IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIALCIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTCOMPANY , AS TRUSTEEPlaintiff,Case No.: 07-24338-CACEvs. DIVISION: 02.JAMES DELIA, MARIA CENTENO a/k/a MARIADELIA, CITIBANK, FSB, UNKNOWN TENANT(S)IN POSSESSION #1 AND #2 et alDefendants. ____________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
Comes now the defendant, JAMES DELIA, PRO SE DEFENDENT, and hereby filestheir motion to vacate foreclosure judgment, pursuant to Rules 1.540(b) Fla. R. Civ. P.,states:1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) provides in pertinent part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ora party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, orproceeding for the following reasons:… (3) fraud (whether heretoforedenominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconductof an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; This rule doesnot limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve aparty from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
The Plaintiff has committed a fraud upon this court which has onlybecome apparent to the Defendant within the last day, upon discovery that the"lender" bank and others have engaged in a pattern of fraud and deceptionacross the country and the state of ------------- in attempting to forecloseresidential properties AFTER it has already been paid in full PLUS a fee forstanding for an undisclosed lender.
Plaintiff's allegations that the Plaintiff has not been paid are false is easilyascertainable by the 10k and 8k filings with Plaintiff's sworn filings with the SEC,
wherein the description of the instant loan transaction fits exactly with ALL loans thatwere securitized and eventually sold in shares to investors around the world. It wasnot until the last day that Defendant consulted with a knowledgeable consultant andattorney who informed him and demonstrated the fraud. Defendant assumed that because the Plaintiff refused to accept payment that the allegation they were makingwas that they had not received any payment on the note, when in fact, they had
Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment1/6