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.
___________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND

UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION

NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK OF FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT, AND

SHAM “motion for summary judgment” WITHOUT authority IN DISPOSED CASE

RECORD 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION

1. The facially frivolous and previously contested action had been disposed on 08/12/2010.
Here, the record disposition proved the prima facie substantial controversy.
LEGAL SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB
2. Bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, was legally seized (FDIC). See Warrant on file.
PRIMA FACIE VIOLATIONS OF F.R.C.P. 1.510
3. In this disposed case, the electronic docket showed an unauthorized “motion for summary
judgment” on 01/22/2011:

However, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 expressly prohibits said sham “motion”. Here, the disposed
action could not have possibly “commenced”. See also Rule 1.150, SHAM PLEADINGS.
PROOF OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, FRAUD, & FRAUD ON COURT
4. Because the record evidenced substantial controversies and fraud, and because the purported
“plaintiff” was not entitled to sue, the non-meritorious action had been disposed. See Final
 Disposition Form. Substantial controversies, disputes, and opposition are evidenced by,
e.g., J. Franklin-Prescott’s pleadings on the docket, including the 01/04/2011 filing of:

FAILURE TO PRODUCE “note” AND STATE ANY cause of action

5. Attorney(s) for plaintiff seized and bankrupt bank and/or BankUnited are unable to “offer
the original note and/or a lost not affidavit to this Court”.
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT “hold and own note”
6. Plaintiff does not hold and own any genuine “note”. As a matter of law, the purported
“plaintiff” could not possibly “hold and own” the “note”.
7. Any plaintiff must be the owner/holder of the “note” as of the date of filing suit. See Jeff-Ray
Corp. v. Jacobsen, 566 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v.
Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). On the date of the filing, law firm
Camner Lipsitz had asserted the unknown loss and/or destruction of a purported note.
NO signed authenticated original note & NO standing – NO summary judgment evidence
8. Purported “plaintiff” is not any holder and not in possession of any genuine instrument payable.
See § 671.201(21), Fla. Stat. (2010). Because BankUnited had no standing, the case had been
disposed. See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean Jacques, 2010 WL
476641 (Fla. App. 2 DCA Feb. 12, 2010). Here, no summary judgment evidence could have
possibly existed.
UNKNOWN LOSS / DESTRUCTION OF PURPORTED “note”
9. As a matter of fact, “plaintiff” had asserted the loss and/or destruction of the alleged “note”.
Plaintiff did not know WHO had lost and/or destroyed the “note” WHEN.
PROOF OF FRAUD ON THIS COURT ON RECORD
10. E.g., on December 3 and 6, 2010, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (via Rush Messenger Service)
had given notice of “plaintiff’s” and Albertelli Law’s fraud and fraud on the Court. See
Docket and absence of any “note”, instrument, and/or obligation.
PRIMA FACIE INSUFFICIENCY OF “complaint”
11. Albertelli Law had never filed any “complaint”, and the purported “plaintiff” was not entitled
to “complain”. Here, bankrupt BankUnited’s founder Alfred Camner and Camner Lipsitz had
been fired.

2
 RECORD LACK OF ANY witness & notarial acknowledgment
12. Here, no “note” was witnessed and/or notarized.
RECORD LACK OF ANY assignment
13. Here, the purported “plaintiff” and Albertelli Law knew and/or fraudulently concealed that
there had been no assignment and no recordation of any assignment.
NO assignment & NO recording of any assignment
14. Assignments must be recorded to be valid against any alleged obligor. See § 701.02, Fla.
Stat. (2010). See Glynn v. First Union Nat’l. Bank, 912 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
NO right to foreclose
15. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott was not obligated to pay any money, and so-called
“plaintiff” had no right to foreclose.
PRIMA FACIE “GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT”
16. Because of the prima facie “genuine issues of material fact”, the controverted case had been
disposed. Here, there had been substantial controversies.
PRIMA FACIE INVALID “lis pendens”
17. The purported “lis pendens” is facially invalid. Validity of a notice of lis pendens is one year
from filing. See § 48.23(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). Upon dismissal of foreclosure, a lis pendens is
automatically dissolved. See Rule 1.420(f), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010). Here, the lis pendens was
dissolved.
AFFIDAVITS MADE IN BAD FAITH
18. Pursuant to said Rule 1.510, the purported “plaintiff” presented so-called “affidavits” in bad
faith and solely for improper and/or unlawful purposes in this disposed case. See subsection
(g). Here, the purported affidavits lacked a foundation or predicate.
FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT ON RECORD
19. One affidavit, e.g., asserted that the under signed attorney (Ashley Simon, Florida Bar #
64472) had “not reviewed the actual file in this case” and that “a review of the actual
foreclosure file of Albertelli Law in this case would be unnecessary and futile event.”
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “served”
20. Defendants were not “duly and regularly served with process”.
UN-SERVED DEFENDANTS WERE ALLEGEDLY “DROPPED”

3
21. “Plaintiff” purportedly dropped un-served “defendants” absent any authority in this disposed
case. The disposed case was not reopened, and no reopening fees appeared.
NO NOTICE(S) OF APPEARANCE
22. The purported and undersigned “attorney” filed no notice of appearance. See Docket:

RECORD NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

23. Jennifer Franklin Prescott had given notice of her unavailability, and she is overseas in the
Pacific.
PATTERN OF FRAUD
24. The New York Times recently reported the pattern of fraud exhibited by the Albertelli Law
“foreclosure mill”:
“In numerous opinions, judges have accused lawyers of processing shoddy or even
fabricated paperwork in foreclosure actions when representing the banks…”
See Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures, New York Times, January 10, 2011.

INCORRECT CAPTION
25. Said sham “motion” does not indicate the correct file number of the disposed case:

DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT

26. 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.

4
 “plaintiff(s)” HAD NO cause of action AND NO original note

27. 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.

FAILURE TO SERVE & COMPLY WITH RULE 1.510

28. The motion for summary judgment, supporting affidavits and notice of hearing must be

served on a defendant at least (20) twenty days before the summary judgment hearing. See

Rule 1.510(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010); Verizzo v. Bank of New York, 2010 WL 711862 (Fla.

2 DCA Mar. 3, 2010); Mack v. Commercial Industrial Park, Inc., 541 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla.

4th DCA 1989). Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott was not served under said Rule.

DISPOSITION & BANKUNITED’S FAILURE TO refute AND disprove

29. The movant for summary judgment must factually refute or disprove the affirmative defenses

raised, or establish that the defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. See Leal v. Deutsche

Bank Nat’l. Trust Co., 21 So. 3d 907, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Here, BankUnited had failed

to disprove the affirmative defenses, and the case had been disposed.

Purported “plaintiff” FAILED THE BURDEN OF PROOF

5
30. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish the non-existence of disputed issues of

material fact. See Delandro v. Am.’s. Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 674 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1996); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). Here, BankUnited, non-successor

in interest, failed the burden of proof. Because of the disputed issues of material fact, the case

had been disposed.

NO verified complaint

31. A complaint must be verified. Rule 1.110(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) (02/11/2010). Here, no

verified complaint exists.

NO note

32. Rule 1.130(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) mandates that a copy of the note and mortgage be

attached to the complaint. See Eigen v. FDIC, 492 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because

no executed, authorized, genuine note existed, and none was attached to the insufficient

complaint by fired law firm Camner Lipsitz, the frivolous action had been disposed.

SHAM AFFIDAVITS AND MOTION & NO entitlement to any fees and/or costs

33. Purported “plaintiff’s” “affidavits” and “motion for summary judgment” in this disposed

action are a prima facie sham, and Albertelli Law is not entitled to any attorney’s fees and/or

costs. Any hearing, and none appears on any calendar (JACS), would be unauthorized and

without any legal and/or factual basis.

WHEREFORE Jennifer Franklin Prescott respectfully demands

1. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” without any authority to sue, foreclose, and/or

demand any payment from Jennifer Franklin Prescott;

2. An Order declaring any hearing unauthorized;

6
3. An Order declaring the prima facie sham “motion” and “affidavits” unlawful in this

previously disputed and disposed action;

4. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” to be in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.510 in this

disposed and previously controverted action;

5. An Order declaring the purported 2009 “lis pendens” invalid on its face;

6. An Order declaring the affidavits “hearsay” and lacking any legal and/or factual basis in the

absence of any authentic “note”;

7. An Order taking judicial notice of the lack of any genuine “note”, “plaintiff’s” proven fraud

on the Court, opposition, opposition evidence, and case law as to this disposed case;

8. An Order prohibiting Counsel who did not file any notice from appearing in this disposed

action.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, BankUnited foreclosure fraud victim

ATTACHMENTS

New York Times: Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures (January 10, 2011)

Other

Certificates of Deliveries upon Clerk, Disposition Judge, BankUnited, Albertelli Law

(Messenger Service)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this NOTICE OF OPPOSITION &

OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND UNAVAILABILITY IN

DISPOSED ACTION has been delivered to BankUnited, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028,

7
Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of Court, and Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, Courthouse, Naples,

FL 34112, USA, on January 22, 2010, Pacific Time.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim

8
 Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
01/31/2011

CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Hon. Dwight E. Brock
Clerk of Courts
Courthouse
Naples, FL 34112, U.S.A.

RE: DISPOSED CASE # 0906016CA; NOTICE OF FRAUD EVIDENCE …

Hon. Clerk Brock:

1. Attached is another copy of the “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION

EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE…” submitted on Jan. 21, 2011, 16:20:16, together with
a copy of the Docket (01/31/11). See attachments. The undersigned has been in the Pacific.
2. Here, the above fraudulent Case was disposed on 08/12/2010, because the purported
“plaintiff” was not in possession of any genuine original note, could not reestablish the
destroyed and/or lost note, and could not possibly foreclose on the purported note and
mortgage. See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Dasma Invest., LLC v. Realty Associates
Fund III, L.P., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
3. Furthermore, BankUnited is not any “successor in interest” to lawfully seized and bankrupt
BankUnited, FSB. See Uniform Commercial Code. Here, no authentic note was executed,
delivered, and/or assigned to the alleged “plaintiff”. See also Collier County Public Records.
4. The style of the prima facie insufficient and frivolous complaint, “BankUnited, FSB v.
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.”, did not even indicate BankUnited as a plaintiff.
See, e.g., attached page 3 of 8. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, founder Alfred Camner,
Esq., and Camner Lipsitz, PA, were fired and are not any “counsel”. See attached p. 4 of 8.
5. Here admittedly without any “actual review of the file” and disposed Case, foreclosure mill
Albertelli Law has been attempting to extort money and/or property, and Franklin-Prescott is
again giving Notice of said Fraud and Fraud on the Court.
6. Here, the purported “plaintiff” in said disposed Case is not entitled to any hearing, money,
fees, judgment, and legal action against Franklin-Prescott.

Respectfully,

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, fraud victim

CC: Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge),

Albertelli Law
Other
hhayes@ca.cjis20.org, Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com,
darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com, Collierclerk@collierclerk.com,
Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com, Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com …

ATTACHMENTS (25 pages)

 “plaintiff(s)” FAILED to surrender ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE

1. 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 …

9
10
2. 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

3. 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

4. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “plaintiffs’” fraudulent claims of any

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

11
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …

HOME PAGE TODAY'S PAPER VIDEO MOST POPULAR TIMES TOPICS Try Times Reader today Log In Register Now Help TimesPeople

Search All NYTimes.com

Business Day
W ORLD U.S. N.Y . / REGION BUSINESS T ECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEA LT H SPORT S OPINION A RT S ST Y LE T RA V EL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS

Global DealBook Markets Econom y Energy Media Personal Tech Sm all Business Your Money

www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-me-jobs Ads by Google

Advertise on NYTimes.com

Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures Log in to see w hat your friends Log In With Facebook
are sharing on nytimes.com.
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Privacy Policy | What’s This?
Published: January 10, 2011

With judges looking ever more critically at home foreclosures, they RECOMMEND What’s Popular Now
are reaching beyond the bankers to heap some of their most TWITTER Obam a’s Prom inent
scorching criticism on the lawyers. Rem arks in Chinese Artist’s
SIGN IN TO E-
Tucson Studio Torn
MAIL
Dow n
Enlarge This Image In numerous opinions, judges have PRINT
accused lawyers of processing shoddy SINGLE PAGE
or even fabricated paperwork in
REPRINTS
foreclosure actions when representing
SHARE
the banks.

Judge Arthur M. Schack of New Y ork

State Supreme Court in Brooklyn has
taken aim at an upstate lawyer, Steven
J. Baum, referring to one filing as “incredible, outrageous,
Ozier Muhammad/The New Y ork Times, lef t; ludicrous and disingenuous.”
Julie Glassberg/The New Y ork Times
Judge Arthur Schack, left, of New
York State Supreme Court, called one
But New Y ork judges are also trying to take the lead in
filing “outrageous.” Jonathan Lippman, fixing the mortgage mess by leaning on the lawyers. In
the state’s chief judge, says law yers
must ask clients if their paperw ork is November, a judge ordered Mr. Baum’s firm to pay nearly
sound. $20,000 in fines and costs related to papers that he said
Breaking News Alerts by E-Mail
contained numerous “falsities.” The judge, Scott Fairgrieve
Sign up to be notified w hen important new s breaks.
Multimedia of Nassau County District Court, wrote that “swearing to
The Takeaw ay With John false statements reflects poorly on the profession as a Privacy Policy
Schw artz
whole.”
MOST POPULAR - BUSINESS DAY
More broadly, the courts in New Y ork State, along with
Add to Portfolio E-MAILED BLOGGED VIEWED
Florida, have begun requiring that lawyers in foreclosure
Wells Fargo & Co cases vouch for the accuracy of the documents they 1 . Is Law School a Losing Gam e?
Go to your Portfolio » present, which prompted a protest from the New Y ork bar. 2 . Rising Chinese Inflation to Show Up in U.S. Im ports
The requirement, which is being considered by courts in 3 . Econom ic Scene: The Real Problem With China
other states, could open lawyers to disciplinary actions that could harm or even end 4 . Econom ix: Why So Many Rich People Don’t Feel
Very Rich
careers.
5. Auto Show Outsiders Seek Rebirth

Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New Y ork University, agreed with Judge 6. Weather Monitoring Com pany Turns to
Greenhouse Gases
Fairgrieve that the involvement of lawyers in questionable transactions could damage the
7 . Judges Berate Bank Lawy ers in Foreclosures
overall reputation of the legal profession, “which does not fare well in public opinion”
8. Itineraries: Sneeze-Free Zone
throughout history. 9. Film Studio Born of Com ic Books Grabs Holly wood’s
Attention
“When the consequence of a lawyer plying his trade is the loss of someone’s home, and it 1 0. Flex Tim e Flourishes in Accounting Industry
turns out there are documents being given to the courts that have no basis in reality, the
Go to Complete List »
profession gets a very big black eye,” Professor Gillers said.

The issue of vouching for documents will undoubtedly meet resistance by lawyers
elsewhere as it has in New Y ork.
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 1/3
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …

Anne Reynolds Copps, the chairwoman of the real property law section of the New Y ork
State bar, said, “We had a lot of concerns, because it seemed to paint attorneys as being
the problem.” Lawyers feared they would be responsible for a bank’s mistakes. “They are
relying on a client, or the client’s employees, to provide the information on which they are
basing the documents,” she said.

The role of lawyers is under scrutiny in the 23 states where foreclosures must be reviewed
by a court. The situation has become especially heated for high-volume firms whose
practices mirror the so-called robo-signing of some financial institutions; in these cases, The New Yorker confidential
ALSO IN OPINION »
documents were signed without sufficient examination or proper notarization. Goldman's mutual friend
Does one word change 'Huckleberry Finn'?
In the most publicized example, David J. Stern, a lawyer whose Florida firm has been part
of an estimated 20 percent of the foreclosure actions in the state, has been accused of filing
sloppy and even fraudulent mortgage paperwork. Major institutions have dropped the
ADVERTISEMENTS
firm, which has been the subject of several lawsuits, and 1,200 of the 1,400 people once at
the firm are out of work.
Fi n d y ou r dream h om e wi th
Th e N ew Y ork Ti m es Real Estate
The Florida attorney general’s office is conducting a civil investigation of Mr. Stern’s firm
and two others.
Fan Th e N ew Y ork Ti m es on
Facebook
“There’s been no determination” in a court that Mr. Stern or his employees “did wrong
things, said Jeffrey Tew, Mr. Stern’s lawyer, adding that the impact was nevertheless
Th e n ew i ssu e of T i s h ere
devastating.
See th e n ews i n th e m aki n g. Watch
“There are groups in society that everybody likes to hate,” Mr. Tew added. “Now Ti m esCast, a dai l y n ews v i deo.
foreclosure lawyers are on the list.”

Such concerns have, in recent months, brought a sharp focus on activities in New Y ork
State, and in particular on the practice of Mr. Baum, a lawyer in Amherst, outside Buffalo.
Judges have cited his firm for what they call slipshod work that, in some cases, was
followed by the dismissal of foreclosure actions.

One case involved Sunny D. Eng, a former manager of computer systems on Wall Street.
He and his wife, who has cancer, stopped paying the mortgage on their Holtsville, N.Y .,
home after Mr. Eng’s Internet services business foundered. The mortgage was originally
held by the HTFC Corporation, but the foreclosure notice came from Wells Fargo, a bank
that the Engs had no relationship with. They hired an experienced foreclosure defense
lawyer on Long Island, Craig Robins. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Eng.

1 2 NEXT PAGE »

A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2011, on page

A1 of the New York edition.

Get the full newspaper experience, and more, delivered to your Mac or PC. Times
Reader 2.0: Try it FREE for 2 full weeks. SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
Advertise on NYTimes.com
PRINT

SINGLE PAGE Ads by Google what's this?

REPRINTS
Home Foreclosures in USA
Ads by Google what's this? Buy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
Home Foreclosures in USA CashflowGold.com
Buy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
CashflowGold.com

Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics

Foreclosures

Legal Profession

nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 2/3
1/30/2011 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITI…
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com;
Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com; erose@albertellilaw.com; BHTJW@aol.com;
NAPLESNANO@aol.com
Bcc: JRBU@aol.com
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2011 10:20 am
Attachments: NOTICE_OF_OPPOSITION_&_OPPOSITION_EVIDENCE,_FRAUD_EVIDENCE_..._012211.pdf (779K)

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry

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: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

2 of 2 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 60

Date Text All Entries

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 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
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
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

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/2
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
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
09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
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
12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE
12/03/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R
JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O
12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING
12/06/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
& MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T
12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O TT
12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT
12/17/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O
12/20/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
(EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED &
UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT
01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E
01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE
01/12/2011 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.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/2
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry

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: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

Name Type DOB City, State, Zip

BANKUNITED PLAINTIFF
BANKUNITED FSB PLAINTIFF
PASKEW IC Z, SER ENA KAY ESQ PLAINTIFF'S ATTO R NEY MIAMI, FL 33134
R O SE, ER IN M ESQ PLAINTIFF'S C O -C O UNSEL TAMP A, FL 33623
FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER DEFENDANT
PR ESCO TT, W ALTER DEFENDANT
DO E, JO HN DEFENDANT
DO E, MAR Y DEFENDANT

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
1/31/2011 Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: JRBU@aol.com; Naplesnano@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2011 10:23 am
Attachments: NOTICE_OF_OPPOSITION_&_OPPOSITION_EVIDENCE,_FRAUD_EVIDENCE_..._012211.pdf (779K)

-----Original Message-----
From: postmaster@albertellilaw.com
To: bhtjw@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 3:21 pm
Subject: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

erose@albertellilaw.com
The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you.
Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.

Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007

Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: albertellilaw.local
erose@albertellilaw.com
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##
Original message headers:
Received: from p02c11m065.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) by
TPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:21:07 -0500
Received: from unknown [205.188.105.144] (EHLO imr-da02.mx.aol.com) by
p02c11m065.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP id
fb8f93d4.0.790820.00-2183.1054031.p02c11m065.mxlogic.net (envelope-from
<bhtjw@aol.com>); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by
imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p0LLKUS0022628; Fri, 21 Jan
2011 16:20:30 -0500
Received: from BHTJW@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id
w.f31.1346af7 (56029); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.97])
by cia-md08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD083-d3ce4d39f8902cd;
Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:20 -0500
Received: from web-mmc-d08 (web-mmc-d08.sim.aol.com [205.188.103.98]) by
smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id
MAILSMTPRLYMC018-d3ce4d39f8902cd; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
To: <hhayes@ca.cjis20.org>, <darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com>,
<Collierclerk@collierclerk.com>, <Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com>,
<jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com>, <erose@albertellilaw.com>, <BHTJW@aol.com>,
<NAPLESNANO@aol.com>
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
X-AOL-IP: 222.152.130.175
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: <bhtjw@aol.com>
X-MB-Message-Type: User
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="--------MB_8CD87C82239F721_19F4_DD4B_web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33124-STANDARD
Received: from 222.152.130.175 by web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.98)
with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
Message-ID: <8CD87C82235345D-19F4-6085@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com>
X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean
X-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/0
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-AOL-SENDER: BHTJW@aol.com
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; B=0.500(0); spf=0.500; STSI=0.500(0); STSM=0.500(0); CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2011012128); S=0.200(2010122901); SC=none]
X-MAIL-FROM: <bhtjw@aol.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [205.188.105.144]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=mmUCS4HFsBAA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=VFcOs91RuR]
X-AnalysisOut: [IA:10 a=hciDLOP+ud79atiMCbLEAQ==:17 a=WI78ahdYjpqRM8Otj6kA]
X-AnalysisOut: [:9 a=ydw_HpEerRrBzB_j418A:7 a=lw-9Qrvzv2xGl-7E6F7hXpr9hWIA]
X-AnalysisOut: [:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Sww94m9cqyCiQE1SWwoA:9 a=E3UMbXGhzG]
X-AnalysisOut: [jPNipGXP7B7KfvA6kA:4 a=n3BslyFRqc0A:10 a=bhkaYMs-ANYA:10]
Return-Path: bhtjw@aol.com

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/2
1/31/2011 Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
=
Final-Recipient: rfc822;erose@albertellilaw.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found

Attached Message
From: bhtjw @aol.com
To: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com; Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw .com;
erose@albertellilaw .com; BHTJW@aol.com; NAPLESNANO@aol.com
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 2/2
12/4/2010 Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…
Von: postmaster@albertellilaw.com
An: jrbu@aol.com
Thema: Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Datum: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 13:28
Anhang: HON._D._E._BROCK,_DELIVERIES_(CERT.)_OF_MOTIONS_&_NOTICE,_DISPOSED_CASE_NO.09-6016-
CA_(1).pdf (1160K)

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

erose@albertellilaw.com
The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to
redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the
following diagnostic text to your system administrator.

Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007

Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: albertellilaw.local

erose@albertellilaw.com
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##

Original message headers:

Received: from p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) by
TPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:28:35 -0500
Received: from unknown [205.188.91.97] (EHLO imr-db03.mx.aol.com) by
p02c11m114.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP id
fc639fc4.0.788619.00-2144.985007.p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (envelope-from
<jrbu@aol.com>); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:28:31 -0700 (MST)
Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by
imr-db03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oB3IRokw004781; Fri, 3 Dec
2010 13:27:50 -0500
Received: from JRBU@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id
w.f67.b3d5975 (43913); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com
[205.188.249.170]) by cia-dc08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id
MAILCIADC082-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:45 -0500
Received: from webmail-d052 (webmail-d052.sim.aol.com [205.188.168.25]) by
smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id
MAILSMTPRLYDE035-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:44 -0500
References: <8CD6129B65D41B4-1B44-6D7B@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com> <8CD612A7ABF0434-1B44-6E8E@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
To: <afivecoat@albertellilaw.com>, <simone@albertellilaw.com>,
<nreed@albertellilaw.com>, <tbaron@albertellilaw.com>,
<jsawyer@albertellilaw.com>, <jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com>,
<erose@albertellilaw.com>
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500
X-AOL-IP: 79.211.86.188
In-Reply-To: <8CD612A7ABF0434-1B44-6E8E@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: <jrbu@aol.com>
X-MB-Message-Type: User
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=
"--------MB_8CD612EE93CE4C3_1CB0_10D59_webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 32992-STANDARD
Received: from 79.211.86.188 by webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com (205.188.168.25)
with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500
Message-ID: <8CD612EE7906D43-1CB0-741C@webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com>
X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean
X-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/0
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-AOL-SENDER: JRBU@aol.com
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; B=0.500(0); spf=0.500; STSI=0.500(9); STSM=0.500(9); CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2010120328); S=0.200(2010120101); SC=none]
X-MAIL-FROM: <jrbu@aol.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [205.188.91.97]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=tOBHjLs4_5wA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=s1-bI8_kuh]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=XaU3MG2NMZ7IwRi2zXA4Ow==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=XYJ]
X-AnalysisOut: [RSn9hAAAA:8 a=StNULilYAAAA:8 a=J2ZUkIx5YQREXUxgZ8YA:9 a=l4]
X-AnalysisOut: [QDlNRdM8nIpH_QbYuP0bohVtsA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=U8Ie8Enqy]
X-AnalysisOut: [SEA:10 a=_JzL8g0GY9oA:10 a=JtZ1zMYNN3LUi7kfzdMA:7 a=BFkvR0]
X-AnalysisOut: [WKUWyW899fpkO0KKn4jZgA:4 a=5FPhOs0AS1lMV_1zBlYA:9 a=FtCU1E]
X-AnalysisOut: [ZuVnDh3Spi_4VqGdZcGa4A:4 a=n3BslyFRqc0A:10 a=bhkaYMs-ANYA:]

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/2
12/4/2010 Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…
X-AnalysisOut: [10]
Return-Path: jrbu@aol.com

=
Final-Recipient: rfc822;erose@albertellilaw.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found

eMail im Anhang
Von: jrbu@aol.com
An: afivecoat@albertellilaw .com; simone@albertellilaw .com; nreed@albertellilaw .com; tbaron@albertellilaw .com;
jsaw yer@albertellilaw .com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw .com; erose@albertellilaw .com
Thema: TO Dw ight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Datum: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500

-----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

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 2/2