Jamerson Estate is vocal point in fraud trail

Elizabeth Jamerson a matriarch in San Francisco past away last September after a stroke that had left her debilitated. Her estate has become the center of a trial attempting to collect one million dollars.

The suit was filed by U.S Bank on behalf of a mortgage pool to attempt to collect one million dollars from the sale of the property. The estate filed a counter suit against the mortgage pool and other involved claiming that the estate should not have to pay any monies to U.S. Bank or the mortgage pool as the loans were provided under fraudulent conditions that the estate was not a party too.

Attorney for the estate, Kevin Peterson, of San Francisco’s Peterson, Martin & Reynolds, stated that his firm had found over eighteen loans on the estate that were suspect. He told juries in the case that they looked fishy and that his firm had found that the loans were obtained by fraudulent means. Mr. Peterson told the jury that First City Funding used two sets of fraudulent documents and loan applications along with inflated appraisals to make the scheme work. He stated that the appraiser who appraised the property never actually visited the estate of Mrs. Jamerson. The appraiser simply viewed a map on the internet and came up with the numbers. He doubled the value of the property in order to slip the loan through underwriting. He stated was the way these individuals schemed in order to deliberately make these types of loans.  Mr. Peterson argued that the Mortgage lender and the mortgage pool have a case against First City Funding and not his client the estate of Mrs. Elizabeth Jamerson.

Attorney for U.S. Bank and the mortgage pool, Charles Coleman III, from San Francisco’s Holland & Knight explained to the jury that the case may be complicated but came down to a simple fact; the mortgage needs to be paid. He argued that the estate was aware that there was a mortgage on the property and that mortgage needed to be paid off regardless of how the mortgage was obtained. He stated that for example the deed was recorded with the wrong lot number but that the estate new which lot number was truly intended on the deed. He argued that since the property was sold the lender should be repaid.

The trail is expected to continue for four weeks before closing arguments are heard.