. Cassino could not sell some of his 45 acres or refinance on just the home and 10 acres to get on with his life financially and Chase could not foreclose because of not having jurisdictional standing which was shown in the state case.