Consumer complaint received 2026-01-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
NEW CFPB FILING Based on Post-Response Judicial Action Demonstrating That Chases Prior CFPB Responses Were Incomplete and Materially Inaccurate as Reflected by the Judicial Record CFPB COMPLAINT Basis for New Complaint Post-Final Judicial Action Since JPMorgan Chase Banks prior CFPB final responses, new judicial action has occurred. 

Chase and its counsel, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, filed a Motion to Set Aside an in rem judgment, acknowledging that a judgment had been signed before the summary judgment hearing occurred. The Court entered an Order setting that motion for hearing.

This judicial action occurred after Chase represented to CFPB that the foreclosure posture, accounting, and legal proceedings were valid and final. The court-signed Set-for-Hearing Order establishes that Chases prior CFPB responses were premature and inconsistent with the actual litigation posture, as reflected by the judicial record. 

Material Contradictions Established by the Court Record and Attachments 1. Chases Judgment and Foreclosure Representations Were Not Final In its CFPB responses, Chase asserted that : foreclosure proceedings were valid, no attorney errors existed, and fees and charges were normal.

However, Chases own counsel later moved to set aside a judgment that had been signed before the required hearing, and the Court set that issue for hearing.

This directly contradicts Chases CFPB representations that the foreclosure posture was settled and error-free. 

2. Lender-Placed Insurance Timeline Is Internally Inconsistent and Unreconcilable Chase states that it began providing lender-placed insurance in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Chase further states that : notices dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX warned of insufficient wind coverage, and a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX states that wind coverage became effective XX/XX/XXXX. 

However, the XX/XX/XXXX letter is not a lack-of-coverage warning. 
It is a purchase notice, reflecting that wind insurance had already been placed and charged. 

Chase then : purchased another wind policy in XX/XX/XXXX, backdated that policy to XX/XX/XXXX, while maintaining the XXXX policy. 

This sequence demonstrates that : wind insurance was not provided during a significant portion of the XXXX XXXX hurricane season, and Chase attempted to retroactively cure the lapse after hurricane season was nearly over. 

XXXX. Wind Policies Are Labeled as Renewals, Not Initial Placements The Assurant wind policies provided by Chase are labeled as renewals, not initial placements. 

A renewal presupposes prior valid coverage, directly contradicting Chases claim that wind insurance was newly placed due to borrower non-compliance. 

Chases insurance procurement narrative is therefore internally irreconcilable. 

4. Escrow Charges Are Derived From Invalid Insurance Procurement Escrow statements show : charges for multiple lender-placed policies, overlapping coverage periods, and retroactive effective dates.

Chases escrow accounting relies on insurance policies that : were procured using corrupted or conflicting property address data, and can not be retroactively underwritten for prior risk periods. 

Because insurance underwriting and pricing are location-specific and time-fixed, escrow charges derived from such policies can not be presumed accurate or lawful. 

XXXX. Address Responsibility Was Misstated Chase asserted that the borrower refused to provide documentation to update the property address. 

This misallocates responsibility. 

Chases own correspondence and court filings show : conflicting property addresses ( XXXX vs. XXXX ), and acknowledgment by XXXX counsel of address defects in the litigation record. 

Maintaining accurate collateral data is a servicer obligation, particularly where lender-placed insurance and escrow charges are imposed. 

XXXX. Accounting Defects Are Now Before the Court In addition to the Set-Aside-for-Hearing Order, the Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce Accounting and Insurance Prerequisites to Foreclosure , seeking only to require Chase to demonstrate : lawful insurance procurement for the correct insured property, and a fully reconciled escrow accounting. 

That motion does not address foreclosure merits. 
It reflects that Chases claimed default is not supported by reliable servicing data. 

7. RESPA Notice of Error Communications Were Mischaracterized Chase stated that the borrower declined assistance calls and later requested that calls stop.

The request was for Chase to coordinate communications through the Executive Office to avoid violating RESPA Notice of Error requirements, not to refuse assistance.

Chases CFPB framing mischaracterizes compliance coordination as borrower obstruction.

Why CFPB Review Is Required Now Chase submitted three CFPB final responses asserting that : the judgment posture was settled, insurance placement was compliant, and foreclosure proceedings contained no attorney error.

After those representations, Chase and its counsel sought judicial relief to correct the judgment itself, and the Court set that issue for hearing.

This post-response judicial action demonstrates that Chases CFPB submissions were incomplete, premature, and contradicted by the judicial record.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation