delegated responsibility for servicing the mortgages at issue by its parent and affiliates in the corporate enterprise. Id. at *3. Miller likewise claimed that Chase used this responsibility to engage in mortgage servicing fraud, “upstreamed” the income from this activity to the corporate group enterprise, and that the corporate group raised capital based on financial statements reporting this income. Id. This adequately pled Chase’s direction over the enterprise: “Chase is clearly a lower-rung participant in the alleged corporate scheme that includes it, and it directs the affairs of its parents and affiliates by determining how much to demand in escrow payments on the mortgages it services.” Id.; see also Goss v. Alliance Mortgage Co., 1997 WL 119918, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Mar.14, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Norwest similarly directs the NC corporate
holding that subsidiaryperson directed enterprises affairs by using its delegated authority over the parents mortgage servicing business to fraudulently hold excessive escrow payments holding that chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to delegated authority holding that interest payments on escrow accounts are not a settlement practice under re spa because they can continue long after the closing of the mortgage transaction and which can continue to occur during the entire life of the mortgage holding that claims for negligent mortgage servicing are not legally cognizable under alabama law holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments