BU 6 Emergency Objections, Motion & Notice

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
as [purported] successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,
purported plaintiff(s),
vs. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,

purported defendants.
___________________________________________________________________/
EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO PURPORTED note IN DISPOSED ACTION

AND UN-NOTICED AND UNAUTHORIZED hearing IN FRAUD-ON-COURT CASE
BASED ON DEFENDANT STATUS OF DISPOSITION JUDGE & RECUSAL MOTION
MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE IN THE RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY note
AND TO CANCEL FRAUDULENT AND UN-NOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED hearing
[State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)]
NOTICE OF CONTESTED note, hearing, affidavit(s), assignment, and notice(s),

FRAUD & LOSS AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF PURPORTED note/instrument
IN DISPOSED AND FRIVOLOUS ACTION BY SEIZED & BANKRUPT BANK
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL, DEF. HUGH D. HAYES
1. On 09/02/10 Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had filed her “Motion for Recusal” and “Notice in
Support of Recusal”:
See Docket.
BANKUNITED WARRANT & SEIZURE (F.D.I.C.) – FRAUD ON THE COURT
2. Attached is a copy of the BankUnited Warrant, p. 1. Here, BankUnited, FSB, had no
“interest” and no right to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Furthermore, Camner Lipsitz, P.A.
does not represent purported BankUnited. Here, Serena Kay Paskewicz is not any counsel.
DISPOSITION JUDGE HUGH D. HAYES HAS BEEN A DEFENDANT
3. Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes has been a Defendant, e.g., U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A.
et al., and Prescott is a Plaintiff:
2
“plaintiff(s)” FAILED to surrender ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE
4. Here, “plaintiffs” had asserted unknown loss and/or destruction of the original note and
failed to surrender the original promissory note. See Complaint, page 3:
Because a promissory note is negotiable, it must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding
so that it does not remain in the stream of commerce. Here, “plaintiff(s)” seized & bankrupt
bank and BankUnited had alleged that the note was lost, destroyed or stolen, and that the
manner and time of loss/destruction were unknown. Therefore, the court is authorized by
statute to take the necessary actions to protect the purported defendant against loss that
might occur by reason of a claim by another party to enforce the purported instrument. See
3
section 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been entitled to
and demanded protection and removal of the alleged note from the stream of commerce.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY assignment - NO assignment chain
5. Here, after the self-reported and conceded loss and/or destruction of the pretended note,
most obviously, the non-existent note could not have possibly been assigned.
6. A seizure is not any contractual negotiation and/or assignment.
DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT
7. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all “bonds, notes, bills of
exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought” to its
complaint. Here, the unauthorized plaintiff(s) failed to attach a copy of the purported
promissory note. Therefore here, the non-meritorious claim had no base and was disposed.
“plaintiff(s)” HAD NO cause of action AND NO original note
8. The original document required to be filed with the court in a mortgage foreclosure
proceeding is the promissory note. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the
definition of section 673.1041(1), and either the original must be produced, or the lost
document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. See Mason v.
Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat'l Bank of Lake
City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 673 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.
5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of plaintiff defunct bank, re-establishment was legally &
factually impossible. Furthermore, seizure is not any transfer by delivery in the ordinary
course of business. Accordingly, the Disposition Judge disposed the frivolous action.
4
PRESCOTT RAISED GENUINE QUESTIONS AS TO THE note’s authenticity
9. The Evidence Code provides the rationale for the above conclusion and demand. Section
90.952, Florida Statutes (2002), indicates that original documents are required to prove the
contents of a writing, unless otherwise provided by statute. Here pursuant to Section 90.953,
Florida Statutes, Jennifer Franklin has been raising genuine questions as to the
authenticity of the purported (original) note and mortgage.
PRESCOTT HAD BEEN DEMANDING DUE PROCESS AND THE PURPORTED note
10. Here, the facially frivolous action was filed in July 2009 and disposed on 08/12/2010. As of
12/03/2010:
a. No court hearing had ever taken place;

b. No original note had been filed;
c. No notice of hearing had been served upon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott;
d. No original note had been filed. See Docket print outs.
Here, plaintiff(s) had no right to sue & standing, and were not any prevailing party.
OBJECTION TO FRAUDULENT hearing
11. Hereby, J. Franklin-Prescott again objects to the fraudulent, un-noticed, and unauthorized
hearing in this disposed action, which had lacked any base and sufficiency.
SEIZED BANK & BANKUNITED FAILED TO demonstrate ANY interest
12. BankUnited failed to demonstrate a qualified successor-in-interest relationship and knew
that bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had been lawfully seized.
Here, lawful seizure was not any negotiation and/or transfer by delivery in the ordinary
course of business.
OBJECTION TO ALLEGED assignment –INVALID assignment chain AFTER SEIZURE
5
13. Under Florida Statute 701.02, an assignment is only effective if it indicates that it is an
assignment of a mortgage and is recorded. Here, no assignment documents were recorded,
and no mortgage of Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s was assigned to “plaintiff” BankUnited. In
light of the foregoing, this Court had disposed this frivolous action on 08/12/2010,
“Disposition Judge” Hugh D. Hayes. See Docket.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION – BANKUNITED FRAUD & FRAUD ON THE COURT
14. Prescott again gives notice of publication of said objection(s), proof of fraud and fraud on
the court, and Prescott’s demands under the law. See, e.g., www.scribd.com.
DISPOSED COMPLAINT OF LOST / DESTROYED note / instrument
15. In this disposed & contested foreclosure fraud case, “plaintiff” seized and bankrupt bank
and/or BankUnited did not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument lawfully
seized. Here, “Plaintiff” lawfully seized and bankrupt bank and BankUnited had non-
meritoriously asserted a lost and/or destroyed note/instrument. See Complaint by fired
Counsel Camner Lipsitz (Alfred Camner, founder of bankrupt/seized BankUnited, FSB).
“plaintiff(s)” SEIZED BANK & BANKUNITED ARE NOT ANY “holder in due course”
16. Here purported “plaintiffs” are not any “holder(s) in due course”. Here in particular,
“plaintiff” bankrupt bank’s lawful seizure was not any business in due course. Here, there
were, e.g., bankruptcy, creditor’s sale, and/or similar proceedings, and “plaintiff(s)” did not
acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument lawfully seized. See Uniform
Commercial Code, Articles 3, 9; §§ 3-309; 3-302; 3-308.
SEIZED BANK/BANKUNITED ARE NOT ANY assignee(s) - NO ASSIGNMENT CHAIN
6
17. Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of “plaintiff” bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, no assignment
was contained in any document and recorded according to law. See Collier Clerk of Court’s
public records. See Ch. 701, Fla. Stat.; § 701.02 et al. Here, there was no “assignment chain”.
THIS COURT MAY NOT enter judgment in favor OF SEIZED BANKUNITED
18. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code:
“(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove
the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that
proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement
had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the
person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the
instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim
by another person to enforce the instrument …”
Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not protected against further fraudulent “claims” after
said lawful seizure and alleged unknown “loss and/or destruction” of the purported
note/instrument. See U.C.C., § 3-309:
CONTROVERTED authenticity of “seized” bank’s claims AND note ON THE RECORD
19. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “plaintiffs’” fraudulent claims of any
“payment obligation” and negotiable instrument and/or note.
7
“plaintiffs” HAD NO right to sue / foreclose AT TIME OF FILING
20. A person suing to foreclose must have the right to foreclose and reestablish when he files the
lawsuit. Here at the time of filing, “plaintiffs” had admittedly lost and/or destroyed any
right to foreclose. Here, “plaintiffs” knew that they could not possibly establish any
negotiable instrument.
21. Any post-lawsuit assignments establish that the lender did not own at time of suit. See State
Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla.4th DCA 2003); Nat. Loan Invest. v. Joymar Ass.,
767 So.2d 549 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000); Mason v. Rubin, 727 So.2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF enforcement of lost/destroyed note/instrument
22. A person not in possession of an instrument is not entitled to enforce the instrument if the
loss and/or destruction was the result of a lawful seizure, § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.,
Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument. Here “plaintiff” bankrupt bank was
lawfully seized and knew that it could not possibly enforce the admittedly lost / destroyed
note and/or instrument.
NO NOTICE OF ANY transfer OF LOST / DESTROYED note and/or instrument
23. Here, the “plaintiff” bankrupt and lawfully seized bank did not give any notice of any
transfer of the lost and/or destroyed note / instrument. Here, the F.D.I.C. had lawfully
seized bankrupt BankUnited, FSB.
RECORD LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY original note and/or instrument
24. Here pursuant to plaintiff(s)’ own complaint and assertions of record, the purported note
and/or instrument was lost/destroyed in an unknown manner and at an unknown time.
Therefore, “plaintiff(s)” could not have possibly had any cause of action, interest, standing,
and right to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Accordingly, this Case had been disposed.
8
WHAT IS GOING ON? - DISPOSITION OF FRIVOLOUS action IN AUGUST 2010
25. “Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes” had disposed the facially non-meritorious action on
08/12/2010. See docket.
SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB & LOSS/DESTRUCTION OF note
26. Here, purported “plaintiff(s)” and BankUnited, FSB, knew that said defunct bank had been
lawfully seized (F.D.I.C.) and could not have possibly (re) established any admittedly lost
and/or destroyed note under Florida law. See State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790
(Fla. 4 Dist. 2003); and Federal and F.D.I.C. BankUnited seizure reports on file.
LOSS OF PURPORTED note WAS RESULT OF LAWFUL SEIZURE
27. Here, the “plaintiff(s)” had conceded “unknown” loss and/or destruction of the purported
“note”, which “was the result of a lawful seizure” (F.D.I.C.), Section 673.3091, Florida
Statutes. See also § 90.953, Fla. Stat. Therefore, “plaintiff” knew that it could not have
possibly met the requirements to (re) establish a lost/destroyed/stolen note under the law.
BANKRUPT BANKUNITED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY action & attorney’s fees
28. Here, the “plaintiff(s)” lawfully seized and bankrupt bank failed to, e.g.:
a. present the purported original promissory note; and/or

b. give any satisfactory explanation for its admitted failure to do so.
Here, no exceptions applied or could have possibly applied, because the unauthorized
plaintiff could not satisfy the requirements of § 673.3091(1)(b). Therefore, BankUnited had
No right to sue; and

No right to collect any attorney’s fees.
SEIZED BANK DID NOT know time & manner of LOSS/DESTRUCTION
9
29. Because here admittedly, lawfully seized BankUnited did not even know WHO had
lost/destroyed the purported note WHEN and HOW, no satisfactory explanation was ever
given or could have possibly been given. Therefore here, said “lawfully seized” bankrupt
Bank was not entitled to any action, attorney’s fees, and “hearing”.
BANKUNITED BANKRUPTCY & LAWFUL SEIZURE PROHIBIT ANY hearing
30. Here, “plaintiff” had no cause of action. BankUnited Financial had filed for protection under
Chapter 11 of the Federal bankruptcy code, listing total assets of $37.7 million and total
debts of $559.7 million. Here, shareholders and other stakeholders were wiped out.
SEIZED BANKUNITED HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE PRESCOTT
31. Here in the absence of any note and after said bank seizure, BankUnited had no right to sue
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and demand a hearing as to fraudulent attorney’s fees.
BANKUNITED COULD NOT (re) establish ANY LOST/DESTROYED NOTE
32. Here concededly, BankUnited could not (re)establish any lost/destroyed note. See
Complaint and case law on file. Here expressly, BankUnited had stated that it could not
possibly (re) establish any note, because it knew that it could not determine:
a. WHEN the purported note was lost and/or destroyed ?
b. WHO had lost/destroyed the purported note ?
Furthermore, if the holder of an instrument destroys it, he thereby forgives and discharges
any debt and may not maintain an action. See District of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 US 655,
32 L ed 1041, 9 S Ct 694.
10
FRIVOLOUS ACTION IN THE ADMITTED ABSENCE OF ANY NOTE
33. Therefore here under Florida law, “plaintiff(s)’” action was facially frivolous. Because
seized BankUnited knew that it could not possibly (re) establish the lost/destroyed note/
instrument, the bankrupt bank:
a. Had no right to sue J. Franklin-Prescott; no standing; and no cause of action;

b. Could not possibly satisfy the condition precedent to sue Prescott;
c. Had no right to said hearing and attorney’s fees. See case law on file.
BANKUNITED FAILED TO PREVAIL IN DISPOSED & FRIVOLOUS action
34. In the admitted absence of any note, BankUnited was not entitled to any attorney’s fees and
hearing in this disposed fraudulent action.
BANKUNITED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES
35. Here, the electronic docket showed, e.g.:
a. Fraudulently claimed “attorney’s fees”;
b. Serena Kay Paskewicz’, Esq., lack of any authority to represent seized BankUnited, FSB.
NO “EVENT”/HEARING PURSUANT TO CLERK’S E-DOCKET
36. Here on 12/02/2010, Prescott had reviewed the Clerk’s electronic docket while abroad and
on her way to Australasia. Here, the Clerk’s electronic docket did not show any “event”.
See attached docket print out.
“Erin M. Rose, Esq.” IS NOT ANY “co-counsel” – PASKEWICZ, ESQ. UNAUTHORIZED
37. Here after the lawful seizure of bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, “Erin M. Rose, Esq.” is not any
“co-counsel”. Absent any possibility to establish the lost note, S. Kay Paskewicz, Esq. and
Camner Lipsitz (BankUnited founder Alfred Camner) were fired and no longer authorized to
appear on behalf of BankUnited and not entitled to any attorney’s fees.
11
NO record address
38. Here, the electronic docket does not show any “address”, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was
not noticed and/or served any
a. “notice of hearing”;
b. “affidavit”; and “notice of filing”. No address to send anything to existed. See attachment.
ANY service and hearing WAS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE
39. In the record absence of any address and possibility to (re) establish any note, Prescott
could not have possibly been “served” and obligated to pay any “attorney’s fees”.
PRESCOTT’S ABSENCE & UNAVAILABILITY
40. J. Franklin-Prescott is abroad, on her way to Australasia, and could not possibly appear.
Prescott had her recent pleadings delivered to the Clerk, Disposition Judge, and parties. See
attached Certificates and Records. See travel records.
WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands
1. An Order compelling “plaintiff” seized and bankrupt bank and BankUnited to show cause
WHY their complaint was not both frivolous and insufficient;
2. An Order recusing Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes, because he has been a Defendant and
J. F. Prescott a Plaintiff in Federal Court(s);
3. An Order canceling said unauthorized hearing in this frivolous, fraudulent, and hence
disposed action;
12
4. An Order quieting title in the record absence of any original note/instrument & transfer and
after lawful seizure of said bankrupt bank;
5. An Order taking judicial notice that purported “plaintiff” and seized bank in this disposed
& frivolous action could not have possibly been holder(s) in due course and assignee(s);
6. An Order taking judicial notice of said
a. Unknown loss and/or destruction of purported note / instrument;

b. Unknown transfer & assignment, and invalid assignment chain;
c. 08/12/2010 disposition by Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes;
d. Section 673.3091, Fla. Stat.;
e. Section 90.953, Fla. Stat.;
f. Said case law and State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003).
7. An Order restraining “plaintiff(s)” from extorting “attorney’s fees” in the absence of any
cause of action and interest and because of the absolute impossibility to establish any note;
8. An Order declaring Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s record title to the subject property free and
clear, because of said conceded and absolute impossibility to establish any instrument/note.
/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim
ATTACHMENTS (12/02/2010)
• Docket as of 12/02/2010
• “Events” pursuant to Docket
• § 673.3091, Fla. Stat., Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.
• State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)
• Certificates of Deliveries upon Clerk, Disposition Judge, Albertelli Law
By Certified Facsimile and Delivery to Clerk of Court, Dwight E. Brock & Disposition Judge.
By Rush Messenger Service West, Inc., 12/03/2010.
13
14
12/1/2010 Public Inquiry
Find it here...
Site Search
Board Minutes & Records

Civil Evictions
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
Civil Small Claims
Criminal
Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List
Marriage License
Recording
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Traffic
Turbo Court
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER Work A pplication
Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A
Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPO SED Reopened:
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 11/12/2010 A ppealed:
Parties Dockets Events Financials
Docket Type Judge Court Date Court Time

MO TIO N HEAR ING PER EZ-BENITO A, MAGISTR ATE 09/02/2010 11:30
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us

This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail
addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public
re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
12/3/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
Loc ation: Home > Statutes & Constitution > View Statutes
December 03, 2010 Print This Page

Home Select Year: 2010 Go
Session
Committees
Senators The 2010 Florida Statutes
Information Center
Title XXXIX Chapter 673 View Entire
Statutes & Constitution
COMMERCIAL UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: NEGOTIABLE Chapter
Video Broadcasts RELATIONS INSTRUMENTS
673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.—
(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
Session: 2011 (a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when
loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a
Bill #: Go
person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was
Session: 2011 destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown
person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
Chamber: Senate
(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of
the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081
Search
applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may
not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person
required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a
Year: 2010
claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any
reasonable means.
Search
History .—s. 2, ch. 92-82; s. 1, ch. 2004-3.
Enter Your Zip+4 Code:
Go
Site Map Session: Bills · Calendars · Journals · Citator · Search · Appropriations · Redistricting · Bill Information
Reports
Committees: Committee Pages · Committee Publications
Senators: · Member Pages · District Information · Find Your Legislators
Information Center: Introduction · About the Legislature · Publications · Glossary · Frequently Asked Questions
· Employment · Links
Statutes & Constitution: Introduction · View Statutes · Search Statutes · Constitution · Laws of Florida · Order
V ideo Broadc asts
Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes.
Copyright © 2000-2010 State of Florida. Privacy Statement. Contact Us.
www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?… 1/1
12/3/2010 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST CO…
LexisNexis Global LexisNexis Sites Please Select Go
E-mail this Page Print this Page
Sign On Create an Account Account Details Customer Support
December 03, 2010 Site Search: Search All Content Search »
Home
Case Law Full Display RSS Feed
Exclusive Bar Offers
Emerging Issues Analysis
Practice Area Resources
Upcoming Conferences Compose a New Search
Podcasts
2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11066,*;851 So. 2d 790;
Blogs
51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 191;28 Fla. L. Weekly D 1694
Top Blogs
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE FOR HOLDERS OF BEAR
Forums
STEARNS MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
News Headlines
SERIES 1993-12, Appellant, v. HARTLEY LORD, BOCA GROVE PLANTATION PROPERTY
Martindale.com OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and BOCA GROVE GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB, INC.,
Research Value Packages Appellees.
Forms CASE NO. 4D02-4051

Free Case Law Shepardize this citation for
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT
$15.00
Legal Web Site Directory
851 So. 2d 790; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11066; 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 191; 28 Fla. Get the fully-featured version
LexisNexis® by Credit Card of this case for $9.00
L. Weekly D 1694
Tell me more!
July 23, 2003, Opinion Filed View a comparison of these
enhanced services
PRIOR HISTORY:
[*1] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County;
Edward Fine and John Wessel, Judges; L.T. Case No.CL 99-006652 AW.
DISPOSITION:
Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Forrest G. McSurdy of Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., Plantation, for Your State's Research
appellant. Materials: One Day - $47-$56
Exclusive for Bar Members -
State Case Law and Codes:
Harold B. Haimowitz, Boca Raton, for Appellee-Hartley Lord. One Day - $29-$42
JUDGES: STONE, J. GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. Exclusive for Bar Members -
National State and Federal
OPINION BY: STONE Research Materials: One Day -
$151
OPINION
STONE, J.
The issue on appeal is whether a mortgagee by assignment, State Street Bank, may pursue a
mortgage foreclosure in the absence of proof that either the mortgagee, or its assignor, ever
had possession of the missing promissory note. A summary judgment was entered in favor of
the mortgagor, Hartley Lord. We affirm.
State Street sought to establish the promissory note and mortgage under section 71.011,
lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw… 1/3
Find it here...
Site Search
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER

Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A
Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPO SED Reopened:
Next Court Date: 12/06/2010 Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 11/12/2010 A ppealed:
Parties Dockets Events Financials
1 of 1 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 100
Date Text All Entries

07/09/2009 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (FILING)
07/09/2009 C IVIL C O VER SHEET
07/09/2009 C O MPLAINT
07/09/2009 NO TIC E O F LIS PENDENS
07/09/2009 PAID $10.00 PER ISSUANC E O F SUMMO NS $40.00
07/09/2009 R EAL PR O PER TY VALUATIO N SHEET
07/10/2009 SUMMO NS ISSUED
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT/ W ALTER P R ESC O TT/ JO HN DO E/ MAR Y DO E/
PLAC ED IN SO UTH FLO R IDA PR O C ESS SER VER S BIN
09/03/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS MAR Y DO E
10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F LO ST O R IGINAL SUMMO NS JO HN DO E
10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JO HN DO E
12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS W ALTER PR ESC O TT
12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
02/22/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAR ANC E
AS C O -CO UNSEL BY ER IN M R O SE Q UINN O N BEHALF O F PLT
04/06/2010 ALIAS SUMMO NS ISSUED
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/W ALTER PR ESC O TT/P LAC ED IN PR O VEST LLC BIN
05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS W ALTER PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E
AS TO ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N PAR TIES C LAIMING
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F DILIGENT SEAR C H AS TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F DILIGENT SEAR C H AS TO JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-P R ESC O TT
06/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
06/17/2010 LETTER TO GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
06/17/2010 NO TIC E O F AC TIO N
TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT & ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N
PAR TIES C LAIMING
06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F MAILING MAILED 6/18/10
06/18/2010 C O NFIR MATIO N O F EMAIL R EC EIVED BY GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F PUBLIC ATIO N
NO TIC E O F AC TIO N TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/ANSW ER
W ITHIN 30 DAYS O F FIRST PUBLIC ATIO N 6/25/10
07/09/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT
07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E MO TIO N TO DISMISS
07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT /PR O SE
07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO ENJO IN / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT -P RO SE
07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
O F PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D & MO TIO N TO DISMISS
BY DEFENDANT
07/23/2010 MO TIO N FO R C LAR IFIC ATIO N O F C O UNSEL
07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS
07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO C LAR IFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D FR AUD
08/12/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS PR O SE JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT
08/12/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED
08/12/2010 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (DISPO SITIO N)
08/17/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED
08/17/2010 NO TIC E
O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED INC IDENT R EPO R T APP AR ENT FALSIFIC ATIO NS NO TIC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED DO C KET ALTER ATIO NS EVIDENC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT NO N SER VIC E NO TIC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E
O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED EMER GENC Y DEMAND TO EXTINGUISH FR AUDULENT
AC TIO N
08/18/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL
FR O M ALTER ATIO N O F REC O R D NO O R DER ATTAC HED
NO FEES ENC LO SED
08/20/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLEER K TO DC A W /NO TIC E O F AP PEAL
NO FEE INC LUDED
08/20/2010 BILLED APP EAL FILING FEE $150.00
08/26/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING 9/2/10 @ 11:30 MO TIO NS TO DISMISS & ENJO IN
08/30/2010 NO TIC E O F R ELEASE O F LIS PENDENS FILED BY DEFENDANT
08/30/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M
08/31/2010 NO TIC E
O F R ELEASE & DISC HAR GE O F FRAUDULENT LIS PENDENS BY DEFENENDANT
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
08/31/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M BY DEFENDANT
09/01/2010 DEFENDANT NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N O F HEAR ING 9/2/10 FILED BY DEFENDANT
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F R EC O R DATIO N O F RELEASE O F LIS PENDENS
O F NO TIC E O F DISPO SITIO N AND NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED
09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
09/02/2010 R EC EIP T FR O M DC A
AC KNO W LEDGMENT O F NEW C ASE FILED W /DC A 8/18/10 2D10-4158
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL W ITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL FO R W AR D FILING FEE O R O R DER O F INSO LVENC Y W ITTHIN
40 DAYS
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL SHO W C AUSE W ITHIN 15 DAYS
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E
09/02/2010 MO TIO N FO R R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E IN SUPPO R T O F HUGH HAYES R EC USAL
09/07/2010 O R IGINAL SENATE STAFF R EC O R D EVIDENC E IN SUPPO R T O F SANC TIO NS
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUSIDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F AUTO MATIC DISSO LUTIO N O F LIS PENDENS
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS
09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED
NO TIC E O F APP EAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER
10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A
THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS
C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us

This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail
addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public
re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.
12/4/2010 Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
§ 3-306. CLAIMS TO AN INSTRUMENT.
A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is
subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds,
including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A
person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.
§ 3-307. NOTICE OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.

(a) In this section:
(1) "Fiduciary" means an agent, trustee, partner, corporate officer or director, or other
representative owing a fiduciary duty with respect to an instrument.
(2) "Represented person" means the principal, beneficiary, partnership, corporation, or

other person to whom the duty stated in paragraph (1) is owed.
(b) If (i) an instrument is taken from a fiduciary for payment or collection or for value, (ii) the
taker has knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, and (iii) the represented person
makes a claim to the instrument or its proceeds on the basis that the transaction of the
fiduciary is a breach of fiduciary duty, the following rules apply:
(1) Notice of breach of fiduciary duty by the fiduciary is notice of the claim of the
represented person.
(2) In the case of an instrument payable to the represented person or the fiduciary as
such, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i) taken in
payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of the
fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit of
the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as
such, or an account of the represented person.
(3) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, and made
payable to the fiduciary personally, the taker does not have notice of the breach of
fiduciary duty unless the taker knows of the breach of fiduciary duty.
(4) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, to the
taker as payee, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i)
taken in payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of
the fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit
of the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as
such, or an account of the represented person.
§ 3-308. PROOF OF SIGNATURES AND STATUS AS HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

(a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make,
each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If
the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on
the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized
unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or
incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. If an action to
enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person
who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument, the plaintiff has the burden of
establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under
Section 3-402(a).
(b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection
(a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves
entitlement to enforce the instrument under Section 3-301, unless the defendant proves a
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm 15/33
unless the purchaser is a converter under subsection (c) or has notice or knowledge of
breach of fiduciary duty as stated in subsection (d).
(f) In an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor has a
defense if payment would violate an indorsement to which this section applies and the
payment is not permitted by this section.
§ 3-207. REACQUISITION.
Reacquisition of an instrument occurs if it is transferred to a former holder, by negotiation or
otherwise. A former holder who reacquires the instrument may cancel indorsements made
after the reacquirer first became a holder of the instrument. If the cancellation causes the
instrument to be payable to the reacquirer or to bearer, the reacquirer may negotiate the
instrument. An indorser whose indorsement is canceled is discharged, and the discharge is
effective against any subsequent holder.
PART 3. ENFORCEMENT OF INSTRUMENTS [Table of Contents]

§ 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a
nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not
in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section
3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though
the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

(a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), "holder in due course" means the
holder of an instrument if:
(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent
evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into
question its authenticity; and
(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that
the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with
respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without
notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v)
without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without
notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
(b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not
notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who
became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a
document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to
the instrument.
(c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due
course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i)
by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor's sale or similar
proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of
the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.
(d) If, under Section 3-303(a)(1), the promise of performance that is the consideration for
an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due
course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument
equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised
defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to
payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff
proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the
defense or claim.
§ 3-309. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT.

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument
(A) was entitled to enforce it the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was
entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure;
and
(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the
instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful
possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to
service of process.
(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the
terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is
made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced
the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking
enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately
protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce
the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
§ 3-310. EFFECT OF INSTRUMENT ON OBLIGATION FOR WHICH TAKEN.

(a) Unless otherwise agreed, if a certified check, cashier's check, or teller's check is taken
for an obligation, the obligation is discharged to the same extent discharge would result if an
amount of money equal to the amount of the instrument were taken in payment of the
obligation. Discharge of the obligation does not affect any liability that the obligor may have
as an indorser of the instrument.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed and except as provided in subsection (a), if a note or an
uncertified check is taken for an obligation, the obligation is suspended to the same extent
the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the
instrument were taken, and the following rules apply:
(1) In the case of an uncertified check, suspension of the obligation continues until
dishonor of the check or until it is paid or certified. Payment or certification of the check
results in discharge of the obligation to the extent of the amount of the check.
(2) In the case of a note, suspension of the obligation continues until dishonor of the note
or until it is paid. Payment of the note results in discharge of the obligation to the extent
of the payment.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), if the check or note is dishonored and the obligee
of the obligation for which the instrument was taken is the person entitled to enforce the
instrument, the obligee may enforce either the instrument or the obligation. In the case of
an instrument of a third person which is negotiated to the obligee by the obligor, discharge
of the obligor on the instrument also discharges the obligation.
Search Law School Search Cornell
LII / Legal Information Institute

UCC: uniform commercial code
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS [Table of

Contents]
§ 3-101. SHORT TITLE.
This Article may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code -- Negotiable Instruments.
§ 3-102. SUBJECT MATTER.

(a) This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment
orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8.
(b) If there is conflict between this Article and Article 4 or 9, Articles 4 and 9 govern.
(c) Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating
circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provision of this Article to
the extent of the inconsistency.
§ 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In this Article:
(1) "Acceptor" means a drawee who has accepted a draft.
(2) "Consumer account" means an account established by an individual primarily for

personal, family, or household purposes.
(3) "Consumer transaction" means a transaction in which an individual incurs an obligation

primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
(4) "Drawee" means a person ordered in a draft to make payment.
(5) "Drawer" means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering
payment.

Session
Committees
Information Center
Title XL Chapter 701 View Entire
REAL AND PERSONAL ASSIGNMENT AND CANCELLATION OF Chapter
Video Broadcasts PROPERTY MORTGAGES
CHAPTER 701
ASSIGNMENT AND CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGES
Session: 2011
701.01 Assignment.
Bill #: Go 701.02 Assignment not effectual against creditors unless recorded and indicated in title of
document; applicability.
701.03 Cancellation.
Session: 2011 701.04 Cancellation of mortgages, liens, and judgments.
701.041 Title insurer; mortgage release certificate.
Chamber: Senate 701.06 Certain cancellations and satisfactions of mortgages validated.
Search
Year: 2010
Search
Go
Reports
Committees: Committee Pages · Committee Publications
Senators: · Member Pages · District Information · Find Your Legislators
Information Center: Introduction · About the Legislature · Publications · Glossary · Frequently Asked Questions
· Employment · Links
Statutes & Constitution: Introduction · View Statutes · Search Statutes · Constitution · Laws of Florida · Order
V ideo Broadc asts
Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes.
Copyright © 2000-2010 State of Florida. Privacy Statement. Contact Us.
www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cf… 1/1

Session
Committees
Information Center
Title XL Chapter 701 View Entire
REAL AND PERSONAL ASSIGNMENT AND CANCELLATION OF Chapter
Video Broadcasts PROPERTY MORTGAGES
701.02 Assignment not effectual against creditors unless recorded and indicated in title of
document; applicability.—
Session: 2011 (1) An assignment of a mortgage upon real property or of any interest therein, is not good or
effectual in law or equity, against creditors or subsequent purchasers, for a valuable consideration,
Bill #: Go
and without notice, unless the assignment is contained in a document that, in its title, indicates an
assignment of mortgage and is recorded according to law.
(2) This section also applies to assignments of mortgages resulting from transfers of all or any
Session: 2011 part or parts of the debt, note or notes secured by mortgage, and none of same is effectual in law or
in equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice,
Chamber: Senate
unless a duly executed assignment be recorded according to law.
(3) Any assignment of a mortgage, duly executed and recorded according to law, purporting to
Search
assign the principal of the mortgage debt or the unpaid balance of such principal, shall, as against
subsequent purchasers and creditors for value and without notice, be held and deemed to assign any
and all accrued and unpaid interest secured by such mortgage, unless such interest is specifically and
Year: 2010
affirmatively reserved in such an assignment by the assignor, and a reservation of such interest or
any part thereof may not be implied.
Search
(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2), and (3) governing the assignment of mortgages,
chapters 670-680 of the Uniform Commercial Code of this state govern the attachment and perfection
of a security interest in a mortgage upon real property and in a promissory note or other right to
payment or performance secured by that mortgage. The assignment of such a mortgage need not be
Go recorded under this section for purposes of attachment or perfection of a security interest in the
mortgage under the Uniform Commercial Code.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), a creditor or subsequent purchaser of real property or any
interest therein, for valuable consideration and without notice, is entitled to rely on a full or partial
release, discharge, consent, joinder, subordination, satisfaction, or assignment of a mortgage upon
such property made by the mortgagee of record, without regard to the filing of any Uniform
Commercial Code financing statement that purports to perfect a security interest in the mortgage or
in a promissory note or other right to payment or performance secured by the mortgage, and the
filing of any such financing statement does not constitute notice for the purposes of this section. For
the purposes of this subsection, the term “mortgagee of record” means the person named as the
mortgagee in the recorded mortgage or, if an assignment of the mortgage has been recorded in
accordance with this section, the term “mortgagee of record” means the assignee named in the
recorded assignment.
History .—s. 1, ch. 6909, 1915; RGS 3841; CGL 5744; s. 13, ch. 20954, 1941; s. 2, ch. 89-41; s. 20, ch. 2005-241.
Reports
www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cf… 1/2
12/4/2010 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
From: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com>
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <bhtjw@aol.com>
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully
Date: Sat, Dec 4, 2010 3:12 pm
Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott:
Your fax to Dwight E. Brock at +1 (239) 252-8020 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/4/2010 9:11:41 PM, and contained 29 page(s).
Thank you for choosing MyFax,

The MyFax Team
http://www.myfax.com
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
Von: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com>

An: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <naplesnano@aol.com>
Thema: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully
Datum: Sa., 4. Dez. 2010, 9:22

The MyFax Team
12/3/2010 Send a Fax for Free - Try e-Faxing wit…
Send a fax for FREE!
Name Dwight E. Brock Name Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
Company Clerk of Court, Naples, FL, U Company Purported "defendant", 09-60
Country United States (+1) Email* bhtjw@aol.com

Enter a v alid email address, as y ou will be
Fax Number* +1 (239) 252-8020 required to conf irm y our f ax submission.
Select a file to fax (.doc, .pdf, etc.) Enter text message:
Choose File MOTIONS &…16-CA.pdf Certified Facsimile and Delivery to Clerk of

Court, Dwight E. Brock, and
Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes;
Case # 112009CA0060160001XX;
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT,
Tell your friends about FREE faxing.

Enter their email addresses below:
By clicking you are agreeing to the

terms and conditions of using this service.
MyFax Free lets you send a fax for free to over 40 countries. This free faxing service is provided by Protus IP Solutions.
* Please note that existing MyFax® customers cannot use this free Service.
© 2010 Protus IP Solutions. All rights reserved. | FAQ | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | www.myfax.com
http://www.myfax.com/free/ 1/1

Date: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 9:32 am

The MyFax Team
CERTIFIED INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY
Hon. Hugh D. Hayes
“Disposition Judge”; Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Style: [SEIZED] BANKUNITED vs. JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
T: 239.252.8116
Fax: 239.774.9654 [www.MYFAX.COM]
E-Mail: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org
ID Number: 160093
Collier County Government Complex
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112-4961
United States
Phone: 239.252.8116
Fax: 239.774.9654
E-Mail: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org
Certificate of International Delivery: www.scribd.com
RE: MOTIONS, NOTICE, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
BY RUSH MESSENGER SERVICE
F: 001-239-498-6727; D., AMEXPRESS

12/3/2010 Send a Fax for Free - Try e-Faxing wit…
Send a fax for FREE!
Name HUGH D. HAYES, HON. JU Name Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
Company COLLIER COUNTY CIRCUIT Company Purported "defendant", 09-6
Country United States (+1) Email* bhtjw@aol.com

Enter a v alid email address, as y ou will be
Fax Number* +1 (239) 774-9654 required to conf irm y our f ax submission.
Select a file to fax (.doc, .pdf, etc.) Enter text message:
Choose File DELIVERY (…16-CA.pdf Judicial Assistant to

Hon. HUGH D. HAYES (Jan)
COLLIER COUNTY, FL, U.S.A.
CIRCUIT COURT
INTERNATIONAL FAX: 239.774.9654
Tell your friends about FREE faxing.

Enter their email addresses below:
By clicking you are agreeing to the

terms and conditions of using this service.
MyFax Free lets you send a fax for free to over 40 countries. This free faxing service is provided by Protus IP Solutions.
* Please note that existing MyFax® customers cannot use this free Service.
© 2010 Protus IP Solutions. All rights reserved. | FAQ | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | www.myfax.com
http://www.myfax.com/free/ 1/1

Date: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:36 am
Your fax to HUGH D. HAYES, HON. JUDGE at +1 (239) 774-9654 has been successfully sent:

The MyFax Team
12/3/2010 RE: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Frankli…
Von: Simone Leite <simone@albertellilaw.com>

An: 'jrbu@aol.com' <jrbu@aol.com>; Andrew Fivecoat <afivecoat@albertellilaw.com>; Nicole Reed
<nreed@albertellilaw.com>; TerserBaron <tbaron@albertellilaw.com>; Jonathan Sawyer
<jsawyer@albertellilaw.com>; Jim Albertelli <jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com>; erose@albertellilaw.com
<erose@albertellilaw.com>
Thema: RE: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Datum: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 13:32
Andy,
Did you see this…?
Simone
From: jrbu@aol.com [mailto:jrbu@aol.com]

Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Andrew Fivecoat; Simone Leite; Nicole Reed; Terser Baron; Jonathan Sawyer; Jim Albertelli;
erose@albertellilaw.com
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: bhtjw@aol.com
An: Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com;
Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com; hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; BHTJW@aol.com
Verschickt: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 12:56
Thema: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
-----Original Message-----
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: BHTJW@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50 am
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA

An: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <jrbu@aol.com>
Datum: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 14:44
Your fax to ALBERTELLI LAW FIRM at +1 (904) 356-4754 has been successfully sent:

The MyFax Team
PAID DELIVERY ORDER, 12/03/2010
TO:
RUSH MESSENGER SERVICE WEST, INC.
F: 001-239-498-6727; D.
[AMEXPRESS]
FROM:
Jennifer Franklin Prescott
bhtjw@aol.com
DELIVERY TO COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, CIVIL, 3rd Floor

Naples Courthouse, Annex
CLERK of Collier County Court, 3rd FLOOR, CIVIL

Collier County Government Complex
NAPLES COURTHOUSE
Naples, Florida 34112
United States
After delivery, please e-mail first page of document stamped by Clerk to:
bhtjw@aol.com
MOTION TO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED hearing IN DISPOSED ACTION; and
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF § 673.3091, CH. 90, FLA. STAT, AND
State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)
NOTICE OF NO hearing notification, service, AND “event” PURSUANT TO E-DOCKET

CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE
INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED MAIL

INTERNATIONAL RETURN RECEIPT
# RK680885168DE US 82061648 1274 041210 1203
Clerk of Court
Dwight E. Brock
Collier County Courthouse
Naples, Florida 34112
United States
Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes;

Case # 112009CA0060160001XX;
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
BANKUNITED FORECLOSURE FRAUD


An: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <naplesnano@aol.com>
Datum: Sa., 4. Dez. 2010, 9:22

The MyFax Team

BU 6 Emergency Objections, Motion &amp; Notice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BU 6 Emergency Objections, Motion &amp; Notice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

vs. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA

JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,

EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO PURPORTED note IN DISPOSED ACTION

NOTICE OF CONTESTED note, hearing, affidavit(s), assignment, and notice(s),

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL, DEF. HUGH D. HAYES

2. Attached is a copy of the BankUnited Warrant, p. 1. Here, BankUnited, FSB, had no

DISPOSITION JUDGE HUGH D. HAYES HAS BEEN A DEFENDANT

et al., and Prescott is a Plaintiff:

failed to surrender the original promissory note. See Complaint, page 3:

Because a promissory note is negotiable, it must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding

IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY assignment - NO assignment chain

6. A seizure is not any contractual negotiation and/or assignment.

DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT

“plaintiff(s)” HAD NO cause of action AND NO original note

authenticity of the purported (original) note and mortgage.

a. No court hearing had ever taken place;

OBJECTION TO FRAUDULENT hearing

SEIZED BANK & BANKUNITED FAILED TO demonstrate ANY interest

12. BankUnited failed to demonstrate a qualified successor-in-interest relationship and knew

that bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had been lawfully seized.

OBJECTION TO ALLEGED assignment –INVALID assignment chain AFTER SEIZURE

assignment of a mortgage and is recorded. Here, no assignment documents were recorded,

and no mortgage of Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s was assigned to “plaintiff” BankUnited. In

“Disposition Judge” Hugh D. Hayes. See Docket.

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION – BANKUNITED FRAUD & FRAUD ON THE COURT

DISPOSED COMPLAINT OF LOST / DESTROYED note / instrument

meritoriously asserted a lost and/or destroyed note/instrument. See Complaint by fired

Counsel Camner Lipsitz (Alfred Camner, founder of bankrupt/seized BankUnited, FSB).

Commercial Code, Articles 3, 9; §§ 3-309; 3-302; 3-308.

SEIZED BANK/BANKUNITED ARE NOT ANY assignee(s) - NO ASSIGNMENT CHAIN

THIS COURT MAY NOT enter judgment in favor OF SEIZED BANKUNITED

18. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code:

note/instrument. See U.C.C., § 3-309:

CONTROVERTED authenticity of “seized” bank’s claims AND note ON THE RECORD

“payment obligation” and negotiable instrument and/or note.

ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF enforcement of lost/destroyed note/instrument

note and/or instrument.

NO NOTICE OF ANY transfer OF LOST / DESTROYED note and/or instrument

seized bankrupt BankUnited, FSB.

RECORD LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY original note and/or instrument

and/or instrument was lost/destroyed in an unknown manner and at an unknown time.

08/12/2010. See docket.

SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB & LOSS/DESTRUCTION OF note

LOSS OF PURPORTED note WAS RESULT OF LAWFUL SEIZURE

a. present the purported original promissory note; and/or

No right to sue; and

BANKUNITED BANKRUPTCY & LAWFUL SEIZURE PROHIBIT ANY hearing

SEIZED BANKUNITED HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE PRESCOTT

Jennifer Franklin Prescott and demand a hearing as to fraudulent attorney’s fees.

BANKUNITED COULD NOT (re) establish ANY LOST/DESTROYED NOTE

a. WHEN the purported note was lost and/or destroyed ?

b. WHO had lost/destroyed the purported note ?

instrument, the bankrupt bank:

a. Had no right to sue J. Franklin-Prescott; no standing; and no cause of action;

hearing in this disposed fraudulent action.

BANKUNITED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES

35. Here, the electronic docket showed, e.g.:

a. Fraudulently claimed “attorney’s fees”;

NO “EVENT”/HEARING PURSUANT TO CLERK’S E-DOCKET

See attached docket print out.

“Erin M. Rose, Esq.” IS NOT ANY “co-counsel” – PASKEWICZ, ESQ. UNAUTHORIZED

appear on behalf of BankUnited and not entitled to any attorney’s fees.

BU 6 Emergency Objections, Motion & Notice

BU 6 Emergency Objections, Motion & Notice