Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
20Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions of Ron Wolfe Fdlg

Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions of Ron Wolfe Fdlg

Ratings:

5.0

(2)
|Views: 3,610 |Likes:
Published by Foreclosure Fraud
Ron Wolfe creates an assignment of mortgage to prove his client's case so his client can foreclose on a Floridian family's home. The family is defending their home against a predatory financial institution and the predatory law firm it hired to do it's dirty work.

Did he "Cry Wolfe" one too many times???

CITIBANK

v

JOSEPH J BARBARO

CASE NO 50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS OF RONALD WOLFE

Introduction

This is a foreclosure action in which Plaintiff, CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR BSARM 2007-2, (“CITIBANK”), seeks to take the real property of the Defendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, in satisfaction of a debt.

A. The assignment of mortgage was executed by Plaintiff counsel’s managing partner, WOLFE.

This case was filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (“FDLG”) on behalf of CITIBANK alleging that CITIBANK is now the holder of a promissory note granted to WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (“WELLS FARGO”) “and/or is entitled to enforce the Mortgage Note and Mortgage.” While CITIBANK originally argued that no assignment of mortgage was necessary to foreclose,1 it later filed an assignment of mortgage which had been executed and recorded after the case was filed (but well before it told this Court that an assignment was not needed).

The Assignment purported to transfer both the mortgage and note from the original lender WELLS FARGO to CITIBANK and was executed by its self-described attorney-in-fact, WOLFE. WOLFE is the managing partner and attorney supervisor of the law firm representing CITIBANK in this action, FDLG, and was at the time that he executed the assignment of mortgage to his firm’s own client.

B. WOLFE also strategized with “independent” witnesses as to how to respond to deposition requests from Defendants and other homeowners.

CITIBANK also filed an affidavit of an alleged expert on the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees requested, Lisa Cullaro (the “Cullaro affidavit”). The affidavit was notarized by her sister-in-law and former FDLG employee, Erin Cullaro, who, according to newspaper reports, is currently under investigation by her own current employer, the Florida Attorney General, in connection with her notarization of such affidavits.
When defense counsel attempted to depose the Cullaros regarding their signatures on the affidavit, FDLG withdrew the affidavit.

Both CITIBANK (through FDLG) and the Cullaros (through their own attorney) filed motions for protective order to avoid the depositions on the grounds that the affidavit had been withdrawn.

Before arriving at this tactic of withdrawing the affidavits in this and other cases in which defense counsel sought the Cullaros’ depositions, the Cullaros conferred with FDLG attorneys—including WOLFE—as to how to avoid the depositions and whether FDLG would shoulder the burden of opposing them. In an email to FDLG (and WOLFE), Lisa Cullaro stated that she had no intention of filing her own motion for protective order and that she understood it would be FDLG which would “aggressively defend” against the depositions:

I have never indicated that I would, nor do I intend to, either: (1) directly handle any discovery matters in any FDLG case with opposing counsel, or (2) file any motion for protective order either on behalf of myself or Erin. To the contrary, and as Ron [WOLFE] and discussed last week, it was my understanding that FDLG wished to aggressively defend the taking of Erin's deposition as a notary, as well as my request to be paid as an expert witness.

…[I]t was my impression that FDLG was not going to permit this type of patently abusive discovery. To this end, Ron informed me that any fees associated with the defense of such discovery motions would ultimately be paid by the defendant and as such, it was his desire to pursue an aggressive course of action on these types of issues.

Lisa Cullaro went on to specifically address WOLFE in the email, asking him to “make a final decision on this iss
Ron Wolfe creates an assignment of mortgage to prove his client's case so his client can foreclose on a Floridian family's home. The family is defending their home against a predatory financial institution and the predatory law firm it hired to do it's dirty work.

Did he "Cry Wolfe" one too many times???

CITIBANK

v

JOSEPH J BARBARO

CASE NO 50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS OF RONALD WOLFE

Introduction

This is a foreclosure action in which Plaintiff, CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR BSARM 2007-2, (“CITIBANK”), seeks to take the real property of the Defendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, in satisfaction of a debt.

A. The assignment of mortgage was executed by Plaintiff counsel’s managing partner, WOLFE.

This case was filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (“FDLG”) on behalf of CITIBANK alleging that CITIBANK is now the holder of a promissory note granted to WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (“WELLS FARGO”) “and/or is entitled to enforce the Mortgage Note and Mortgage.” While CITIBANK originally argued that no assignment of mortgage was necessary to foreclose,1 it later filed an assignment of mortgage which had been executed and recorded after the case was filed (but well before it told this Court that an assignment was not needed).

The Assignment purported to transfer both the mortgage and note from the original lender WELLS FARGO to CITIBANK and was executed by its self-described attorney-in-fact, WOLFE. WOLFE is the managing partner and attorney supervisor of the law firm representing CITIBANK in this action, FDLG, and was at the time that he executed the assignment of mortgage to his firm’s own client.

B. WOLFE also strategized with “independent” witnesses as to how to respond to deposition requests from Defendants and other homeowners.

CITIBANK also filed an affidavit of an alleged expert on the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees requested, Lisa Cullaro (the “Cullaro affidavit”). The affidavit was notarized by her sister-in-law and former FDLG employee, Erin Cullaro, who, according to newspaper reports, is currently under investigation by her own current employer, the Florida Attorney General, in connection with her notarization of such affidavits.
When defense counsel attempted to depose the Cullaros regarding their signatures on the affidavit, FDLG withdrew the affidavit.

Both CITIBANK (through FDLG) and the Cullaros (through their own attorney) filed motions for protective order to avoid the depositions on the grounds that the affidavit had been withdrawn.

Before arriving at this tactic of withdrawing the affidavits in this and other cases in which defense counsel sought the Cullaros’ depositions, the Cullaros conferred with FDLG attorneys—including WOLFE—as to how to avoid the depositions and whether FDLG would shoulder the burden of opposing them. In an email to FDLG (and WOLFE), Lisa Cullaro stated that she had no intention of filing her own motion for protective order and that she understood it would be FDLG which would “aggressively defend” against the depositions:

I have never indicated that I would, nor do I intend to, either: (1) directly handle any discovery matters in any FDLG case with opposing counsel, or (2) file any motion for protective order either on behalf of myself or Erin. To the contrary, and as Ron [WOLFE] and discussed last week, it was my understanding that FDLG wished to aggressively defend the taking of Erin's deposition as a notary, as well as my request to be paid as an expert witness.

…[I]t was my impression that FDLG was not going to permit this type of patently abusive discovery. To this end, Ron informed me that any fees associated with the defense of such discovery motions would ultimately be paid by the defendant and as such, it was his desire to pursue an aggressive course of action on these types of issues.

Lisa Cullaro went on to specifically address WOLFE in the email, asking him to “make a final decision on this iss

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Foreclosure Fraud on Sep 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 I
CE
L
EGAL
,
 
P.A.1015
 
N.
 
S
TATE
R
D
.
 
7,
 
S
UITE
D,
 
R
OYAL
P
ALM
B
EACH
,
 
FL
 
33411
 
 
T
ELEPHONE
(561)
 
729-0530
 
 
F
ACSIMILE
(866)
 
507-9888
 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURE TRUSTEEFOR BSARM 2007-2,Plaintiff,vs.GENERAL JURISDICTIONDIVISIONCASE NO.50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MBDivision: AWJOSEPH J BARBARO A/K/A JOSEPHBARBARO; THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OFJOSEPH J BARBARO A/K/A JOSEPHBARBARO; MAUREEN RUSSELL A/K/AMAUREEN A RUSSELL; THE UNKNOWNSPOUSE OF MAUREEN RUSSELL A/K/AMAUREEN A RUSSELL ANY AND ALLUNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY,THROUGH, UNDER, AND AGAINST THEHEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUALDEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWNTO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETHER SAIDUNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM ANINTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS,DEVISEES, GRANTEES, OR OTHERCLAIMANTS; BANK OF AMERICA;CHASE BANK USA, NATIONALASSOCIATION; TENANT #1, TENANT #2,TENANT #3, TENANT #4, TENANT #5,TENANT #6, TENANT #7, and TENANT #8the names being fictitious to account for partiesin possession,Defendants.___________________________________/ Defendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, move the Court,pursuant to Rule 1.380(a) Fla. R. Civ. P., for an order compelling RONALD WOLFE(“WOLFE”), a non-party witness, to answer deposition questions which he refused to answerdespite the absence of any privilege. Defendants also request an instruction that WOLFE’scounsel refrain from making speaking objections during the deposition. Additionally,
DEFENDANTS, JOSEPH J.BARBARO AND MAUREENRUSSELL’S, MOTION TOCOMPEL ANSWERS TODEPOSITION QUESTIONS
 
CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB2
I
CE
L
EGAL
,
 
P.A.1015
 
N.
 
S
TATE
R
D
.
 
7,
 
S
UITE
D,
 
R
OYAL
P
ALM
B
EACH
,
 
FL
 
33411
 
 
T
ELEPHONE
(561)
 
729-0530
 
 
F
ACSIMILE
(866)
 
507-9888
 Defendants request an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for having to bring this motion (andreconvene in Tampa) and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. In support of thismotion, Defendants state as follows:
I.
 
Introduction
This is a foreclosure action in which Plaintiff, CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURETRUSTEE FOR BSARM 2007-2, (“CITIBANK”), seeks to take the real property of theDefendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, in satisfaction of a debt.
A.
 
The assignment of mortgage was executed by Plaintiff counsel’s managingpartner, WOLFE.
This case was filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (“FDLG”) on behalf of CITIBANK alleging that CITIBANK is now the holder of a promissory note granted to WELLSFARGO BANK, N.A. (“WELLS FARGO”) “and/or is entitled to enforce the Mortgage Note andMortgage.” While CITIBANK originally argued that no assignment of mortgage was necessaryto foreclose,
1
it later filed an assignment of mortgage which had been executed and recordedafter the case was filed (but well before it told this Court that an assignment was not needed).
2
The Assignment purported to transfer both the mortgage and note from the originallender WELLS FARGO to CITIBANK and was executed by its self-described attorney-in-fact,WOLFE. WOLFE is the managing partner and attorney supervisor of the law firm representingCITIBANK in this action, FDLG, and was at the time that he executed the assignment of mortgage to his firm’s own client. 
3
 
1
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Maureen Russell’s Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 6.
2
Notice of Filing Original Note and Assignment of Mortgage, January 30, 2009.
3
Deposition of Ronald Wolfe taken August 26, 2010 (“Wolfe Depo., Exhibit A”), pp. 5-6;Deposition of RONALD RICHARD WOLFE in
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Seigman
, Case No.16-2008-CA-9724 (Duval County) taken January 27, 2010, p. 21 (excerpts at Exhibit D).
 
CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB3
I
CE
L
EGAL
,
 
P.A.1015
 
N.
 
S
TATE
R
D
.
 
7,
 
S
UITE
D,
 
R
OYAL
P
ALM
B
EACH
,
 
FL
 
33411
 
 
T
ELEPHONE
(561)
 
729-0530
 
 
F
ACSIMILE
(866)
 
507-9888
 
B.
 
WOLFE also strategized with “independent” witnesses as to how to respondto deposition requests from Defendants and other homeowners.
CITIBANK also filed an affidavit of an alleged expert on the reasonableness of theattorneys’ fees requested, Lisa Cullaro (the “Cullaro affidavit”). The affidavit was notarized byher sister-in-law and former FDLG employee, Erin Cullaro, who, according to newspaperreports, is currently under investigation by her own current employer, the Florida AttorneyGeneral, in connection with her notarization of such affidavits.
4
When defense counsel attempted to depose the Cullaros regarding their signatures on theaffidavit, FDLG withdrew the affidavit. 
5
Both CITIBANK (through FDLG) and the Cullaros(through their own attorney) filed motions for protective order to avoid the depositions on thegrounds that the affidavit had been withdrawn.
6
Before arriving at this tactic of withdrawing the affidavits in this and other cases in whichdefense counsel sought the Cullaros’ depositions, the Cullaros conferred with FDLG attorneys—including WOLFE—as to how to avoid the depositions and whether FDLG would shoulder theburden of opposing them. In an email to FDLG (and WOLFE), Lisa Cullaro stated that she hadno intention of filing her own motion for protective order and that she understood it would beFDLG which would “aggressively defend” against the depositions:I have never indicated that I would, nor do I intend to, either: (1) directly handleany discovery matters in any FDLG case with opposing counsel, or (2) file anymotion for protective order either on behalf of myself or Erin. To the contrary,
4
 
State AG investigates its own
. Shannon Behnken and Michael Sasso, Tampa Tribune, May 1,2010, http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/01/bz-state-ag-investigates-its-own/.
5
Defendants’ Notice of Deposition of Lisa Cullaro, dated December 17, 2009; Defendants’Notice of Deposition of Erin Cullaro, dated December 17, 2009; Notice of Withdrawal of Affidavit as to Reasonable Attorneys Fees, January 8, 2010.
6
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, January 8, 2010; the Cullaro Motion for Protective,January 19. 2010, in which the Cullaros are represented by FDLG’s current “expert” on thereasonableness of attorneys’ fees, John Cullaro.

Activity (20)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ren liked this
jjandbobscribd liked this
Joe Garrity liked this
Alpha1Consulting liked this
jjandbobscribd liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->