Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ANY HEARING & MAGISTRATE IN DISPOSED ACTION

NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ANY HEARING & MAGISTRATE IN DISPOSED ACTION

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25 |Likes:
Published by Albertelli_Law
BANK UNITED FRAUD
BANK UNITED FRAUD

More info:

Published by: Albertelli_Law on Feb 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

06/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
non-
 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 OBJECTION TO ANY
 HEARING 
&
 MAGISTRATE 
IN DISPOSED CASEAND OF NON-
CONSENT 
 NOTICE OF FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT’S OBJECTION & NON-CONSENT
1. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
objects
to any
hearing 
and/or any
magistrate
in this
disposed
 action. Here, no
hearing 
was
authorized 
and/or 
lawful 
and the
notice
a
sham
.
 
RECORD DISPOSITION
2. This action had been
disposed
on 08/12/2010.
 
ERRONEOUS “
 NOTICE 
” IN DISPOSED ACTION
3. On 02/12/2011, the Docket showed a
notice of hearing 
” which was “
amended 
”. Here, thenotice did not
 pertain
to Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and/or the
disposed
action but to “
 Pedro Luis Licourt 
”, who is not any
known party
.
 
UNLAWFUL/UNAUTHORIZED
 HEARING 
IN DISPOSED ACTION
 
 24. Here, the erroneously alleged
amended mtoin for summary judgment 
…” does not pertain tothis
disposed
action. Any
hearing 
and/or any
motion for summary disposition
would beimproper, unauthorized, and/or unlawful.
 
NO
FEBRUARY 
 
 HEARING 
APPEARED ON THE DOCKET
5. Here, the 02/12/2011 Docket did not show any
hearing 
and/or 
hearing date
:
NO
CONSENT 
& OBJECTION TO ANY MAGISTRATE (HEARING)
6. Previously and repeatedly, Franklin-Prescott had
objected
to any
magistrate
hearing.Because of the record
lack 
of any
consent 
, a previous hearing had been cancelled in this
disposed
action.7. The record
lack 
of 
consent 
was erroneously entered as “
non-contest 
”:
 
VAGUE & AMBIGUOUS SHAM “
 NOTICE 
8. Here, the
notice
was
vague
,
ambiguous
, and
unintelligent
. A pleading is considered a
sham
 when it is
inherently false
and based on plain or 
conceded facts clearly known to be false
 at the time the pleading was made. See Decker v. County of Volusia, 698 So. 2d 650, 651
 
 3(Fla. 5
th
DCA 1997); Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr., 662 So. 2d 388, 390 (Fla.5
th
DCA 1995).
 
RECORD ABSENCE OF
 NOTE 
AND
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 
 
9. Here, no
 genuine properly executed note
had existed. Copies of a null and void
note/mortgage
and/or hearsay were not
admissible
under the Code of Evidence. Here, therewere no
witnesses
and no
notary
had
acknowledged 
any
authentic note/mortgage
.
NON-
 BINDING 
 MODIFICATION AGREEMENT 
10. BankUnited, FSB, and/or BankUnited knew and/or concealed that“8.
The Modification will be legally binding upon the parties, only when it is signed by Note Holder and each Borrower 
.”11. Here, Walter Prescott did not
 sign
the purported “
 Loan
 
Modification Agreement”
. See12/21/2010 “
 Notice of Filing of Original Loan Modification Agreement 
in
disposed(08/12/2010) action
. Because here the alleged 09/05/2007 “
Modification Agreement 
” wasnot
 signed by each Borrower 
and/or Walter Prescott, it was not
legally binding 
.
 
FAILURE TO
 PROVE TERMS 
 
12. A person seeking
enforcement 
of an instrument under UCC § 3-309(a) must
 prove
the
terms
 of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. See UCC § 3-309(b). Here,
 plaintiff 
failed to
 prove
any
terms
.
RECORD ABSENCE OF
 EXECUTION 
 
13. Here, the alleged February 2006
note
,
mortgage
, and/or 
 security instrument 
did not and couldnot have
 possibly encumbered 
Franklin-Prescott’s real property, because they were not
 properly executed 
.
NO
 PROOF 
ON FILE IN DISPOSED ACTION
14. Here, Franklin-Prescott had
denied
the
authenticity
of 
 signatures
on the purported
note
 and/or 
mortgage
alluded to in this
disposed
case and demanded strict
 proof 
thereof, by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to § 673.3081, Fla. Stat. (2008). See “
 Adjustable Rate Note
”, page 4 of 4, in 12/01/2010 and/or 11/01/2010 “
 Notice of Filing of Original Note &Original Mortgage”
.15. Here in particular, there were, e.g., no
notarial acknowledgment 
and no
 signature
by purported “
borrower 
” Walter Prescott.

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
packagingwiz liked this
pelliott123 liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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