the reporting aspect has no real bearing. They put it paid in full for less than owed means that it was settled for less than owed. It states that money was owed at the end of it. That is all factually correct. What it says on your file has absolutely nothing to do with their right to recover monies. Basicly the wording is weird due to the way the credit reporting agenices report, but it is reporting properly it seems.
More than likely, your submitted statement or letter would have no legal bearing unless a party from Chase signed it and notarized it as well and more than likely unless it was submitted by the bank TO you. In the process, you submit alot of docs to them. All they are are proof docs to them, not legally binding contracts. So, if your lawyer submitted something that CHASE then uinlcuded in the language of the loan, then you may have some grounds. If you ust submitted some document, then it means nothing. they are gathering evidence, they are under no legal responsibility to even look through all of the docs you send them. Even then, that wording is so vague and unclear that it would probably not stand up in court. Now if you had a signed statement FROM the bank stating that for example:
On August 28th, 2010 property in the name of gaosgfiahf at the address of 381490 gioh st, ohio....... was sold for less than owed. Loan balance was _________ and final sales price after all sales expenses came to____________. The balance left over has been written off for a total deficieny of _________ Chase bank, and all of their affiliatesforgo all right to collect this amount or to sell this amount to an outside agency for collection. At this point, this loan is closed as paid in full, less than owed and there will be no further collection activity.
I am not a lawyer, but you should be able to see what I mean about detail.
One other thing to point out, there are two things that might be going on to explain why people told you Chase does not usually seek deficiency amounts... One is that most loans are non investment loans. On investment loans they are much more likely to pursue. Protections that apply to primary residence do not apply to investment property and people with investment property are also likely to have the assets to revoer at least some of the funds.
the other thing is that Chase may have just sold the debt to someone after writing it off. the fact that they are not coming after you. but Oxford is (I am assuming they are a collection agency), is probably legit.
It is a tricky situation, but I am pretty sure you are still liable for the money. the statement you alluded to does not appear to be either strong enough or clear enough to relieve them of the right to pursue the money . Unless you have something drafted specifically by Chase as part of the short sale agreement that clearly releases you from any further charges, then you are still in debt to them. The words of the agent or LO's mean little as they were guessing about policy, and so far have not even been correct. Chase, has not sought you out for the money, another compnay has.
