Motion To Dismiss

USPS CERTIFIED MAIL NO: 70100290000151818070
FEDEX AIRBIL NO: 872650965714
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NUMBER: 56-2008-CA-000066
JUDGE: LARRY SCHACK
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Plaintiff
VS:
KAREN A. KRONDES, ET AL
Defendants(S) .
______________________________________
.1
July 29, 2010
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

COME NOW, the Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, in the above-entitled action
hereby move the court to Dismiss the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation's Foreclosure Lawsuit with
Prejudice for a showing of Fraud Upon The Court and for the following valid and convincing reasons:
1. The Plaintiff has egregiously violated Discovery Rules and remains in violation status for
multiple failures to comply with the Defendants' served discovery requests within reasonable
and permitted time for pleading, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 1.350.
2. The Plaintiff, for over One Year (13 Months) failed to produce any valid response to the
Defendant's First (1st) Request For Production which was served on March 5, 2009. Plaintiff,
EMC Mortgage Corporation, further failed to respond within Thirty (30) Days to the Defendant's
associated Motion To Compel, served on December 24,2009.
The Plaintiff has apparently
filed unauthorized objections to the Defendants' initial Request For Production in April 2010,
without any legal standing and or the consent of the Defendants or the Court (Exhibit A). The
Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, did not receive any copy of the stated
unauthorized objections, but rather discovered such filing by requesting a Docket Report from
the Clerk's Office in Fort Pierce. The Court lacks jurisdiction to allow such fate responses.
(2)
RULE 1.350 PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS
AND THINGS
(b) Procedure. Rule 1.350(b) clearly allows for a period of only Thirty (30) Days for which to produce a
response to a Request For Production. Rule 1.350(b) stipulates in part that ... The party to whom the
request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of the request, except that
a defendant may serve a response within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on that
defendant.
3. The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, served a distinctly different and new
Second (2nd) Set Of Request For Production upon the Plaintiff EMC Mortgage Corporation.
The Second served request, dated March 17,2010, was delivered via USPS Certified Mail No.
70092250000236864374
on March 19,2010 (See Exhibit B). To date there has been no
response by the Plaintiff to the stated
a=
Request For Production, and importantly, the Plaintiff
failed to request from the court any extension of time within the legal time allowed (Emphasis
Added).
4. The Court has no Jurisdiction to allow the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, to attempt to
file unconscionably late responses and objections to the Defendants' multiple discovery
requests, when no prior legal plea for time was requested and or granted. The Plaintiff abused
the Florida Rules Of Court and chose to ignore the Rules of Discovery and the Defendant's
Motion To Compel within proper time for pleading.
Very recent Florida Case Law has set pellucid precedent that Plaintiffs in Foreclosure
Lawsuits ignoring and failing to comply with discovery rules shall be sanctioned and such
complaints and lawsuits dismissed with prejudice. The Defendants Here-Now cite the case of
U.S. Bank National Assoc., As Trustee, ET AL vs. Ernest Harpster, 6th Judicial Circuit
Court In And For Pasco County Florida, (Case No. 51-2007-CA-6684ES).
On March 25, 2010,
Circuit Judge Lynn Tepper dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice based on a
myriad of abuses by U.S. Bank National Assoc. and its counsel Law Offices Of David J. Stern.
The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to produce answers to Interrogatories for a period of 26
(3)
Months and further failed to produce responses to the Request For Production propounded in
July 2009 (8 Months Up to date of Dismissal).
The Pasco County Court ordered that as a
sanction for egregious failure to comply with discovery rules, the Plaintiff shall be prohibited
from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to the Court (See Exhibit C).
5. The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation's Complaint is deceptive, fraudulent, and a sham
pleading [Rule 1.150(a)]. EMC Mortgage Corporation filed and unlawfully served its complaint
with no legal standing, proof of its claims, and that it was the "Real Party In Interest". The
Plaintiff attached to its complaint as proof of its interest and standing an alleged Mortgage with
a distinctly different and separate entity, namely Wells Fargo Bank, N.A .. Plaintiff deceptively
and misleadingly plead that the alleged Mortgage was subsequently assigned to EMC
Mortgage Corporation by virtue of an assignment to be recorded. EMC Mortgage in reality had
no evidence at time of filing that it had any lawful interest in the Defendant's home and alleged
mortgage and or note, and or that any agreement or assignment ever existed between Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and EMC Mortgage Corporation with respect to the subject property.
6. The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, by and through its Counsel Law Offices Of David J.
Stern, knew and or should have known that the allegations in its complaint were materially
false, as Florida Law and the Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure mandate that all such contracts,
notes, mortgages, assignments, or other document supporting the claims of the complaint, are
required to be attached and thus part of the whole of the complaint as proof of valid evidence.
7. The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation ignored Florida Law and failed to attach a valid
Assignment Of Mortgage to its complaint; thus as a matter of law said complaint has no legal
sufficiency and is void. It is a requirement in Florida, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 1.130(a), to
attach any and all Instruments, Contracts, and or other documents material to the pleadings,
showing proof of standing.
(4)
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 1.130 ATTACHING
COPY OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND EXHIBITS
(a) Instruments Attached. All bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon
which action may be brought or defense made, or a copy thereof or a copy of the portions thereof
material to the pleadings, shall be incorporated in or attached to the pleading.
8. Plaintiff, in Count I of the Complaint, further made intentional fallacious claim that it was the
owner and that it holds the Note and Mortgage.
In Count II however, Plaintiff contradicts itself
and puzzlingly discloses that it is not presently in possession of the original Note and
Mortgage. The herein stated inconsistent claims in EMC Mortgage Corp's Complaint allege
facts that cancel each other out, and leave said Plaintiff with no credibility and no definitive
statement of facts (See Exhibit D).
9. The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, deceptively states in its Complaint that the Note and
Mortgage are lost, destroyed or stolen, without disclosing to the Court and Defendants which
of these wavering scenarios is their alleged true claim.
10. EMC Mortgage Corporation declares in its Complaint that it cannot obtain possession of the
Note and Mortgage because their whereabouts cannot be determined.
Plaintiff and its counsel
Law Offices Of David J. Stern have a never ending duty to disclose new evidence; and at no
time have ever filed any pleading, or served any party to this action with proper "legal
notification" that Plaintiff has found the original Note and Mortgage.
Defendants, Karen A.
Krondes and John J. Krondes, allege that any attempt to produce in this action an original Note
and Mortgage is a fraud upon the court, and such documents are believed to be illegally
manufactured, should be stricken and disallowed as evidence.
11. The Florida Supreme Court recently amended F.R.C.P. Rule #1.110(b) making it mandatory
that mortgage foreclosure complaints be verified. The Supreme Court specifically noted that
the primary purposes of this new amendment are in part to conserve judicial resources that are
(5)
currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded "lost note" counts and inconsistent
allegations.
The Florida amendment additionally is made to prevent defendants from suffering
harm resulting from suits brought by Plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and to allow
courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.
12. The First District Court of Appeals in Ohio has set crucial recent foreclosure case law, in Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd (2008), in where a Plaintiff who fails to submit proof that it is the
"Real Party In Interest" when the complaint is filed is subject to dismissal with prejudice.
"A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual
or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action." Wells
Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-0hio-4603,
897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It
went on to hold, " If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage
when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
13. Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.420(b) provides, in relevant part, that "any party may
move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party
to comply with these rules or any order of the court."
14. The Plaintiff's Complaint is purported by typed name, to have been written by Karina M.
Musella; although, it appears that a second person is listed on the signature line as signing for
Attorney Musella. Both signatures are illegible and unidentifiable.
The Complaint and its
allegations are invalid due to either or both, concealment of the true signor and author, and or
fraud by false and leqally unauthorized presentment by a third party on behalf of the interests
of Karina M. Musella (See Exhibit D - Pg. 3).
15. The Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim to the Plaintiff's Complaint on March 5,
2009 initially by Fax Transmission.
The Plaintiff has failed within the initial Thirty (30) Days
and to this date to file an Answer to the Defendants' Counterclaim as required by F.R.C.P. Rule 1.1OO(a). EMC Mortgage Corporation has violated Florida Rules Of Pleading, has no
standing, and is barred from any attempt at answering said Counterclaim Fourteen (14)
Months after its filing.
(6)
16. The improper and unlawful Judgment in this Foreclosure Lawsuit has already been vacated
due to the alleged myriad of misconduct of the Plaintiff, its agents, and or counsel, Law
Offices Of David J. Stern. Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, together with its servicing
agent Provest LLC, and or Law Offices Of David J Stern, falsely claimed it had served the
Defendants lawfully with the Complaint in this matter; all the while having knowledge through
the attached exhibit information (Wells Fargo Mortgage), "alleged Mortgage", that Defendants
Karen A Krondes and John J Krondes did not live at the addresses as purported, but at the
Homestead Address of 110 Woodside Green, #2A, Stamford, CT 06905. Plaintiff was earlier
able to unconscionably attain a Default Judgment against said Defendants, while they were
unaware of this action and its pleadings, as all such documents were mailed to incorrect and
invalid addresses.
17. The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, Lacks Standing. The presentment of materially false
statements and claims of ownership are a Fraud Upon The Court. EMC Mortgage Corporation
is not the "Real Party In Interest" and is not authorized to bring or maintain this foreclosure
action.
18. The Defendants, Karen A Krondes and John J Krondes Here-Now respectfully ask the Court to
dismiss the above-cited action pursuant to the Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rules
1.210(a), 1.140(a)(1 )&(b)(7), and 1.130(a) respectively.
On the date this action was
commenced, said Plaintiff had no proof that it was the "Real Party In Interest".
19. This Honorable Court lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to allow this lawsuit and fraudulent
foreclosure attempt to continue [F.R.C.P., Rule 1.140(b)(1)].
20. Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, and counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern knowingly
made materially false representations to the Court and Defendants by the mendacious claims
made in its complaint, with such declarations having the express purpose of misleading and
(7)
deceiving the reader. Said parties falsely stated in Count I that this Court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter in their Complaint.
21.ln determining whether the plaintiffs come before this Court with clean hands, the primary
factor to be considered is whether the plaintiffs sought to mislead or deceive the other party,
not whether that party relied upon plaintiffs' misrepresentations.
Stachnik v. Winkel, 394 Mich.
375, 387; 230 N.W.2d 529, 534 (1975).
PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION IN FLORIDA

22. Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, lacks the legal standing to sue and seek foreclosure on
the Defendants, Karen A Krondes and John J Krondes, in the State Of Florida. EMC Mortgage
Corporation was not a party to the mortgage contract attached to the Complaint.
Pursuant to
Florida Law, only Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. would legally have been able to initiate the abovecited action.
23. Plaintiff failed to attach to the Complaint any valid legal evidence that EMC Mortgage
Corporation had any relationship to the original alleged lender Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff's "legally insufficient" Complaint at best, illustrates that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a
different and separate non-joined company, may have had some prior relationship and
agreement with the Defendants Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes.
24. According to Plaintiff's own spurious and misleading account of standing, EMC Mortgage
Corporation legally has stated in its Complaint that at the time of filing of this action, some
other person(s) and or entity other than Plaintiff was in possession of the alleged Note and
Mortgage, confirming that alleged ownership and standing belonged to a party(s) other than
Plaintiff. EMC Mortgage Corp. further stated that it cannot reasonably obtain possession of the
alleged Note and Mortgage because their whereabouts cannot be determined.
25. The copy of the complaintand specificallythe Exhibitsso attached,servedimproperlyuponthe Defendants,
were completelyillegiblewith numeroussectionsand lines stricken,and blackedout with dark BlackLines.
(8)
26. The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, is legally barred from entering into evidence any
alleged proof of standing per its refusal to address such demand for proof and accounting in
multiple served Requests For Production.
27. EMC Mortgage is not the "Real Party In Interest", had no proof of such at commencement of
this lawsuit showing authorization to bring this action in Florida. In re: Shelter Development
Group, Inc., 50 B.R. 588 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 1985) [It is axiomatic that a suit cannot be
prosecuted to foreclose a mortgage which secures the payment of a promissory note, unless
the Plaintiff actually holds the original note, citing Downing v. First National Bank of Lake City,
81 SO.2d 486 (Fla. 1955)]; Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, 316 SO.2d 596 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1975), See also 37 Fla. Jur. Mortgages and Deeds of Trust '240 (One who does not have
the ownership, possession, or the right to possession of the mortgage and the obligation
secured by it, may not foreclose the mortgage).
PLAINTIFF'S FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A FRAUD UPON THE COURT

28. Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, unlawfully, fraudulently, and with intent to deceive,
misrepresented to this Honorable Court that it had legal standing to file this action; wherein it
had no legal authority to seek foreclosure on a mortgage which Plaintiff knew was in the name
and possession of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
29. The Plaintiff initiated this foreclosure action with fraudulent purpose, attempting to manipulate
the Court to achieve an otherwise lawful purpose by unlawful means.
30. Pursuant to statutory protection provided by Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.540(b),
the unlawful judgment originally secured by Plaintiff and its counsel Law Offices Of David J
Stern in this matter was vacated and ordered void (6/4/2009) due to the misconduct and
fraudulent attempt to take the Defendants' home. In addition to instituting the foreclosure
action with no legal standing, Plaintiff, its counsel and or its agents employed illegal and
deceptive methods of service of process and subsequent pleadings, securing a default
(9)
judgment by servicing legal documents to the Defendants at addresses which such parties
knew and or should have known were invalid.
31. The factual claims made by the Defendants in their Motion To Vacate Judgment, Motion For
Rehearing, and Counterclaim are incorporated herein this Motion and together with the
charges made above and throughout this motion provide sufficient evidence that the Plaintiff
and its counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern engaged in fraud and persisted with an illegal
purpose to seek foreclosure on the Defendants' home.
32. Whereas, per provision of F.R.C.P. 1.540(b), this Court has jurisdiction to Dismiss This Lawsuit
with Prejudice upon such finding of Unconscionable and irresponsible conduct.
33. After Reversal Of Plaintiff's Judgment per Order Of The Court on 6/4/2009
in the above-cited
Krondes Case, EMC Mortgage Corporation (Plaintiff) and its counsel Law Offices Of David J
Stern have had over One (1) Year to produce sufficient valid evidence to prove its case.
During the stated time period, Plaintiff has refused and or otherwise failed to comply with the
Defendants' multiple discovery requests within authorized and accepted time for pleading.
Through its injudicious violations of Florida Rules Of Pleading and as a result of Plaintiff's
quietus, EMC Mortgage Corporation is juridically barred from further attempts to offer
evidence, specifically of the nature of which was sought through discovery; and thus, has
legally failed to prove its case.
34.ln the year following the vacating of the Judgment in this matter, numerous courts in the State
Of Florida and throughout America have began to discover that the implementation of fraud
and misrepresentation
Rampant.
by Plaintiffs and or their attorneys in Foreclosure proceedings is
On April 30, 2010, the Tampa Tribune reported that the Attorney General Of The
State Of Florida has launched an investigation pertaining to fraudulent foreclosure filings by

Foreclosure Mills in Florida. The Office Of The Attorney General has confirmed it is
(10)
investigating the firm, Tampa-based Florida Default Law Group, for what "appears to be
fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases."
35. Plaintiff's counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern in very recent months has had scores of its
own Foreclosure Lawsuits Dismissed with Prejudice and Judgments Vacated as a result of the
increased scrutiny of judges and courts in Florida. Pasco County Florida Circuit Judge Lynn
Tepper in a recent interview stated The deluge of foreclosures makes the process "fraught with
potential for fraud". On March 25, 2010, in the case of US. Bank National Association, As
Trustee, Et AL vs. Ernest E. Harpster (Case No. 51-2007 -CA-6684ES) 6th Jud. Circuit Court
For Pasco County, Judge Lynn Tepper dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint and case with
prejudice based on amongst other things, the recording and filing of a fraudulent Assignment
Of Mortgage and fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by Plaintiff and its counsel Law
Offices Of David J Stern (See Exhibit C).
On March 11,2010, in Brevard County, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.540(b), the Judgment Of
Foreclosure was vacated in another Stern case Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As
Trustee, ET AL vs. Rom Mak, ET AL (Case No. 05-2007-CA-19763).
The 18th Judicial Circuit
Court in Brevard County found that the foreclosure proceeding instituted by Plaintiff and its
counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern was fraudulently initiated without the Plaintiff having
legal standing and proof of ownership or possession of the Note and Mortgage.
36. Notably, In the recent case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Christopher J. Chesney. ET AL
(Case No. 51-2009-CA-006905)
in the 6th Judicial Circuit Court For Pasco County; Circuit
Court Judge Stanley R. Mills on February 22, 2010 Ordered that Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss is Granted; as Plaintiff failed to attach a valid assignment to the Complaint.
The court
found that the Note and Mortgage attached to the Complaint were in favor of Washington
Mutual, not the current Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A in that case.
(11 )
37. Defendants' additionally cite one of the newest Florida Foreclosure cases: US Bank National
Association, As Trustee, ET AL vs. William Shane McLeod, ET AL (Case No. 55-2008-CA2124) in the
ih
Judicial Circuit Court For St. Johns County. On May 7,2010, pursuant to
F.R.C.P. - Rule 1.540(b), Circuit Court Judge J. Michael Traynor Dismissed With Prejudice the
stated case based on fraudulent misrepresentations
to the Court as to the Real Party In
Interest. The Court found that the US Bank National Assoc suit was fraudulently filed, as
Plaintiff was not the true owner of the Note and Mortgage at the time the action was filed. On
5/10/2010 the Attorney General initiated an Investigation of the instant case and Plaintiff's
Counsel, Florida Default Law Group, Court Entry No. 50.0000.
THE AFFIDAVITS FILED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

IN THIS LAWSUIT ARE INSTRUMENTS OF FRAUD
38. The Affidavits filed in this foreclosure action by Plaintiff, its counsel, and or other agents are
fraudulent, defective, made in bad faith and with intent to deceive (Exhibits E, F, G, H, I).
39. The calculated construction and filing of false, misleading, and invalid affidavits constitutes
conduct which is unconscionable and provides grounds for dismissal with prejudice per
statutory provision of F.R.C.P. Rule 1.540(b), 1.510(e)(g), 1.420(b), 1.150.
40. Florida Rule 1.51 O(e) stipulates Affidavits of a party seeking Summary Judgment ....
"shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in
evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters
stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit
shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be
supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or by further affidavits.
JJ
41. Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, its counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern, and its agent
ProVest LLC, knowingly and with intent to facilitate an unlawful speedy default judgment in this
(12)
matter, provided alleged service of process upon the Defendants at addresses which such
parties knew and or should have known were incorrect and invalid (Exhibits E, F, J).
42. Plaintiff in COUNT I, paragraph 5 of its Complaint purports to own and hold the alleged Note
and Mortgage.
In support of the allegations in said Complaint, Plaintiff attached as exhibit an
alleged Mortgage apparently between Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Karen A Krondes and John
Krondes. The subject exhibit, page 1 of 27 clearly states the Homestead Address of the
Defendants/Grantors
to be specifically 110 Woodside Green, #2A, Stamford, CT 06705 (Ex. K)
43. Despite having exact knowledge of Defendants' true and correct homestead address, Plaintiff,
EMC Mortgage Corporation, its counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern, and its agent ProVest
LLC, conspired to claim personal In-Hand/lndividual
Service was successfully made upon
Defendant Karen A. Krondes at the address of 360 West 34th Street, Apartment 5H, New York,
NY 10001 (See Exhibit E).
ProVest LLC, caused to have filed on 2/4/2008 a knowingly false Affidavit Of Service,
unambiguously asserting that a copy of the Complaint was hand delivered to Karen A. Krondes
at the above-stated Manhattan address on 1/17/08, even though Ms. Krondes had moved from
that address on11/30/2006 to the above-cited Stamford Connecticut homestead
locatiorulixhibits
E & J).
ProVest LLC, additionally caused to have filed on 2/4/2008 a Second (2nd) knowingly false
Affidavit Of Service, unambiguously asserting that a copy of the Complaint was delivered on
1/19/08 to the Usual Place Of Abode of John Krondes at 491 White Oak Shade Rd., New
Canaan, CT 06840, although John Krondes never lived at this address and such parties had
exact knowledge that Mr. Krondes lived in a different town at the address of 110 Woodside
Green, Stamford, CT 06905 (See Exhibit F).
(13)
46.The Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, by and through its counsel Law Offices Of David J
Stern constructed and caused to be filed a fraudulent and fallacious Affidavit In Support Of
Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment on 2/13/2009.
Plaintiff and its counsel knowing that
they had filed a sham Complaint, untruthfully and reprehensibly make claim in the stated
affidavit that EMC is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage, when in fact such parties
were knowingly concealing material information that Plaintiff had no standing and authority to
institute the above-cited Krondes foreclosure action, and that a distinctly different entity Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. was the alleged "Real Party In Interest" (See Exhibit G).
47. The Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment is made in "bad faith"
and constitutes a Sham Pleading per F.R.C.P. 1.150, and is further in violation of Rule
1.510(e)(g). The stated affidavit is not based on personal knowledge as Rule 1.51 O(e)
mandates, as the true withheld personal knowledge of the maker(s) of this affidavit is that
Plaintiff had no proof of legal standing at time of filing of this action and thus, there was no
default, and no money was owed to this Plaintiff EMC Mortgage as alleged in the subject
affidavit (Exhibit G)
48. Paragraph #4 of the Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment is a
willful and known misrepresentation.
The Plaintiff, and counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern
clearly knew that they were making a materially false statement of facts by declaring that "each
and every allegation in the Complaint is true." (See Exhibit G)
49. The wavering allegations in the Plaintiffs Complaint and the misstatements in the subject
Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment conflict with each other and
legally cancel each other out. In said affidavit, Plaintiff and its counsel claim EMC Mortgage is
the holder of said Note and Mortgage, when in fact said parties knew Wells Fargo Was the
alleged holder, as the complaint alleged there would be an assignment "to be recorded",
possibly sometime in the future. Secondly, Plaintiff definitively claimed in COUNT II of the
Complaint that it was not in possession of the original Note and Mortgage, and that their
(14)
whereabouts cannot be determined; hence, making it a legal impossibility to be the holder of
the stated documents (See Exhibits D & G).
50. When exhibits are inconsistent with Plaintiff's allegations of material fact as to who the real
party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. Fladell v. Palm Beach County
Canvassing Board, 772 SO.2d 1240 (Fla. 2000); Greenwald v. Triple D Properties, Inc., 424
So. 2d 185, 187 (Fla.
4th
DCA 1983); Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Costa Development
Corp., 441 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983).

51. Cheryl Samons, of Law Offices Of David J Stern, the alleged signor and maker of the subject
Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment committed perjury and made
materially false statements under sworn oath in said filed document; such conduct which is a
violation of Florida Statute 92.525(2)(3) Verification Of Documents.
52. Ms. Cheryl Samons makes incongruous attestations in the above stated affidavit which
additionally have the legal effect of cancelling each other out.
Ms. Samons' vacillating
testimony first says in Paragraph 3, that she has direct access to the business records of the
Plaintiff concerning the alleged Note and Security Agreement, the Mortgage and other loan
documents which are the subject of this lawsuit. Ms Samons undecidedly also states that "or
have been provided" with such stated documents.
The legal effect of Ms. Samons alleged
disclosure is one of a material misrepresentation.
In simple layman's terms, Cheryl Samons is
really saying that neither statement is true and verifiable, and no such evidence was ever
proven to be in her possession at the time of filing of said affidavit on 2/13/2009 (Exhibit G).
53. Cheryl Samons, in representation of Law Offices of David J Stern and allegedly EMC
Mortgage, purports to have personal knowledge of the facts stated above regarding the
alleged Note and Mortgage. Such personal knowledge was allegedly gained by access or
release of mortgage documents by an undisclosed, unverified alleged "person with knowledge"
(See Exhibit G).
(15)
54. The alleged subject Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment.
supposedly made by Cherly Samons, is purported to be notarized; however the document is
not dated, leaving the notarization incomplete and the entire document legally invalid, void,
and powerless.
The failure to provide the date certain of the notorial act is a violation of
Florida Statute 117.05(4)(d). (See Exhibit G)

55. The Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment in addition, and despite
being legally void, fails to show that Cherly Samons and or any other attorney or employee of
David J Stern is qualified, competent and credible as to providing testimony at any hearing or
trial which would produce any admissible evidence.
Moreover, case law in the United States is
well established that an attorney cannot testify and authenticate documents for a client where
counsel was not a party, and has no personal knowledge of the facts and transaction, See Key
Bank of Me. v. Lis;, 225 AD2d 669, 669 (2d Dept 1996).
56. Cheryl Samons, the alleged Maker and signor of the stated Affidavit In Support Of Plaintiff's
Motion For Summary Judgment in this lawsuit was recently deposed, on May
zo", 2009,
in
another relevant foreclosure case Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee, ET AL
vs. Belourdes Pierre, ET AL (Case No. 50-2008-CA-028558)
the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in
Palm Beach County. Cardinally, the testimony given by Ms. Samons in the herein stated case
is a stark realization that virtually every affidavit and or other document made or signed by
Cheryl Samons on behalf of Law Offices Of David J. Stern is a fraudulent instrument.
Ms.
Samons makes admission that she literally walks from floor to floor in the Four (4) Floor Stern
Office, signing well over a hundred assignments and affidavits a day, without reading any of
them. Cheryl Samons, who while acting in an alleged official capacity in such documents,
attests to having personal knowledge of the facts set forth within. Shockingly, and with
extreme contrast, Cheryl Samons admits in the herein cited deposition to having no
knowledge whatsoever of what she's signing [Emphasis Added] (See Exhibits G & L).
(16)
57.The other attached Affidavits in support of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Final
Judgment (which has already been vacated), are likewise void and serve no legal
purpose, as they also fail to show an exact date certain of the notarized act, making
such documents invalid and unusable per Florida Law; Florida Statute 117.05(4)(d) Use
Of Notary Commission; Unlawful Use (See Exhibits H & I).
58. Founded upon the personal testimony of Cheryl Samons in the above-cited Deutsche
Bank deposition, that she signs hundreds of different documents a day, without knowing
what she's signing, and the striking resemblance of the unidentifiable, large circle like
signatures of Cheryl Samons and Attorney Karina Musella on such legal documents and
pleadings; the Defendant's Karen A. Krondes and John Krondes allege and charge
that Cheryl Samons is committing a fraud by illegally signing legal papers as an
unauthorized third party for other individuals, purporting and representing to be
someone else other than Cheryl Samons. On April 29, 2010, relevantly, David J. Stern
Foreclosure Paralegal Shannon Smith in Deposition for the matter of Citimortgage, Inc.
VS.
Dennis Brown (Case No: 08-011097) 1ih Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County,
FL, admits to signing Cheryl Samons name on documents (transcript of Deposition,

4/29/2010,pg. 21- Lines 20-24) - (See Exhibits G, H, M, N).
59.The Defendant's, Karen A. Krondes and John Krondes, charge that there is sufficient
material information provided herein to find and allege that someone other than the true
Karina M Musella signed the Plaintiff's Complaint; further making such pleading an
instrument of fraud and legally invalid, due to additional conduct the nature which is
Unconscionable (See Exhibit D - pg. 3).
(17)
60.0n April 7, 2010, in the case of GMAC Mortgage, LLC VS. Debbie Visicaro, ET AL (Case
No. 50-2008-CA-028558)
the
e" Judicial
Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Judge Anthony
Randolino granted Defendant's motion to set aside the previously improvidently entered
summary judgment.
The Court found that after extensive review of case law, Affidavits that are
based on hearsay and not personal knowledge are inadmissible and cannot be considered at a
summary judgment.
Judge Rondolino, in said hearing went on to say "I really honestly don't
have any confidence that any of the documents the Courts are receiving on these mass
foreclosures are valid" (transcript of hearing 4/7/2010, pg. 7, lines 11-14) (See Exhibit 0).
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUEST FOR VALIDATION

OF ALLEGED DEBT VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW
61.Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John Krondes, advise the Court that there is no valid
controversy in this matter as Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, has failed to comply and
validate the alleged debt in an administrative process propounded upon the Plaintiff on
December 30, 2009 and received by EMC on January 4, 2010, pursuant to stipulation and
provision of Federal and Private Law. Through its voluntary quietus, Plaintiff has tacitly agreed
that there is no debt owed to Plaintiff; and any prior belief or understanding of such alleged debt
or claim is therefore cancelled, void, unverifiable, and legally uncollectable.
JUDICIAL NOTICE I COGNIZANCE WITH CLAIM OF RIGHTS
1. The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John Krondes, as American Citizens, hereby declare
and give "Notice" that they invoke the powers and protections of the Constitution and Bill of
Rights of the State Of Florida and the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States Of
America, promised them, so that an unequivocally, and unconditionally fair, just, and unbiased
proceeding and conclusion of this lawsuit shall be effected.
2. The Defendants Here-Now invoke Judicial "Notice" that this Court accord the public statutes
of the United States and of every State and jurisdiction of the United States and judicial
judgments/decisions
of the United States and of various states and jurisdictions of the United
States cited herein the full faith and credit that Article IV, Section I of the United States
(18)
Constitution commands; that Defendants claim the due process and equal protection under
those favorable statutes and judicial decisions outside of Florida.
JURISDICTION OF THE 19th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY
1. Defendants Here-Now address this Court and all parties concerned and provide proper
legal "Notice", that the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in St. Lucie County, Florida has the absolute
power and jurisdiction to hear and ultimately grant defendants' verified Motion and Request to
Dismiss this matter With Prejudice based on several lawful and ethical grounds.
Defendants Make Affirmatively Known, that they bring and addresses this Motion to the
sound discretion of the Court for its adjudication.
Defendants, in invoking their rights of the
United States Of America and the State Of Florida attest that this Court has intrinsic
power, independent of statutory provision, to vacate any judgment and or dismiss with
prejudice any foreclosure lawsuit filed and or obtained by fraud, duress, unconscionability or
gross and inexcusable negligence. Such stated conditions hence reflect the current destructive
state of affairs in the State Of Florida, with respect to the epidemic and plague of foreclosure
filings laden with fraud which is unlawfully displacing our citizens and ruining our economy.
Defendants raise the point, that this court has no Jurisdiction to allow a Plaintiff to maintain
an action of foreclosure based on a fatally defective complaint which is a misrepresentation
of
known facts, based on hearsay, fails to identify the "Real Party In Interest", and ultimately
neglects to state a recognizable legal claim.
LACK OF STANDING AND JURISDICTION
FOR TESTIMONY OFFERED BY ATTORNEYS
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that this Court has no Jurisdiction to allow any attorney to testify
or authenticate evidence for its client. All testimony and affirmations offered by counsel on
behalf of a client is "Hearsay" under the rules of evidence and generally cannot advance
substantive proof. It is further prohibited under Florida Law for an Attorney to knowingly
make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false
statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. All
agreements concerning a Lawyer's representation of a client must accord with the Florida
Rules of Professional Conduct and other law (See rules 4-3.3(a)(2)(4), 4-1.2(d), 4-3.4(b), 48.4(c), 4-8.4(d)). An attorney offering testimony for a client based on material facts of which he
(19)
has no personal knowledge constitutes professional misconduct, unconscionability, falsification

of evidence, perjury, and a fraud upon the Court. An Attorney in a Foreclosure Matter has no
Subject Matter Jurisdiction to authenticate any document relating to the alleged Loan, Note
and Mortgage, as such counsel has no personal involvement or knowledge in the underlying
alleged transaction.
See Key Bank of Me. vs. Lisi, 225 AD2d 669, 669 (2d Dept 1996)
("affirmation of ... attorney who had no personal knowledge of the facts ... did not constitute
proof in admissible form and it [is] without evidentiary value").
2. It is a matter of law that the Court must strike any alleged fact advanced by counsel that is not
supported by an affidavit or other authenticated document(s) from Plaintiff or by Plaintiff's
corporate representative(s) that is a proven competent fact witness with personal knowledge of
the claims, facts and documents (to authenticate) employed by Plaintiff in this matter. See
Florida Statutes 90.901 & 90.802.
90.802
Hearsay rule.--Except
90.901
Requirement
as provided by statute,
of authentication
hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
or identification.--Authentication
required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.
or identification
of evidence is
(20)
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, in this matter of EMC
Mortgage Corporation
Vs. Karen A. Krondes, ET AL., respectfully move this Court to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Action with Prejudice, and award Defendants any other and further relief which is deemed
just and proper, based on all the foregoing truthful and lawful facts. For reasons of the
implementation by Plaintiff, its counsel, and its agents of Fraud and Unconscionable conduct, coupled
with the incurable legal insufficiency of Plaintiff to maintain this action, and the lack of subject matter
jurisdiction of the Court; this wrongful foreclosure action must be Dismissed.
The Defendants
By:
Date:
By:
Date:
'(-J1/IJ
1'/~qI tD
Karen & John Krondes

110 Woodside Green, #2A
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel: (203) 981-1926 Cell
(917) 518-6164 Cell
(203) 274-5277 Home
Email: JJKrondes@yahoo.com
(21 )
ORDER
The foregoing Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice having been presented to the court;
It is hereby ORDERED:
GRANTED
DENIED
By the Court:
Clerk / Judge
Date of Order:
---------------------
VERIFICATION
The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John Krondes, being living souls and natural persons, have
read the foregoing and have personal knowledge of the contents thereof. The same is true based on
our own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein upon information and belief, and as
to those claims or facts, we believe them to be true. We assert under the penalty of perjury of the
laws of the United States Of America and the laws of the State Of Florida that the foregoing is true
and correct.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, hereby certify that a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice has been furnished via U.S. First Class Mail,
U.S.P.S. Certified Mail, and FEDEX on July 29, 2010 to the office of the Plaintiff's counsel David J.
Stern, P.A. at the address of 900 South Pine Island Road, Ste. 400, Plantation, FL 33324-39203920.
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL NO: 701002900001 5181 8070
FEDEX AIRBIL NO: 872650965714
Additional Service Was Made to:

Attorney For Princess Condominium
Attn: Robert Rydzewski, Esq.
P.O. Box 66
Stuart, FL 34995
(22)
NOTARY CERTIFICATION
OfXaren 5\.. Krondes

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD
DATE: Signature Confirmation made this~Day
of July, 2010
Personally appeared, Karen A. Krondes personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence of identification) to be a person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument(s) and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and
that by her signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person
acted, executed that instrument.
KAREN GUANZON-YALONG
NOI~..F1YPUBLIC - CONNECTICUT
M~~ission
ExpiresOct. 31, 2010
'Under Oath. and/withou: Prejudice
Karen A. Krondes
(23)
NOTARY CERTIFICATION
Of Jonn J. Krondes
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD
DATE: Signature Confirmation made this
2qi1
Day of July, 2010
Personally appeared, John J. Krondes personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence of identification) to be a person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument(s) and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that
by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,
executed that instrument.
~ Wi:;~1l
official seal
My Commission Expires:
/ ()
~:3/'AI
K~REN GUANZON-YALONG
mRY
PUBLIC - CONNECTICUT
My Commission Expires Oct. 31. 2010
(24)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION

I. The Plaintiff's Complaint And This Action Should Be Dismissed For Numerous
And Multilevel Violations Of Florida Statutes and Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure
The unlawful acts and practices of the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, Its Counsel, Law
Offices Of David J Stern, Agents Provest LLC, and or others, illustrated in all the prior
pleadings of the Defendants, inclusive and not limited to all the factual statements provided
herein and throughout this motion are incorporated and constitute conduct as such which is
deemed Unconscionable, Unethical, Fraudulent, Negligent, and violates Florida Law.
A. Legal Axioms Providing Jurisdiction To The Court:
1. Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) provides, in pertinent part, that "any party may move
for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to
comply with these rules or any order of the court."
2. The dismissal of action or claim for failure of an adverse party to comply with the Rules of Civil
Procedure or any order of the Court operates as an adjudication on the merits. Cash vs. Airport
Mini-Storage, 782 SO.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
3. Defendants, in seeking dismissal with prejudice, rely on Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817,
818 (Fla. 1993), where the supreme court adopted a "set of factors" for "determining whether
dismissal with prejudice is warranted" for failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure.
The
following detailed account of the malfeasance of EMC Mortgage Corp., Law Offices Of David J.
Stern, ProVest LLC, and or other agents, is clear evidence that the six factors giving rise to
Dismissal With Prejudice, outlined in Kozel by the Florida Supreme Court, have been expressly
met (All prior pleadings by the Defendants and such evidence as cited throughout this motion is
incorporated) :
a. The disobedience and misconduct described above, throughout this motion, illustrated
through included case law, and incorporated as previously stated by Plaintiff's counsel, Law
Offices Of David J Stern, was willful and deliberate.
In fact, such activity complained of is
not isolated to this case, nor example and possibility of mistake; contrarily, Law Offices of
(25)
David J Stern has employed many of the identical calculated fraudulent and inappropriate
methods and acts in like foreclosure actions all over the State Of Florida. Recent case law
previously cited within this motion stands as confirmation and justification for dismissal with
prejudice.
b. Plaintiff's counsel has very recently and within the past year had numerous judgments
vacated, complaints and foreclosure actions dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for its
misconduct.
c. Defendants charge upon information and belief, that EMC Mortgage was involved in the
disobedience, as it both directly and or indirectly, manifested to Law Offices Of David J
Stern to avoid compliance with such laws and rules. Further, EMC Mortgage provided its
counsel with much of the information for which to manufacture fraudulent tools.
d. The stated and incorporated disobedience of Law Offices of David J Stern and EMC
Mortgage has prejudiced and harmed the Defendants in many fashions.
First, The
Defendants and their family have been burdened with perpetual stress and emotional harm
over the lengthy ongoing fraud and deception of the stated parties. Second, The
Defendants have incurred mounting costs in the defense of this action and the protection of
their home. Third, there has been undue delay in this action stemming from the deceit and
unconscionable acts of the stated parties, and hence, the necessary steps taken to uncover
the fraud and misconduct of the Plaintiff, its counsel and agents.
e. Plaintiff's counsel, Law Offices Of David J Stern have at no time offered any valid and
reasonable justification for its non-compliance.
Similarly, the same unorthodox and non-
compliant issues frequently appear to be a constant theme in the litigation strategy of the
Stern Law Operation.
(26)
f.
The above and herein stated misconduct, disobedience and gross disrespect of Florida
Laws and Rules of Court, by Plaintiff, Law Offices Of David J Stern, and its agents, in the
current case and others throughout Florida, have greatly caused systematic problems,
clogged the judicial machinery, spurred investigations, caused unusual delays, and is a
hindrance and havoc on the administration of justice.
II. Plaintiff Meets None Of The Criteria For Standing Under Florida Law
1. Standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake in the outcome
and that the party bringing the claim be recognized in the law as being a real party in interest
entitled to bring the claim. This entitlement to prosecute a claim in Florida courts rests
exclusively in those persons granted by substantive law, the power to enforce the claim.
Kumar Corp. vs. Nopal Lines, Ltd, et aI, 462 So. 2d 1178, (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
2. Under Florida Law, A separate entity cannot maintain suit on a note payable to another entity
unless the requirements of Rule 1.21 O(a) of the Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure and
applicable Florida Law are met. Corcoran vs. Brody, 347 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
3. Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff in a Foreclosure Action to
attach copies of all bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon
which action may be brought to its complaint.
Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, has failed
to attach any document pursuant to Florida Law that supports the allegations in its Complaint
and subsequent pleadings.
4. The Exhibit "A" provided and affixed to the Complaint by Plaintiff (alleged Mortgage by Karen
A. Krondes and John Krondes with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) fails to prove standing; clearly and
discordantly shows that another separate entity, if any, is the "Real Party In Interest". When
exhibits are inconsistent with Plaintiff's allegations of material fact as to who the real party in
interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. Fladell vs. Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board, 772 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2000); Greenwald vs. Triple 0 Properties, Inc., 424 So. 2d 185,
(27)
187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Costa Bella Development Corp. vs. Costa Development Corp., 441
So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983).
5. A Plaintiff must conclusively establish that it owned the note and mortgage at the time of filing
or the complaint must fail. The Plaintiff's failure to attach an assignment was condemned in
Jeff-Ray Corporation vs. Jacobson, 566 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Progressive
Express Insurance Company vs. McGrath Community Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2005); and BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. vs. Jean-Jacques, et aI., So. 3d, 2010 WL
476641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
III. Asignments and Affidavits Based On Hearsay Are Not Admissible Evidence In Florida
1. In the case of GMAC Mortgage, LLC vs. Debbie Visicaro, et ai, 6th Judicial Circuit Court in
Pinellas County (Case No. 50-2008-CA-028558),
in Hearing of April 7,2010, Judge Anthony
Rondolino in ruling on Hearsay stated "I'm also enlightened by Jones Versus Florida Workers'
Compensation, which is a 2001 2nd District case that finds that the affidavit was insufficient in
that it had allegations that all the assertions and allegations in the complaint are true, that kind
of an affidavit is insufficient" (Hearing before Hon. Anthony Rondolino, April 7, 2010, transcript
pg. 20, lines16-22).
2. Judge Anthony Rondolino in the above-cited case, Hearing of April 7, 2010 further stated, "I
also reviewed Hurricane Boats versus Certified Industrial Fabricators and found that affidavit to
be insufficient when it related to the allegations in the complaint being true" (transcript,
4/7/2010, pg. 20, lines 23-25 & pg. 21, lines 1-2).
3. Regarding the inadmissibility of false and misleading "Hearsay" affidavits in foreclosure
lawsuits, Judge Anthony Rondolino, in Hearing on April 7,2010, in the matter of GMAC
Mortgage, LLC vs. Debbie Visicaro, et ai, 6th Judicial Circuit Court in Pinellas County (Case
No. 50-2008-CA-028558),
by the Court said exactly, "You know what I'd really like to see? I'd
like to see in one of these cases where a defense lawyer cross-examines, takes a deposition
(28)
of these people, and we can see whether they ought be charged with perjury for all of these
affidavits" (transcript, 4/7/2010, pg. 15, lines 20-25).
4. In Florida, even statements made in official Police Reports are considered Hearsay and are
deemed unsubstantiated and thus inadmissible as evidence.
Information "contained in police
reports is ordinarily considered hearsay and inadmissible in an adversary criminal proceeding."

Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 2002).
5. The "[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth
such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is
competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.51 O(e) (emphasis added).
When a supporting affidavit does not comply with these requirements, it is legally insufficient to
support the entry of summary judgment in favor of the moving party. See, e.g., WEdge"
v.
Kunderas, 910 So. 2d 953, 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that affidavit in support of action for
reformation based on mutual mistake was incompetent when it contained allegations
concerning matters about which the affiant could not have personal knowledge).
6. In Florida, abundant case law has well established precedent that Affidavits which are not
based upon the affiant's personal knowledge must be stricken. Defendants cite the case of
Capello v. Flea Market U.S.A., Inc., 625 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In the Capello case,
the Third District affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of Flea Market U.S.A as
Capello's affidavit in opposition was not based upon personal knowledge and therefore
contained inadmissible hearsay evidence.
See also Doss v. Steger & Steger, P.A., 613 So. 2d
136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Mullan v. Bishop of Diocese of Orlando, 540 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1989); Crosby v. Paxson Electric Company, 534 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Page v.
Stanlev, 226 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
(29)
IV. A Foreclosure
Action Wrought With Fraud Is Void And Must Be Dismissed
1. Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528,216 P.3d 158 (2009). "Kan. Stat. Ann. 60260(b) allows relief from a judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; newly discovered evidence that could not have been timely discovered with due
diligence; fraud or misrepresentation;
a void judgment; a judgment that has been satisfied,
released, discharged, or is no longer equitable; or any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment. The relationship that the registry had to the bank was more akin to
that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer." Also In September
of 2008, A California Judge ruling against MERS concluded, "There is no evidence before the
court as to who is the present owner of the Note. The holder of the Note must join in the
motion."
2.
Sufficient "Good Cause" to permanently vacate a judgment and dismiss action with prejudice
is the showing of fraud to the Court (See Fla.R.C.P., Rule 1.540). The presentment in a court
of False testimony either orally and or by submission of known fallacious statements of fact in
Affidavits or Assignements of Mortgage constitute Intrinsic Fraud. See Deelaire v. Yohaman,
453 So. 2d 375,377 (Fla. 1984).
3. Pursuant to Florida Rule 1.540, a Florida Court has the absolute intrinsic power and jurisdiction
to vacate and dismiss an action due to fraud and unconscionability.
On motion and upon such
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final
judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (3) fraud (whether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
(4) that the judgment or decree is void.
or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(30)
4.
The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on 'truthful disclosure" of facts. A system
that depends on an adversary's ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed for failure. Cox v.
Burke, 706 SO.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
5. Numerous Judges throughout the State of Florida have lamented the minority of lawyers and
parties that abuse the discovery process and litigation; See The Fla. Bar vs. Miller, 863 SO.2d
231 (Fla. 2003).
6. In the State Of Florida, Honesty in filing and prosecuting of Foreclosure Lawsuits is paramount.
Defendants cite the case of Baker vs. Myers Tractor Services in stressing the view of Florida
Courts on the importance of Honest and Ethical Conduct; "honesty is not a luxury to be
invoked at the convenience of a litigant, but rather, complete candor must be demanded in
order to preserve the ability of this court to effectively administer justice." Baker v. Mvers
Tractor Services, Inc., 765 SO.2d 149,150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
7. The court's power to impose an involuntary dismissal exists because no litigant has the right to
trifle with the courts. Morgan v. Campbell, 816 SO.2d 251,252 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002).
8. The decision and power to dismiss a Plaintiff's Foreclosure Action in Florida lies in the
discretion and hands of the Court. The right to dismiss an action is also an obligation of the
court to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court. Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre, 697
SO.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
The Defendants
By: __ ~~~
__ ~ __ ~
BY:---T~H-~-T++~~~-----
Date:
------~--~---------------
Date:
----~-+----~-------------

Stamford, CT 06905

JUDGE: BEN BRYAN
EXHIBIT A
Plaintiff
VS:
Defendants(S).
_____________________________________
MARCH 5, 2009
.1
DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes.jn the above-entitled action.respectfully
request that the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, respond to the following RequestsFor.
.',
-''C..
Production, pursuant to Rule 1.350, Fla R Civ. P.. It is hereby requested that the herein mentioned
Plaintiff produce the following items within thirty (30) days of service.
DEFINITIONS
A. The Term, "person" as used herein shall mean an individual, corporation, partnership, Joint
venture, group, association, body politic, governmental agency, unit or other organization.
B. The Terms "document" and as used herein shall refer to original written correspondence,
memoranda, listings, accounts, records of account, ledger sheets, contracts, agreements,
computer records, electronic or digitally recorded data, or any other data, compilation or written
material of any kind or character.
.'.
(2)
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
1. The Original Note and or Mortgage Agreement, referred to in the Plaintiff's complaint in the
above captioned matter, EMC Mortgage Corporation Vs. Karen A. Krondes, Et AI
2. Any Original Written Agreement and or Contract made or executed between EMC Mortgage
Corporation and Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes
3. Any Original Written Agreement and or Contract or Note, referred to by the Plaintiff in its
complaint, where Plaintiff claims to Own and Hold the Note and Mortgage, as stated in COUNT
I paragraph 5.
4. An Original Signed Promissory Note, with original ink signatures, _ex_~cutedand delivered.by
Karen A. Krondes and John Krondes on March 5,2007, as claim.eJtbyJbeJ?ICiintiffin_-CPUNT-L
paragraph 3 of its complaint.
5. Any original written documented agreement and or contract that gave the Plaintiff the legal
right to Own and Hold the Note and Mortgage it refers to in COUNT I paragaraph 5 of the
complaint.
6. The Original, Signed, Note or Agreement and or Contract, from Karen A. Krondes and John J.
Krondes, authorizing and consenting to EMC Mortgage Corporation representing the financial
interests of Karen and John Krondes.
7. Any original, signed written Agreement and or Document that advised Karen A. Krondes and
John J. Krondes, that EMC Mortgage Corporation wished to handle the mortgage on the
Defendant's property.
8. Any original, signed written agreement and or document that was signed between Wells Fargo
Bank and EMC Mortgage Corportation, authorizing EMC Mortgage Corporation to take control
of the Defendant's Mortgage on the subject property of this complaint.
.. , .-. " s rc
'.
__
(3)
9. Any original, signed and written document from Wells Fargo Bank advising the Defendant's
that per agreement between Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes with EMC Mortgage
Corporation, that Wells Fargo Bank would release control and servicing of the Defendant's
Mortgage.
10. Documentation, in written form, that states The Specific Date, that the Plaintiff lost possession
of the Note or Mortgage it claims it held with Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes
11. Written Documentation and Proof, that the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, made
reasonable efforts with Wells Fargo Bank, to locate the original Note and Mortgage it claims it
holds with Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes.
12.Written Documentation and proof that the Plaintiffwasinfactin
Mortgage it claims it controlled with Karen A. Krondesand
possessionof
JohnKrondes-endjhe
theNoteand
specificv,
dates it received proof that it was legally in control and possession of said Note and Mortgage.
13. Written Documentation and proof of authorizing corporate representatives of EMC Mortgage
Corporation, showing their original signatures, names and dates, on Contracts and or
Agreements, giving EMC Mortgage Corporation the legal right to be in possession of the Note
and Mortgage it is foreclosing on in this matter.
14.Any and All Written Documents, Requests, Letters or other communications the Plaintiff EMC
Mortgage Corporation made or sent or submitted, inclusive of the dates, as proof of
reasonable steps that were taken to obtain possession of the Note and Mortgage it is
foreclosing on.
15. Any and all written communication or documents that reflects and states the names and
identification of the authorizing representatives at both Wells Fargo Bank and EMC Mortgage
Corporation who agreed upon the release and transfer or control and or ownership of the Note
...... ,-
and Mortgage that the Plaintiff is foreclosing on, from Wells Fargo Bank to EMC Mortgage
Corporation.
(4)
The Defendants
By:
---7~--------~~------es
By:~~~~~~_+-----------
Date:
--------------------------
Date:
------~------------------~

Stamford, CT 06905
Tel: (203) 981-1926 Cell
(917) 518-6164 Office
c"(203) 972-3497 Home
",
of the foregoing Answer and Counterclaim has been furnished via Fax, EMail & U.S. First Class Mail
on March 5, 2009 to the office of the Plaintiff's counsel David J. Stern, P.A. at the address of 900
South Pine Island Road, Ste. 400, Plantation, FL 33324-3920-3920.
Additional Service made to:
Robert Rydzewski, Esq.
Attorney For Princess Condominium Association
P.O. Box 66
Stuart, FL 34995
_-, .-'.;'_-~
r;;:;"

JUDGE: LARRY SCHACK
Plaintiff
EXHIBIT B
VS:
Defendants(S).
March 17,2010
-------------------------------------,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, in the above-entitled action, request
that the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, respond to the following RequestsForProduction..
pursuant to Rule 1.350, Fla R. Civ. P.. It is hereby requested thatthe herein mentioned Plaintiff
produce, within thirty (30) days of the service hereof, the following documents:
1. All Letters Of Sale or Assignment beginning with and from the original alleged Lender, to with,
and between each and all entities and or Real "Natural Persons" who have and or may make
claim to have been an alleged Lender/Creditor and or owner/holder of this original alleged and
disputed Note, Mortgage and debt.
2. Documentation illustrating precisely the complete Chain and Passing Of Title with respect to
this alleged and disputed Note and Mortgage, dating back to the first alleged agreement
involving Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes with respect to the subject property.
Note: All documents requested in this Request For Production, must include the valid legal
proof of mailing to either Karen A Krondes, John Krondes, or both, inclusive of Dates of
Mailing and a copy of cancelled postage stamp, and address mailed to.
'-
~;"
(2)
3. If this alleged Note and Mortgage was at any time Securitized in any manner or method, during
or prior to your alleged claim of ownership, produce documentation which discloses fully and
completely the identity of each and every shareholder, investor, and or purchaser of interest of
this subject Krondes Mortgage.
4. If this alleged Note and Mortgage was at any time Securitized, during or prior to your alleged
claim of ownership, produce a copy of the precise legislated law or statute(s) relied upon which
particularly stipulated and granted legal permission to EMC Mortgage Corporation, and or any
other prior alleged lender, holder, servicer, and or other alleged owner, to take the home and
personal assets of Karen A Krondes and John J Krondes and bundle and or otherwise create
an investible product out of such assets.
5. If this alleged Note and Mortgage was at any time Securitized, during or prior to your alleged
claim of ownership, produce a copy of the prospectus and or other offering circular which
included the home and personal assets of Karen A Krondes and John J Krondes.
6. The specific disclosure letter, with proof of mailing, that EMC Mortgage Corporation sent to
notice Karen A Krondes and or John J Krondes for purposes of explicitly apprising them and
divulging the full details and conditions of any alleged created and issued securitized
investment product, which included the subject Note and Mortgage, and respective Home and
Personal Asserts of Karen A Krondes and John J. Krondes.
(3)
7. The specific disclosure letter, with proof of mailing, that EMC Mortgage Corporation sent to
notice Karen A Krondes and or John J Krondes for purposes of explicitly apprising them and
divulging the full details and conditions of the alleged sale and or other transfer of the subject
Note and Mortgage from the previous alleged lender or owner.
8. Any and all Documentation which discloses and reveals the true and exact purchase price
EMC Mortgage Corp allegedly paid for the rights to purchase the subject alleged Note and
Mortgage of Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes.
9. Any and all contracts or other agreements made by EMC Mortgage to purchase Bl!lk Lots of
Defaulted and or underperforming Loans, which may have included thesubject Krondes t'Jote_._. __.._.
and Mortgage to any degree.
..~ ..,";;. ,-;::':;--
10. Produce the Law that allowed EMC Mortgage Corp. the right to legally collect monthly
mortgage payments from the mortgagors Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes, when such
alleged assignment was plead in the Plaintiff's Complaint as being not yet recorded, and "To
Be Recorded", and furthermore not so attached to the Complaint at time of service and
commencement of this action.
11. Produce documented proof that the alleged Lost and or Stolen Note was reported as such at
the alleged time of loss (As Stated In The Complaint) to a proper authorized State or Federal
Agency consistent with procedure outlined in the SEC Rule 17f-1, and or other applicable rule
or law. Specific date and authority of which report was filed is hereby required.
(4)
12. Produce the original Letter and Notice of alleged Default and Intent To Accelerate, with respect
to the alleged and disputed subject Note and Mortgage, with dates and proof of certified
mailing and delivery.
13. Provide a copy of the Disclosure Letter, with proof of mailing and delivery, which was sent as
evidence that all appropriate terms and conditions, governing law, costs, interest rate,
commissions, rebates, kickbacks, fees and or other required items were properly and lawfully
revealed at the inception of the alleged contractual relationship with Karen A. Krondes and
John J. Krondes, after alleged purchase by EMC Mortgage of this alleged and disputed Note
and Mortgage.
14. Produce all records, statements, account numbers, reports or other identifying documentation
that relates to any account, outside of EMC Mortgage Corporation, that was connected in any
way to the alleged Mortgage with Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes.
15. Produce any and all documents, letters, faxes, Emails, notes, memos, and or other
communications or other records, that identify the parties outside of EMC Mortgage
Corporation that had any monetary connection to the alleged subject loan.
(5)
16. Produce a complete and true list that identifies all Securitized and or bundled investment
products created by, and or in part from the assets of Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes'
home located at The Princess Condominium, 9650 S Ocean Drive,Unit #207, Jensen Beach,
FL, which is the subject of this lawsuit.
17. Produce a complete and accurate list of any and all Trusts, Mortgage Asset-Backed
Certificates, REITS, and or other type of alternative investment, public investment, and or
sharing commodity built and established, in any way, through the stated and subject home and
assets of Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes; beginning with the first alleged note and loan
with the first alleged creditor and or owner/holder .
. 18. Specifically provide documentation which names, identifies, and fully describes any Securitized..
and or other bundled investment product, trust, Mortgage Asset-Backed Certificates, or other
securities created particularly by EMC Mortgage after alleged transfer and or purchase of this
alleged and disputed Note and Mortgage. Method of offering and investment purpose of any
and all such products must also be explicitly elucidated.
19. Produce the express agreement made between Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes with
EMC Mortgage Corporation, and or any alleged prior owner, lender, holder, or servicer,
specifically authorizing EMC Mortgage Corporation and or any other third party to use the
personal assets and home of the Krondes' for purposes of any and all securitization and or
bundling, and or creating of any type of Trust or other investable product.
(6)
20. Produce the express agreement and authorization of any State and or Federal Banking
Agency and or other, who was aware of, condoned, and specifically allowed any Bundling,
securitization, creation of any trust and or other Mortgage Asset-Backed Certificate or Security;
such authorization granting and given to EMC Mortgage Corporation and or any and all prior
and original alleged Creditors and or Owners/Holders of the subject alleged and disputed Note
and Mortgage.
21. Produce and identify the complete list, and or other record, of names and parties that were in
possession, and or claimed to be in possession of the alleged Note and Mortgage; dates,
location, "natural person" name and corporate name if any shall be included.
22. Produce the Notice Of Right To Rescission in compliance with the Truth In Lending-Act, 15
U.S.C. -1601 that was sent to either or both Karen A Krondes and John Krondes advising
them of their rights relating to Rescission. Dates of Notice and proof of mailing is requested.
23. Produce the complete list of names and provide documentation that identifies fully the
Parties that witnessed either or both Karen A Krondes and John Krondes sign any agreement,
contract, note, promissory letter or document, that in any way relates to the subject alleged
Mortgage with EMC Mortgage Corporation.
24.Any and all written Good Faith offers by the Plaintiff made to the Defendants Karen A Krondes
and or John J Krondes showing any gesture to work out any solution, proposed payback plan
or settlement to satisfy or cure the alleged debt or default.
(7)
25. Produce the documents illustrating a complete list and description of the disclosures that
were made to the Defendants and Consumers Karen A Krondes and John J Krondes at the
alleged closing for the subject loan.
26.Produce copies of all the required disclosure letters that were sent to Karen A Krondes and or
John J. Krondes by EMC Mortgage Corporation upon commencement of alleged ownership,
assignment, and or other servicing arrangement, with respect to the subject alleged and
disputed Note and Mortgage which is the subject of this lawsuit.
27. Produce the written disclosure that was given to the Defendants Karen A Krondes and or John
J Krondes advising such parties that the Plaintiff EMC MortgageCorp.oration:wilL=hav.ELa: "_ , ',:0::
security interest in the subject property.'
.. ----- - .. '. "-.'::'",,-;,,-,-,~,-,..,-~.,,;.:
28. Produce each and every document bearing the Defendants Karen A Krondes and John J
Krondes' name which is under the control of the Plaintiff EMC Mortgage Corporation.
29. Produce the written notice sent to Karen A Krondes and or John Krondes (The Consumers)
when EMC Mortgage Corporation began collecting the alleged loan after the alleged default.
:~;-
(8)
30. Produce the original written Notice Of Default that was sent to Karen A Krondes and or John
Krondes, inclusive of all attachments, all disclosures, and descriptions of how and to whom the
alleged debt was owed.
31. Produce the first and original written Notice sent to Karen A Krondes and or John Krondes by
Law Offices Of David J Stern when said attorney's allegedly began collecting the alleged loan
after the claimed default.
32. Produce a copy of the notice of acceleration allegedly mailed to the defendants before
filing of this lawsuit.
33. Produce the documents that describe EMC Mortgage's process in analyzing the
borrower's willingness and ability to repay the loan that is consistent with prudent lending
practices.
34.A Copy of all document(s) that are relied upon by the Plaintiff to demonstrate the Plaintiff
had legal standing to bring and maintain this lawsuit.
(9)
35.A copy of any and all documents provided to the Defendants Karen A Krondes and John J
Krondes at the time of original alleged application through alleged closing, including all TILA
and RESPA disclosures.
36. Produce a complete list of all other lending institutions, separately from EMC Mortgage
Corporation, which were allegedly involved in any way in the subject loan and mortgage with
Karen A. Krondes and John J. Krondes.
37. Produce any and all documents, records, letters, Emails, Faxes, Memos, and or other written
communication which identifies the last prior seller, from whom EMC Mortgage Corporation
.alleqes it bought and or otherwise acquired the subject Krondes Note and Mortgage. . _.....
-.,.v. __
~, .._.. :_-, ~., "_~
.. __ " ...
I'
!_\.~
-''-...:.:l
..
;.~''-.'_;;....._!:~_.~_''
38.Any and all loan data obtained by EMC Mortgage Corporation from the last prior owner and
seller of the alleged Krondes Mortgage.
39. Produce the first original written communication sent to Karen A Krondes and or John J.
Krondes after purchase and or other assignment of the alleged loan by EMC Mortgage
Corporation.
. __
-_.--.,:-'
.,
..... '--........
_ ...
(10)
40. Produce any and all written documentation and or other records which EMC Mortgage
Corporation possessed and relied upon which accurately offered proof that Defendants Karen
A Krondes and or John J Krondes were in Default when it first initiated communication with
said Defendants.
41. Produce all records and data used by EMC Mortgage Corporation to verify that Defendant's
Karen A Krondes and or John J Krondes were in alleged material default before this
Foreclosure Lawsuit was filed.
42. Produce the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) required disclosure letters and .
notices which were sent to Karen A Krondes and or JohnJKrondes,upon,commer:lcement
alleged servicing of said Defendant's alleged and disputed Mortgage~anc:lLoan.,' . ~.-----
., .'.. _
of "cc;,"',
.
--- ~~.~,-:'-
43, Produce all records, and make full disclosure, of any and all charges, loan modification fees,
points, commissions, and or other fees added to the alleged principle balance of Defendants'
alleged loan after purchase and or other assignment by EMC Mortgage Corporation.
44. Produce any and all telephone records and or statements which reflect and disclose each and
every phone call to date made by EMC Mortgage Corporation in connection to collection of this
alleged and disputed debt since acquiring of said alleged loan by EMC Mortgage.
(11 )
45.Any and all records and accounting papers or other invoices of any property inspection fees
billed to the alleged subject loan balance of Defendants Karen A Krondes and or John J
Krondes by EMC Mortgage Corporation.
46. Any and all records and accounting papers or other invoices of any appraisal fees billed to the
alleged subject loan balance of Defendants Karen A Krondes and or John J Krondes by EMC
Mortgage Corporation.
47. Produce all records and accounting of the total of all fees; late fees, penalty fees, and or other
which comprised part of the total alleged loan balance when purported ownership and or other .....,-."
assignment began by EMC Mortgage with respect to th~subje;cU~r9,nd_~s.lq~_n~C:HJd=m<?r:tgaile."
.. .:>o:: i"
48. Produce all records and accounting of the total of all fees; late fees, penalty fees, and or other
which have been billed to the total alleged loan balance after purported ownership and or other
assignment began by EMC Mortgage with respect to the subject Krondes loan and mortgage.
49. Produce all accounting records in possession of EMC Mortgage Corporation which elucidate in
precise detail how Plaintiff arrived at the calculation of what Defendants allegedly owe.
(12)
50. Any and all written documents, records, papers, agreements, contracts, Emails, letters,
memos, notes, and or other communication between any and all employees of EMC Mortgage
Corporation and Bear Stearns Companies, LLC (Bear Stearns) relating in any manner to the
subject Krondes property, loan, note and mortgage.
Note: All references herein this Request For Production to the Subject alleged Note, Mortgage, Loan
of Karen A Krondes and or John J Krondes (Defendants) pertain specifically to a property
located at 9650 S Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957.
The Defendants
By:~~~
Date:__ ~-,-(l_l...J../_l u
By:~~~~~~~
Date:~6
JP'\l

Stamford, CT 06905
Tel: (203) 981-1926 Cell
(917) 518-6164 Cell
(203) 274-5277 Home
(13)
of the foregoing Request For Production has been furnished via U.S. First Class Mail on March 17,
2010, to the office of the Plaintiff's counsel David J. Stern, P.A., at the address of 900 South Pine
Island Road, Ste. 400, Plantation, FL 33324-3903.
Additional Service Was Made to:

Attorney For Princess Condominium
Attn: Robert Rydzewski, Esq.
P.O. Box 66
,.,.- - - Stuart, FL 34995
Karen A. Krondes and
, Defendants
--
_ .....
" ~-~
~-..!
'
...- .......
EXHIBIT C
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY. STATE OF FLORIDA
U.S. BANK NATIONAL

Plaintiff.
vs.
ASSOCJA TION. AS TRUSTEE,
ET AL
CASE NO. SI-2007-CA-6684ES
ERNEST E. HARPSTER
Defendant.
!
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL, GRANTING
MOTION IN LIMINE AND GRANTING MOTION FOR REHEARING
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on March 1.2010 upon the Defendant,
ERNEST E. HARPSTER'S Motions to Compel. Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike and
his Motion for Rehearing. The court heard argument of counsel for the Defendant and
makes the following findings of fact:
1) The Plaintiff was properly served with a Second Amended Notice of Hearing
dated November 19,2009.
2) The hearing time was set for March 1. 20 10 at 3 p.m. for a 20-minutehearing
but the Plaintiff failed to appear. The Plaintiffs law firm has 10ng,experience:..\Vilh~aJJiIJg:.:;
in to participate in hearings with this court. whether noticed as telephonic hearings or not.
J) The court delayed the hearing until 3: 10 p.m.: however. after sounding the halls
and after awaiting telephonic communication from the Plaintiff. the Plaintiff still failed to
appear. An assistant for Plaintiffs counsel called at about 3:44 p.m. to find out the
outcome of the hearing.
4) The three motions of the Defendant were properly before the court: a Motion to
Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production; Amended Motions in
Limine regarding the Promissory Note and a Second Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike
based on an allegation of fraud on the court; and finally a Motion for Rehearing.'
5) Regarding the Motion to Compel, the court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months, between the time the
Interrogatories and the Request for Production were served on January 8,2008 and the
date of the hearing on the Motion to Compel took place on March 1, 20 I O. Additionally,
the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to produce responses to the Request for Production
propounded in July 2009.
6) The Defendant's Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation
that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the filing of this action, but the
document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior
the filing of this foreclosure action.
U.S. Bank National Assoc., as Trustee v. Ernest E. Harpster
51-2007-CA-6684-ES
7) The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally

perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created
and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date
was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary
commissions only last four years in Florida (see F.S. Section 117.01 (l ), the notary
stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the
purported date on the Assignment.
8} Confirming this, the Notary Bonding Company's representative, Erika
Espinoza. stated in a sworn affidavit that the Notary Stamp used by Terry Rice, the
Notary, did not exist on the purported date is was notarized. Specifically, Espoinoza
testified in her affidavit that the notary stamp didn't come into existence until sometime
in April 2008. fi vc months after the date on the Assignment.
9) The affidavit of Erika Espinoza was un-rebutted by any pleading, testimony, or
affidavits of the Plaintiff.
10) The Motion for Rehearing alleged proper legal grounds for rehearing the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, based on newly discovered evidence and discovery of
fraud on the Court.
~
"
" .
II) The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the
time of filing of this action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and
the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful,
intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the
Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The
Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action. (See BAC
Funding Consortium, Inc. ISONATIMA v. Genelle Jean-Jacques, Serge Jean-Jacques,
Jr. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee fo rthe C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset
Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB5 (2nd DCA Case No. 2D_Q8-3553) Feb. 12,2012.)
12) The Motion to Strike is moot.
1J) The court finds that the Defendant is the prevailing party in this litigation and
is therefore entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs to be determined in a future
evidentiary hearing before this Court.
14) This Amended Order reflects the court's additional finding regarding the
telephone call from the law offices of the Plaintiff at 3 :44 p.m. and corrects the date the
Request for Production was served upon the Plaintiff by the Defendant and the length of
time those requests went unanswered.
".'
... _:.
L"_
U.S. Bank National Assoc., as Trustee v. Ernest E. Harpster 51-2007-CA-6684-ES

IT IS THEREFORE.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1) The Motion to Compel is granted. As a sanction for egregious failure to

comply with discovery Rules the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting the alleged
Promissory Note to this Court.
2) The Motion in Limine is granted. The Plaintiff shall be prohibited from
introducing into evidence the alleged Promissory Note.
3) The Second Motion in Limine is granted. The Plaintiffs recording and filing
regarding the fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage is stricken, and the Plaintiff is
prohibited from entering the Assignment of Mortgage into evidence.
4) The Motion for Rehearing of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and
the Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice,
based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff. This Court
has the power to dismiss a case u~on a showing of a commission of fraud on the Court by
a party. (See Taylor v. Martell (41 DCA, 2005). Also, F.R. C.P. 1.150 allows the striking
of sham pleadings upon a proper showing. The Defendant shall go.henceforth without
day.
. "
5) This Court reserves ruling on the issue of the amount of reasonable attorney's
fees and costs to be awarded the Defendant. Attorney's fees shall be assessed in favor the
Defendant against the Plaintiff at a future evidentiary hearing.
D.
.v",..
.
one and t.JniB\'~":c;
Done and Ordered this __
day of March. 20] 0 at Dade City. F1oriAa. at Dade City,
r8Sca County, Florkta
MAR 2 ~ 2Ulu
LYNN
"TEPPER---f!Jput
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Cc: David Stem, P.A
aeope,
Circuit Judge
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASENO:

PLAINTIFF
.562004' CA(f)Cth6;1~.
ASSigned to
Judge Ben Bryan
.~
VS.
KAREN A. KRONDES; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF
KAREN A. KRONDES IF ANY; JOHN KRONDES;
UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF JOHN KRONDES IF ANY;
ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING
BY, THROUGH, UNDER, AND AGAINST THE
HEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S)
WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE,
WHETHER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY
CLAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS,
DEVISEES, GRANTEES OR OTHER CLAIMANTS;
THE PRINCESS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND, INC.; JOHN DOE AND
JANE DOE AS UNKNOWN TENANTS IN
POSSESSION
.~..'
.~
.&>
~o~2
,:c:...-;.~
;S~t
EXHIBIT D
......
I.
THIS IS AN ACTION to foreclose a Mortgage on real property in ST. LUCIE County, Florida ..
2.
This Court has jurisdiction
3.
On MARCH 5, 2007 KAREN A. KRONDES AND JOHN KRONDES, BOTH SINGLE ADULTS
over the subject matter herein.
executed and delivered a Promissory Note and a BALLOON
Mortgage securing payment of the Note to
the Payee named thereon.

The Mortgage was recorded on MARCH 12,2007 in Official Records Book 2777 at page 2512, of the
Public Records of ST. LUCIE County, Florida, and mortgaged the property described in it, then owned by
and possessed by the Mortgagors, a copy of the Mortgage IS attached hereto as "Exhibit "A". Said
mortgage was subsequently assigned to EMC MORTGAGE CORPORA nON by virtue of an assignment to
be recorded.
5.
The Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage.
6.
The property is now owned by the Defendantis), KAREN A. KRONDES AND JOHN KRONDES, if living
and if dead, the unknown spouses, heirs and beneficiaries of KAREN A. KRONDES AND JOHN
KRONDES who hold(s) possession.
There is a default under the terms of the note and mortgage for the APRIL 1,2007 payment and all
payments due thereafter.
8.
.--:
O-"f.'
~/.,;.;o;
'''-'1.1': .(.)
COUNT I
7.
:c>""'~'P"
~~~~A~~:
COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE MORTGAGE

AND TO ENFORCE LOST LOAN DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff, sues the Defendant(s) and alleges:
4.
.~?~~
All conditions precedent to the acceleration of this Mortgage Note and to foreclosure of the Mortgage have
been fulfilled or have occurred.
9.
The Plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the Note and Mortgage to be due.
10.
The borrowers owe Plaintiff $296,000.00 that is due in principal on the Mortgage Note and Mortgage,
together with interest from MARCH I, 2007, late charges, and all costs of collection including title search
expenses for ascertaining necessary parties to this action and reasonable attorney's fees.
:;~;
~II.
12.
Plaintiff is obligated to pay its attorney a reasonable

Defendants,
fee for his services rendered.
John Doe and Jane Doe, may claim an interest in the property described
tenants pursuant to a lease agreement,
in the Mortgage
either written or oral. Said interest is subject, subordinate,
as
and
inferior to the lien of the Mortgage held by Plaintiff.

13.
In addition to all other named defendants,

creditors, trustees, successors
the unknown spouses, heirs, devisees, grantees,
in interest or other parties claiming an interest in the subject property by,
through under or against any of said defendants,
whether natural or corporate, who are not known to be
alive or dead, dissolved or existing, are joined as defendants

subject, subordinate,
14.
The Defendant(s)
ISLAND,
INC
herein.
The claims of any of said parties are
and inferior to the interest of Plaintiff.
THE
PRINCESS
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
OF HUTCHINSON
IS joined because IT may claim some interest in or lien upon the subject property
virtue of a CLAIM OF LIEN recorded in Official Records Book 2859

COUNTY which is inferior to Plaintiffs
15.
The Defendant, UNKNOWN
at Page 2887
interest is subject, subordinate

The Defendant,UNKNOWN
Mortgage described herein.
SPOUSE
OF KAREN
A. KRONDES
is joined because SHE may
and inferior to the interest of the Plaintiffs

SPOUSE
OF JOHN
KRONDES
and inferior to the interest of the Plaintiffs
'- WHEREFORE,"Plaintiffprays':
That an accounting
isjoined
of the Defendants
of this Court
and Mortgage Note, and for the costs, charges
found responsible
the amounts so found to be due it; that in default of such payments,

of redemption
_Sl!igjnt,ef.e~Us"."
mortgage.
fees and title search costs, and advancements
incur in and about this suit, and that the Defendants
Said
because HE may claim
may be had and taken under the direction
of what is due the Plaintiff for principal and interest on said Mortgage
and expenses, including attorney's
interest.
mortgage.
some interest in or lien upon the subject property by virtue of a possiblehomesteadinterest,

subject, subordinate
by
in ST. LUCIE
claim some interest in or lien upon the subject property by virtue of a possible homestead
16.
assignees,
which Plaintiff may be put to or
for same be ordered to pay the Plaintiff herein
all right, title, interest, claim, demand, or equity
and all other persons claiming by, through, under or against said Defendants
the filing of the Lis Pendens herein be absolutely barred and foreclosed
since
and that said mortgage property be sold
under the direction of this Court; that out of the proceeds of said sale, the amounts due the Plaintiff may be paid so
far as same will suffice; and that a deficiency judgment
Discharge of Personal Liability in Bankruptcy
be entered if applicable
and only in the event no Order of
has been entered as to any of the Defendants
who signed the subject
Note and Mortgage and a Writ of Possession be issued.
COUNT II
17.
This is an action to enforce a lost, destroyed
or stolen promissory
note and Mortgage under
Fla.Stat. 673.3 091.

18.
On MARCH 5, 2007, KAREN A. KRONDES

executed and delivered a Promissory
AND JOHN KRONDES,
BOTH SINGLE ADULTS,
Note and a Mortgage securing payment of the Note to the payee
named thereon.
19.
The Mortgage
was recorded on MARCH 12, 2007 in Official Records Book 2777 at page 2512, of the
Public Records ofST.
LUCIE County, Florida, a substantial
composite Exhibit "A" to the Plaintiffs
original Complaint
copy of the Mortgage

herein.
being attached hereto as
_, ,_ "
~20.
The Plaintiff is not presently in possession of original Note and Mortgage. However,
a)
.~
the Plaintiff was in possession of the Note and Mortgage and was entitled to enforce THEM when
the loss of possession occurred;
b)
the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by Plaintiff or lawful seizure; and
c)
the Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the Note and Mortgage because THEIR
whereabouts cannot be determined.
"-:P---'"
21.
The terms of the Note are shown on the attached ledger of loan marked as Exhibit
22.
The Plaintiff will agree to entry of a Final Judgment of Foreclosure wherein it will be required to indemnify
and hold harmless Defendant(s), KAREN A. KRONDES AND JOHN KRONDES, from any loss
they may incur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the lost Note and Mortgage.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment confirming its right to enforce the lost Note and
Mortgage under Fla. Stat,673.3091.
TO ALL DEFENDANTS: PLEASE NOTE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 13,2006, ]5 U.S.c. 1692G OF THE
FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
(a) LEGAL PLEADINGS -- Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection .~r~li~~~bl:tJ!5JJ~S.~.).Q~~g),s,_
=co, ."
"H
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

formal pleading in a.cJ.Y.!L~"c;ti9n
~~I!IJ,~~L
..._.._...,'
. ~I(d)Legal Pleadings -- A communication ~he'f10fa

be treated as an initial communication.Itir purposes
fs
"
section (a)."
/
.///
"'
. ,,"
A M. MUSELLA
Offices of David J. Stem, P.A.

A 0 / ey for Plaintiff
801 S. University Drive Suite 500
Plantation, FL 33324
(954) 233-8000
07-24678 (EMC)
F:IGROUPSIFCDOCSICOMPLAINl01107.24618.CMP
Bar #: 0030527
_~~.
~-=
22~~
~,.
~n=~ e.,~
el ~
rll
~
a=~
~s~~~"MWS~
~-.
"
Pro Vest,LLC.
S07-24678
4520 Seedling Circle - Tampa, FL -33614 - (813)877-2844
- FWS..(&13) 7)9-3800
AFFIDAVIT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
rLAINTlfF
vs.
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT:rO
CASENO __
ST. LUCIE
OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT E
COUNTY, FLORIDA
.....!:EM=C'-'M=O~Rc!.T~G~A:!'G:!:E:..!C:.!:O~R~PO.=RA~T..:;IO::.N~
_
BE SERVED:
~~~-;200~8~~A~.OO~OO~6~6_
DMSION
..,...,..---_________________
--,_--..:.KA~R:..::E::..:N..!..A!:...
!.!:KR!!:O~ND~E=S:...,
ET::..:...;A:..:;L:;::.
KARENA. KRONDES
lYrE OF PROCESS
_
~---------
[x) SUMMONS & COMPLAINT (x) US PENDENS

( )OTHER~
~
Sl
ADDRESS WHERE SERVED

(fW
360 WEST 34TH STREET APARTMENT
r;l)>
TiQp'l
SH
NEW YORK, NY 10001
.9<'
IN DIVIDUAL SERVICE: By delivering to the within named defendant a true copy of this process with the date and hour of service endorsed by me, and, at the same time I
delivered to the within named defendant a copy ofthe complaint.
( ) SUBSTITUTE SERVICE: By leaving 8 true copy of this process with !he date and hcur of service endorsed by me and a copy of the complaint by leaving the copies at
(his/her) usual place of abode, with some person residing therein who is fifteen years of age
O!"
older to wit: (Name)
(Relationship)
, and infonning such person of their contents, pursuant to F.S. 48.031.
( ) CORPORATE, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIA nON OR GOVERNMENT SERVICE: By delivering a true copy of the process with the dale and hour of service endorsed by
me and a copy of Ibe complaint to:
as (title)
( ) In absence ofthe president, vice-president, other head oflhe corporation, cashier, treasure. secretary, generalmanager,
as defined by f.S. 4H.OBI.
director, offjceulr,busincss.
of said entity.
agent residing, in .the state ..
.
~",="=,,,
) For failure of the Registered Agent to be hislher designated place for service pursuant to 48.091 and by serving the above named.person lIS CIlJpl!lye.e.Lsai.l\c_O!POl'lItiollil!
the corporation's place of business.
....... ,. "",' .....
) POSTED: Pursuant 10 F.S.48.18J(I).
) NON-SERVICE: By return the same on
for the reason thai aller due and diligent search through the following methods
the within named could not be located:
Immediate neighbors, telephone book and information operator, U.S. Postal search. local credit bureaus, Drivers License and Department of Motor Vehicles.
) Military Status:
( ) Marital Status:
( ) Mobile Home
( ) Refused
[ ) Refused
( ) YcsNlN Not Visible
( ) Yes
( ) Married
( ) Yes
Branch:
( ) Married, but separated

Vin:
COMMENTS:
AND~A
MOLODY
NotaryPublicState of New York
No.OlM06037166
Qu~!~fied in:SufrolkCounty
mrmsion H"Pires-~F~ 14,20-.-9
.w
ProVest,LLC.
S07-24678
4520 Seedling Circle -- Tampa, FL - 33614 - (813) 877-2844 - Fax. (813) 739-3800
AFFlDA VIT OF SERVIcE
TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
ST. LUCIE
PLA~TIIT
COUNTY,
<vs.
DEFENDANT
CASE N'O
DIVISION
TYPE OF PROCESS
(~sefVcd
()
0_1...;./_1_9....;...1_0_8
n~XeiNl
(x) SUMMONS
( )OTHER
----------------------
& COMPLAINT
(x) LIS PENDENS

_
9_: _O_O_A_M
at
the within named defendant.
01 /22/08
DATEfTIME
JOHN KRONDES
--'5"'6-=-2""OO:..:8:...;-C::.;Ac.:.-..:.OO::..;0"'0.::;66"-__
Received this process on the
~KA~RE~N~A~.~K~R~O~N~DE~.S~'.~8~~A=L.~
J;>EFENDANT TO BE SERVED;
EXHIBIT F
FLORIDA
~E~M~C~M~O~R~T~G~A~G~E~C~O~RP~O~RA~T~I~O~N~
6: 30
ADDRESS WHERE SERVED

(OR ATTEMPTED)
PM
491 White
Oak Shade
New Canaan,
Rd.
06840
CTn
( ) iNDIVIDUAL SERVICE: By delivering 10 the within named defendant a true copy of this process with the date and hour of service endorsed by me, and, at the same time I
delivered to the within named defendant a copy ofthe complaint.
.
SUBSTITUTE
By leaving a true copy of this process with the date and hour of service endorsed by me and a copy of the complain! by leaving the copies at
SERVICE:
Florence
.(hislhor) usual place of abode, with some person residing therein who is fifteen years ofage or older to wit: (Name)
(Relationship)
( ) CORPORATE.
Mother /cotenant
PARTNERSHIP.
me and a copy ofthecomplnint

( ) In absence of the president.
as defined by F.S. 48.08J.
(i
ASSOCIATION
to: .;.~.
vice-president.
.and infonning
OR GOVERNMENT
..__
SERVICE:
such person of their contents.

By delivering
_ ._.,
other head of the corporation,
For failure of the Registered Agent to be his/he- designated

place of business.
the corporation's
Krondes
-
pursuant to F.S. 48.031.
a true copy of the process with the date and hour of service endorsed by
as (title)
cashier, treasurer. secretary.
ofsaid
general manager .director..officer.nr
place for service pursuant to 48.09 I and by-serving-the

- ---_.-
above-namcdperscn
.
entity ..
business-agent.residing
as employee
in-thcst.1te ..
of-said corporarionet
( ) POSTED: Pursuant to F.S.48. I 83( I).

( ) NONSERVICE: By return the same on
the within named could not be located:
Immediate neighbors, tetepbonc book and information
-'+_o!.,_'
--: __
operator.
~) Military Status:
~) Mantel Status:
( ) Refused
K)No
( ) Refused
X) Not
( ) Mobile Home
( ) Ye,;/VIN Not Visible
( )No
for the reason that after due and diligent search through the following
afMolor Vehicles.
U.S. Posta' search. local credit bureaus, Drivers License and Depil11ment
married
( ) Yes
Branch:
( ) Monied
( ) Married,
( ) Yes
_
but separated
Vin:
COMMENTS:
d I am over the age of 18 years and the above affidavit is true and correct
':E"uw~IIl&.40l:Wlll!nLand...lIuUhdatl.U.lA1<djJLl.l...au..~..s..ll.525
+-
Certified Process Server /I

County
ck.sERVER
)SERVER
Hartford
PERSONALLY
PRODUCED
KNOWN
Alan
OTARYPUBUC
TO
AS id
Jones
,.--,;:
....'.
.
'-
methods
~::"''''''''' ... _.- .....
_...
EXHIBIT G
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT or '1'1-1 19TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE
COUNTY,
FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVIS 10M

~~
CASE NO: 56-2008-CA-000066
('~J>.
<&
____________
-'lf4,.CC:'l

PLAINTIFF
VS.
~J-
~'~
~~O"
0;:-];.,. ~ ~o
Cl./.to~
DEFENDANT(S)
~/'
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT" A"
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROW ARD

.-----..-.-- --:-,--"---ffEFORE ME; aIibfflc'eTaUtlfOi'tzed to take oaths this day personally' appeared CHERYL
SAMONS who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
That your affiant is attorney-in-fact on behalf ofEMC MORTGAGE
CORPORA TION, mortgage loan servicing agent on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above styled
action. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION has custody of and supervises the mortgage
accounts and records of the Plaintiff including the accounts and records of the note and mortgage
herein involved.
2.
I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am authorized to make
this Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff.

3,
/J>
I have direct access to or have been provided with the business records ofthe
Plaintiff concerning the Note and Security Agreement, the Mortgage and other loan documents
which are the subject matter of this lawsuit, such records were made at or near the time by, or
from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, such records were kept in the course
of the regularly conducted business activity of the plaintiff, and it was the regular practice of the
plaintiff to make such records.
4.
That each and every allegation in the Complaint is true.
5.
Plaintiff is the designated holder of said Note and Mortgage; none of the defaults
alleged in the Complaint filed herein has been cured; and there remains due to Plainti ff on
account of said Note and Mortgage, the following sums:
PRINCIPAL BALANCE OF NOTE:
INTEREST THEREON AT $64.47 PER DIEM
FROM MARCH 1,2007 TO NOVEMBER 30,2008:
$296,000.00
$41,181.00
LATE CHARGES:
$716.45
INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED ON PROPERTY:
$174.50'
."_.._'..'.__. __._. .._6P.PMI~.6J:J~J:

.."__
,....__
,__.
$103.00
..c~ __ ._
AD VALOREM TAXES:
$11,054.96
TOTAL DUE TO PLAINTIFF AS OF THE DATE

HEREOF (EXCLUSIVE OF COSTS INCURRED BY
PLAINTIFF'S
ATTORNEY):
$349,229.91
Sa.
All late charges were accrued prior to acceleration of the loan.
6.
The street address of the subject property is 9650 S. OCEAN DRIVE, UNIT 207,
JENSEN BEACH, FL 34957.

7.
Interest on the note at the aforesaid rate shall continue to accrue at the daily rate of
$64.47 for each day after the date of this affidavit; and subsequent to the defaults alleged in the
Complaint filed herein, Plaintiff engaged its attorney of record and in so doing agreed and
obligated itself to pay said attorneys a reasonable fee for their services.
8.
This affidavit is intended to show that there is available competent testimony
which can be introduced at trial, if necessary.
1,/--"""
r=>:
(
<,
9.
"'~.
The undersigned Age~tfurthe'~~"~'tatesthat the b~'l()W-described Power of Attorney
has not been heretofore revoked by thePrincipal . and is still in full force and effect.
\
....
\.
.""
"

\
.,
J.
By:'./Cl;:IERYL SAMONS
..".r
of The Law Offices of David J. Stern,\p~.,
..
.
\
.
Its Attorney-in-Fact, pursuant to Power of Attorney,
recorct'ed (q the Public Records of Br()J~rd County.:
Florida "-J
...
\
\,
\.
\..
\"
..
STATE OF FLORIDA'\
COUNTY OF BROWARD
'1
-,
".J
'V
PERSONALL Y APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undesigned authority in and for the
aforesaid County and State, on this, the __
day of February, 2009 within.my jurisdiction, the
within named CHERYL SAMONS, OF THE LAW OFFICES OFDAVIDISTERN,<B:A.,who
,c:::'
~..,.. _...._A<::19!.oy,,1(;.Qg~<i19
..m~_th~ts.he.i$A IIQ.!\NEY IN FACT for and onpehalLofEMCMORTGAGE:
,CORPORATION, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
instrument, and she acknowledged to me that she executed the same for the purpose and
consideration therein expressed as the act and deed of said corporation and in the capacity therein
stated. She is personally known to me and did take an oath.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this __
of February, 2009.
day
.:
. -
EXHIBIT H
~~~~~
I
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 01

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. L
GENERAL JURISDICTION
DIVISION
CASE NO: 56-2008-CA-000066
EMC MORTGAGE
~--
CORPORATION
PLAINTIFF
VS.
KAREN
A. KRONDES,
ET AL
DEFENDANT(S)
AFFIDA VIT OF PLAINTIFF'S
COUNSEL
EXHIBIT
KARINA
becomes
M. MUSELLA,
being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am counsel for the Plaintiff in the above-styled
2.
No contemporaneous
uncontested
a reasonable
Defendant
case. However,
fee to be determined
cause.
time records are kept by the attorneys
The Plaintiff is contractually
foreclosure
FEES
"e"
1.
contested.
AS TO ATTORNEYS
obligated
under applicable
for Plainti ff un less a foreclosure
to pay its attorneys
a flat fee of $1,200.00
law, the PLaintiffs counsel believes
by the Court in excess of the agreed flat fee-provided
borrower are not required to pay more than the contractual
case
to handle th is
it is entitled to recover
the Plaintiff and/or the'
amount set forth above:
: _,c.:,,.
As required under Cohen & Cohen. P.A. v. Ane:rand, 71 a So, 2d 166, 168 (Fla. 3rd DCA .1998),
3.
the fa Ilowing is a reconstruction
of approximate
time spent on this case by the attorney who handled this file.
Services Rendered
Review ofloan
documents,
and case file in preparation
Review and Revise Draft of Complaint,

Review Final Draft.
for filing Foreclosure
Complaint
1.0
1.0
Notice of Lis Pendens and Summonses,
Review of all Service Returns/Affidavits

from Process Server, veri fy addresses, verify III iIitary
and marital status of defendants, verify occupancy of property. Note default dates and document
file re: same
1.0
Motions for and Orders of, Default, Non-Military

Party
0.5
Review and Revise Affidavit

of same, and review,
Service Affidavits
in Support of Motion for Final Summary
and Notice of Dropping
Judgment,
Review and Revise Motion for Final Summary Judgment, supporting Affidavits,
Summary Final Judgment, and Notice of Hearing. Review Final Draft.
Preparation
for and attendance
Correspondence
TOTAL HOURS
and telephone
at hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

conferences
monitor receipt
proposed
(estimate)
with parties, Court, Process Servers
1.0
0,5
1.5
8,00
4. A reasonable hourly rate for services rendered herein is $150.00 per ~/

5. Based on the foregoing, J believe a reasonable attorney's fee w~dbe
//"
.I /
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this

MUSELLA who is personally known to me.
Notary Pu
P'
*~
1>4'lrn~"
LURYBELL ESQUIVEL
* Notary
:ubHc, State of Flo~da
Commission No. DD 52'17".4
My Commission E::;;:, ~~ :;.':!:Ol C
1v'V"'?V"V"?"7~-:~~:,-v--;..;'''';'::;'-;':'';'--t.
$1,200.00.
'
.I
EXHIBIT I
mDIClAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION
~
CASE NO:
c M~
V)
DIVISION
(O-2ODf-CA -t::tI[WO.
MO(-tepqe. COr {JYU110N,

PLAINTIFF
VS.
~vQn
A.
\(.vQrX::JC'S,
E---i --f\L.
DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY'S TIME

,
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROW ARD
JORGE L. SUAREZ,
.
r-.
..
, ~,
'" ~-
...
,'
~-,
~'''.k
~,
~." ~~~ ....
being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
Your Affiant is a duly qualified and licensed attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of Florida.
2_
Your Affiant has been a practicing member of the Florida Bar since 1990.
3.
Your Affiant has experience in the defense and prosecution of suits similar to that in the above captioned
case and is familiar with the factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee outlined in R_
Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(b) and under Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v_Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985).
4.
Your Affiant has examined the attorney's file in this proceeding, including the Affidavit of Plaintiffs
Counsel as to Attorney's Fees.
5.
Your Affiant has no interest in the outcome of this litigation.
6.
Your Affiant is not associated with or employed by Plaintiff or by Defendants or by attorneys of either-
7.
Your affiant is familiar with the amounts customarily charged by attorneys and allowed by the Court for
attorney's fees in such cases in the area and that $150.00 per hour is a reasonable rate.
8.
Your Affiant knows the reasonable value of the services rendered and hours by Plaintiff's attorney and is of
the opinion that the sum of $ 12.c0
would be reasonable attorney's fees for @'2
hours for the
services rendered in this cause.
.ro
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRlBED before me this __

JORGE L. SUAREZ who is personally known to me.
*" *
o~
">~ ~
LURYBELL ESQUIVEL
Dr-Jotary Public, State of Florida

Commission No. DO 524794
My Commission Expires 3/2/2010
'
day of
rr-----r.---
by
TH. K"," COM'AN'.'
i.i,c
EXHIBIT J
March 25, 2009
To \\Thorn It May Concern:

Ms. Karen Krondes resided in our building at 360 West 34th Street apartment SH from
December 1, 2004 until November 30,2006,
Yours truly,
"
Sheree R Illfelder
Bookkeeper
I,
300 East 3'F" Street

New York,
NY 10016
212.481.5700
f 212-"181.6485
www.KIBEl.com
lAGEOl : FL-07-21325-2
12/l8/200711:02:38am
Page I of27
DOC: OR 2777/2512
EDWIN M. FRY, Jr., CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT - SAINT LUCIE COUNTY
FILE # 3024001 OR BOOK 2777 PAGE 2512, Recordad 03/12/2007 at 03:27 PM
Doc Tax: $1036.00 Int Tax: $592.00
----=------_._----,_.
EXHIBIT K
:-
c-----
u
---
Poor Quality For

Scanning
Return To:
'WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
FINAL DOCUMENTS X999~OlM
1000 BLUE GENTIAN ROAD
EAGAN, MN 551211663
This doeument was prepared

JANICE YOUNG
WELLS FARGO BANK. N.A.
3480 STAnYlEW BLVD.
FORT MILL. SC 28715-
by:
------------ISpaco
Abav.
Thlslina
FDr
R"""ang
D
ata
1----------
MORTG.'\GF
0158710079
The property herein conveyed doe. not noY nor 'has it ever constituted
the homestead property of the Grantor nor has it been contiguous ",j'l, ':~,_
homwBtead.
..
The Grantor's homestead address is: 110 Woodside Green, 6 2A, ~"~,:urd.
CT. 00705.
DEFINITIONS
..........
--
Words u.ed In muttlple s.ctlons .-orcth,i. '!'""'''~'I.nt are defined 'below and clner wortls are
defined In Sections 3, II, 13. 1&, V':';'nd <1. Cer1ain rules regartllng tho usage of wortls used
in this document are also prO:;!';l'j~<lin Section 16.
'jA) "S"".; .~, i&tnJmenr' moanslhlsdoeument,

together with all Riders to this documont.
which is dated MARCH 5, 2007
'~'I:'
......
':-'"
'-:.
.-.
'"
,.,
(B) "Borrower" I.
KAREN A XRONOES AND JOHN KRONOES, ~
.si0j\~ QdJ\~.s
~~("1r,g;.;".~ff:\ti~~,~t~~~.~~!~~~j~"~~~}i::,ll~~~~~f~~~n~'tr:;~~~o'$:r;~'''~;~~W~~}J~\,~h'";:w~~~e#~~.~*.r~~~~~U-~~iU~~;Z!M~j.':(~~.7~A(JJ.!tt:.~!-tf.1;~;;:i~."~::
BOlTQwer I. tho mortgagor'under
this Securtty Instrument.
, (C) ,"lMIde'" Is WElLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Lender Is 8 Hallonal Aaaoclatlon
organized and existing under the laws of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
f1.ORIDA. Singiafamily. F II_Ie

P'O' 1 of I'
Inlti.ls:
-Y-
<J)L
/ ~-,p
II UIIIR>RIIDlSmWEliT
FOAII 3010
SFU1
Rev
1101
l1JQVOO
t ,,'
". ~
~'.... &....~~JlQr.~b.Y F(}~.:.;..it:&.P.DF.creE

._nsor
~.~~~~,~t~
RO<Jloni,n,g
Jln-d TIWI1'1c:ri[JMiO!l,
lnc.
EXHIBIT L
Page
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO:
50 2008 CA 028558 XXXX MB
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS

TROSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1 INC.
TROST 2006-HE4,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BELOURDES PIERRE; MAGUE PIERRE; ANY AND ALL
UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER
AND- AGAINST THE HEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD OR
ALIVE, WHETHER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM
AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES,
GRANTEES OR OTHER CLAIMANTS; HYPOLUXO WEST
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. F/K/A
CONCEPT HOMES OF LANTANA, PHASE 9, PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; JOHN DOE AND JANE
DOE AS UNKNOWN TENANTS IN POSSESSION,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------/
900 South Pine Island Road
Plantation, Florida
Wednesday, May 20th, 2009
2:15 p.m.
DEPOSITION OF CHERYL SAMONS
Taken before Ruthanne Machson, Notary Public, in
and for the State of Florida at large in the above cause.
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401
&G~~.r_atedbY
F.OX!'i?F Creator Foxit Software
nsor . lh~~~~~f,~
\... Repornng
For evaluation
only.
and Tr",".czri~i ..
" Inc.
Page 2
A P PEA
RAN
C E S
2
3
4
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
5
6
Law Offices of David J.
Stern, P.A.
900 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 400

7
Plantation, Florida 33324

BY:
DONNA EVERTZ, ESQUIRE
8
9
10
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
-11 ~-
12
Ice Legal, P.A.

1975 Sansburys Way, Suite 115
13
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411

BY:
THOMAS E. ICE, ESQUIRE
14
15
16
ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS:
17
18
DAVID C. BAKALAR, ESQUIRE

450 N. Park Road, Suite 410
19
Hollywood, Florida 33021
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771
"
.'-
&Gew~.r~t~
by Fry.X!~F
c.reator Foxit Software

For evaluation only .
nsor'h~~P<:!:t'e@&n
RC'poni:nlE. and Tnm~c'Ti'p~i,~, Inc.
Page
1
Thereupon,
CHERYL
2
3
having been
and testified
. .....-c-. __ ~_~
____
was examined
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. ICE:
Q.
7
8
SAMONS
first duly sworn or affirmed,
5
6
Could you state your full name for the
record, please.
A.
Cheryl Samons.
10
Q.
Do you have a middle
12
Q.
What is your business
13
A.
900 South Pine Island Road.
14
Q.
That's in Plantation?
15
A.
Yes.
17
A.
The Law Offices
18
Q.
That is where you are employed?
19
A.
Yes,
20
Q.
How long have you been employed
21
A.
Fourteen
22
Q.
I take it you have been deposed
24
A.
Yes,
25
Q.
How many times
name?
Fl.
address?
16
23
of David
Stern.
sir.
here?
years.
many times
before?
sir.
roughly?
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

Creator Foxit Software

b.Y F(}X!IJ.?F.
nsor &
..Ge.R~,r~t~..
h~@@~~e.~
.. RC<JlClr1i;rlii
and T .m"ClriJl~i-, ll'lC,
Page
And
that
MR.
BAKALAR:
Are
THE
WITNESS:
Yeah,
Q.
BY MR.
14 years
ago?
you questioning
14,
it?
15 years
ago.
job responsibilities
as
'94,
ICE:
What
Q.
5
6
was
Operations
Manager?
It's
A.
little
bit
little
document
Q.
10
are your
really
hard
of everything.
to qualify
I hire,
fire,
that.
do some
I do a
H.R"
execution.
Who
do you
report
to?
,.
12
Q.
How.many
people
report
13
A.
Directly
to me,
probably
14
directly
There's
17
A.
No,
18
Q.
How many?
19
A.
Approximately
20
Q.
Hoovers
21
A.
That
22
Q.
You mentioned
16
23
60 managers
report
to me.
Q.
15
to you?
about
215
employees
of David
J.
Stern?
execute
sir.
has
was
that
wrong.
a few years
documents,
correct?
24
A.
Yes,
sir.
25
Q.
And
part
900.
part
of that
ago.
of your
job is to
is executing
assignments?
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

"--,,,
sor
( t ,\.
Ge~~ ..lr~alt.~eOd
by Fox!~F
& h~@K[P~1,@Sn

For evaluation only.
Rc<pClni;n,,> .and T .msc:ri~iom, Inc.
Page
1
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
In addition to assignments you sometimes
sign affidavits?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
How many documents do you sign, on average,
say a week?
A.
To be honest with you, sir, I don't know.
Q.
Do you have any way of estimating
9
10
how many
documents you sign over a given time period?

A.
No, sir.
11
.MR. BAKALAR:
12
is vague and over.
13
THE WITNESS:
14
Object .to the form.
Document
Because I do sign a lot of
documents.
15
MR. BAKALAR:
A letter is a document.
16
THE WITNESS:
Right.
17
18
19
I sign letters, I
signs checks, I sign -- I mean, I sign a lot.

BY MR. ICE:
Q.
Fair enough.
I'm interested right now in
20
documents that are filed in Stern cases such as
21
assignments, affidavits, things that you are signing on
22
behalf of David Stern clients.
23
Can you estimate
24
MR. BAKALAR:
25
Filed where, filed in a
recorder's office, in a court file?
Could you be
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

~ . ... &.)h~~@@~d'fl~
G~}i;~.,~
rated by Fox!~F
,.nsor

. R~<:1rtin~ -llnod Tn.1]sc:ript.OCl, llllo.
Page
more
specific?
MR.
ICE:
THE
WITNESS:
I really
sir.
4
BY MR.
Q.
affidavits,
A.
Yes,
Q.
How
these
Well,
either
I don't
one.
have
an estimate,
don't.
ICE:
10
Do you
sign
assignments
kinds
these
every
long
do you
Probably
two
12
Q.
When
spend
estimate
14
documents
15
how many
you
are
you
of these
Again,
sir.
I don't
guess,
17
are documents
18
I have
day?
spend
each
day
the
on every
two
hours,
assignments
you
I would
know.
and
do in that
There
floor.
are
four
It would
be
we're
not
talking
22
A.
No,
sir.
23
Q.
Would
say that
it's
more
A.
If I had to guess,
yes,
sir.
I mean,
21
correct?
25
you
affidavits
two
and
hours?
a random
floors.
just
There
a number.
no idea.
Well,
20
can
just be giving
Q.
19
executing
hours~
executing
A.
16
of documents,
of documents?
A.
13
kinds
sir.
11
24
just
you
so we can
about
kind
four
of get
or five
an idea.
documents,
than
hundred?
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

".;,
~,
;-
-,
G:It~.r.9ted by FOX!~F.

nsor &.lh~~~Pt!:t'f;@Sn
Page
say it's
mean,
definitely
not more
than
-- I'm sorry.
I really
don't
Okay.
Q.
documents
during
two hours
every
When
that
two-hour
Yes,
sir.
Q.
More
or less?
10
A.
Yes,
sir.
11
Q.
It's
not
12
A.
Right,
13
Q.
But,
on average,
a million.
know.
these
that's
every
day,
sir.
is what
you're
saying?
right.
you
would
say about
two
a day?
A.
Yes,
16
Q.
And
17
A.
Yes,
18
Q.
Do you ever
19
A.
Yes,
20
Q.
How
A.
Maybe
once
Q.
Okay.
And
that's
five
days
a week?
sir.
execute
any
on the
weekend?
sir.
often
do you
execute
documents
on the
weekend?
22
a month
or two
if we have
project.
24
25
executing
period,
scheduled
15
23
would
day?
A.
21
you
that?
you are
hours
than
where
It's
14
a number
not more
I really
Is there
definitely
A.
3
4
Okay.
Q.
you have
notaries
to do that
you
have
to make
--
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

sure
~e.R~..,rr~a.
tlt;,ged
by FOX!'1P..F Creator Foxit Software
&h~~~.a'e.~
.nsor
Page
A.
Notaries,
MR:
2
3
question?
question?
yes,
BAKALAR:
Are
sir.
Is that
Objection.
you making
MR.
ICE:
THE
WITNESS:
Yes.
If I were
it on the
weekends,
there
would
managers
BY MR.
11
document
who
How much
before
you
time
sign
Very
13
Q.
Do you
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
How
often
you
are
Are
we talking
18
that
A.
17
limiting
this
20
you mean
21
a factual
MR.
27
24
25
do you
questions.
going
be one
to do
of my
to notarize
with
spend
examining
me.
each
read
the document?
do you
find
an error
in the
signing?
about
BAKALAR:
error?
error?
ICE:
assignments?
correct,
Objection
Are
you
I'm not
Okay.
We are
because
to
asking
form.
for
What
legal
sure.
Let me back
up a little
ICE:
Q.
I am still
talking
do
error
bit.
BY MR.
little.
to assignments,
MR.
19
23
or asking
them?
A.
document
all
is a notary
12
16
are
ICE:
Q.
10
They
a statement
here
10
about
all
kinds
of
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771

or
&G.EW~,~t~
'n50r}h~~p~6~
".'
RC'Jlor1imi!\ IIn,dTnm.c.Tipui_,
by Fox!'l?F
lnc

r ,
Page
C E R T I FIe
ATE
of
119
0 A T H
2
3
4
The State of Florida,
county of Broward
6
7
8
9
10
11
I, the undersigned
authority,
12
CHERYL SAMoNs did personally
13
20th day of May, 2009 and was duly sworn.
appeared
certify
that
before, me on the
14
WITNESS
15
16
my hand and official
seal this 31st of
May, 2009,
17
18
19
20
ROTHANNE
21
Notary
MACHSON,
Public
Commission
22
Court
- State of Florida
No. DO 774525
Expires March
31, 2012
23
24
25
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771
.Gefii~.r~t~d
&.Jh~~~a'f.~
by Fox!'1?F
,nsor
R"'l'orti<T1;gan,d

"Tril.'T1~ari~il, JIIC_
Page
1
C E R T I F I CAT
120
3
The State of Florida,
County of Broward.
4
5
6
I, RUTHANNE MACHSON, Court Reporter and Notary

Public in and for the State of Florida at large, do
hereby certify that I was authorized to and did
stenographically report the deposition of CHERYL SAMONS;
that a review of the transcript was not requested; and
that the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 118,
inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of my
stenographic notes of said deposition.
I further certify that said deposition was
taken at the time_ and place hereinabove set forth and
that the tak-ing-of said deposition .wa s commenced ;and.
completed as hereinabove set out.
8
9
10
11
12
13
I further certify that I am not an attorney or
counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected
with the action, nor am I financially interested in the
action.
14
15
16
The foregoing certification

does not apply to any reproduction of
means unless under the direct control
the certifying reporter.
DATED this 31st day of May,
17
18
19
20
21~~~T
22
23
of this transcript
the same by any
and/or direction of
2009.
4'a:-~
RUTHANNE MACHSON, Court Report
Notary Public - State of Florida
Commission No. DD 774525
Expires March 31, 2012
24
25
Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771
9.
The
\"
ndersigned Ag~tes
that the beiQW'descri~e(,Of
has not been hereto ore revoked by t -e-~tnG-iRal~.iS

\
~---"~
still in fU~force and effect.
\fMC~OR'TQAGE
\~'~"'"
\
Attorney
\
\\
By:
O~ER'yL SAMONS
\\
'\
CO~~ORATION
'\
\
\ \,
'"'"'-.,
<,..
,
""'"
'\
--
of~fe Daw Offices of David 1. Stern,~~

Its At{on~~y-in-Fact, pursuant to Powe of~H~'ney\
recorde~
the Public Records of Bra
rd C~'l11Y.'.
\i
Florida
STATE Of FL
IDA
COUNTY OF BROW ARD
PERSONALL Y APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undesigned authority in and for the
aforesaid County and State, on this, the __
day of February, 2009 within my jurisdiction, the
within named CHERYL SAMONS, OF THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID 1. STERN, P.A.,who
acknowledged to me that she is ATTORNEY IN FACT for and on behalf ofEMC MORTGAGE
CORPORA TJON, known to me to be the person whose name is subscr
instrument, and she acknowledged to me that she executed the same fa
consideratio~ therein expressed as the act an~ deed of said corporation
stated. She IS personally known to me and did take an oath.
EXH IB IT M
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State lasl:-aroTC"SlITcrmrs
__
of February, 2009.
--
---------------
ay
IN THE CIRCUlT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 56-2008-CA-000066
________________
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORA TION
PLAINTIFF
VS.
DEFENDANT(S)
AFFIDAVIT OF COSTS
FLA BAR NO: 30527
EXHIBIT "8"
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF BROWARD
KARINA M. MUSEL
A, of the Law Offices of David 1. Stem, being first c
This firm has expend d the following sums on costs:
EXH I8 IT N
'-----------
Filing Fee:
$255.00
Service of Process:
$1,035.00
Abstracting:
$325.00
$16.50
Recording Fee
Title Update Charges:
KARINA M. MUSELLA
Attorney for Plaintiff
SWOR TO AND SUBSCRIBE
MUSELLA wh is personally known to me.
~~~~~~~E~SQ~U;W~E~ll
~ ,
*lj
01 Florida
Notary publiC,
5
Commission No. ~O " 312.12010
. n EXP\TO,
~\1 CommisslO
,
'-A
">:tit ..,..
lUR'f9.
ore me this __
day of February 9, 2009, by KARINA M.
--;N~~~~~~~~~
impairment
of its security. Ritch v. Eichelberger,
Goldsberry,
g.
7.
8.
13 Fla. 169 (1869-71); American Securities Co. v.
69 Fla. 104, 67 So. 862 (1915); and Raskin v. Otten, 273 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) ..
The provisions of the Note and Mortgage being sued upon in this action confer upon Plainti ff the right to
accelerate all sums due thereunder upon defaul! of those Defendants who hold title to the subject property
and/or are otherwise obligated to pay the required monthly installments. Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d
252, (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
The pleadings and admissions together with the Affidavits attached hereto and those which may be filed
hereinafter, along with any and all depositions which may be hereinafter taken, if any, show that there are
no genuine issues as to any material facts. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to Summary Final Judgment of
Foreclosure as a matter of law upon its claim.
The pleadings and exhibits filed herein as well as Plaintiffs Affidavit in support hereof, establish that
Plaintiffs Mortgage was recorded prior to the recording of the instruments creating the lien in favor of those
Defendant(s)
who claim an interest in the real property encumbered
by the Mortgage.
Therefore, any such
interest which may be vested in the aforesaid defendants is subordinate and inferior to the lien of the
Plaintiff's Mortgage. United States v. First Fed. Say. & L. Ass'l}, 155 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff moves the Court to enter Summary Final JudgfT'on'

CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Vf:egoing

Mo
with supporting affidavits attached as exhibits, ~as mailed this
day of dl.1,L.
fr.,
,h"
Ilhinlifr
EXHIBIT N-2
KAREN A. KRONDES
360 WEST 34TH STREET, APT 5H
NEW YORK, NY 1000] ----JOHN KRONDES
491 WHITE OAK S ADE ROAD
NEW CANAAN,C
06840
ROBERT RYDZE SKI,ESQ

ATTORNEY FOR HE PRINCESS CONDOMINIUM
P.O BOX 66
STUART, FL 349 5
ASSOCIATION-l-lrl"'""'l'llol..lTCHINSON ISLAND, INC.
CURRENT TEN NTS

9650 S. OCEAN
RIVE, UNIT 207
JENSEN BEAC ,FL 34957
"
L~
EXHIBIT 0
7N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
GMAC
MORTGAGE,
CIRCUIT
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBBIE
Case
VISICARO,
et al.
Defendant
No.
07013084CI
(s) .
--------------------------------_/
TRANSCRIPT
PROCEEDINGS
OF:
BEFORE:
Honorable
D}l..TE;
April
TIHE:
4:05 p.m.
PLACE :.
Pinellas county Courthouse

Room 317
REPORTED
BY:
Anthony
Rondolino
7, 2010
545
First
st.
Petersburg,
Avenue
North
Florida
Ann Roberts
Public
of Florida at Large
Kimberly
Notary
State
NCCt
,""y
'om"QYj1jQ"l)"j=p'tT7lrcnxrXJX:7'tri'7"7TT=Z'CC'M
RICHARD LEE REPORTING

(813) 229-1588
Tt\!\:IP.A;
100 North Tarnpn Street, Suite ;!,O(lO
Tampa, Flt>riun 3J602
cma il: rf.r@)richurdlec.reportiug
..corn
ST. J'ETE.RSJWRG:
535Ct!ntral.t\vt:nuc
SL Petersburg, Florhlu 33701
2
A.PPEARA.NCES:
STEVEN
CHF.PMAN F.RASEF.,ESQUIRE
Law Offices of David J. Stern, FA
900 South Pine Island Road
Suite 400
Plantation, Florida
33324-3920
Appeared via telephone for Plaintiff
MICHAEL
ALEX
WASYLIK,
ESQUIRE
Ricardo, wasylik & Kaniuk, PL

Post Office Box 2245
Dade City, Florida
33526
Appeared for Defendant
5
1
viewed
basically
were
summary
behalf
phone
on the assertions
that
for
that, counsel
of his clients.
I think
That's
WASYLIK:
appeared
on
it was by
correct,
Your
Honor.
-- and made
THE COURT;
10
the Court
12
which
judgment.
MR.
motion
at the time of the motion
As I recall
targeted
elaborates
raised
it, extremely
really
not review
gave short
reasons,
the Court has delved
15
prior
to receiving
16
which
the Court believes
17
drafted,
18
researched
19
motion.
the motion
and independent
the issues
21
occurred
22
have
23
filings
24
that precipitated
further
in our mortgage
have
in the
which have
the court
the validity
foreclosure
my reevaluation
considerations.
it
well
of the motion
events
about
into
for rehearing,
to be very
in cases which cause
great concern
of
that are raised
I've had several
evidentiary
to it, did
for a number
]4
20
shrift
that
the cases at that. time.
since that time,
13
arguments
to
of the
cases,
of the
and
6
I'll give
2
have
one
judgment
to be
a lawyer
case
you
that
hearing,
was
and
the typical
what
had
no affidavits
said,
up for
Well.
HI
in this,
11
were
12
as it turned
13
mortgage
14
independent
out,
that was
17
mortgage
18
on.
19
in the
20
plaintiffs
21
note.
file
of the
were
Both
23
affidavits
24
judgment
15
the Court
in our
there
the
be
was
lawyer
interested
which
circuit,
same
in a separate
proceeding
original
and both
lawyer
documents
it was the
as the one
Both
you might
was a different
foreclosure
]6
And
me some
homeowner.
to the
that
then
and
not.e_and_:-,-c",="'_'
and -
file.
There
15
recited,
going
and
the defendant
I thought
out of another
it was
to recite
summary
situation,
in opposition.
and handed
II
up for
thought
granted
typically
of that.
called
I
was beginning
showed
an example
was being
contained
that
the owners
and
of them had
whereby
the same
complaints
of them
filed
on
that
cases
plaintiff
had
a count
gone
note
and
proceeded
allegations
the
separate
holders
to
of
the
reestablish,
so far as to have
in support
of a summary
an individual
in the affidavit
pursuing
that
represen~ed
the separate
to
plaintiffs
2
3
the note
Interestingly,
different
both affidavits,
they were
same facts
and they were executed
individual
in alleged
of two separate
Il
ultimately
the original
found
plaintiffs,
corporations,
the
by the same
as a director
one of which
to me to be an assignee
was
of
note.
So that really
increased
this subject
11
-- I don't have any confidence
13
documents
14
foreclosures
matter,
because
the Court's
my interest
in
I really honestly
receiving
that-any
.ot
on these
the
mass
are valid.
But be that as it may,

summary
judgments
I'm still
16
granting
17
on the face of the submissions
18
problem.
]9
of the other judges
about whether
20
can grant
judgment
21
inadmissible
22
although
purported
capacity
II
lS
and had lost
the note while it was in their possession.
10
#!
had possessed
unless
it
that there
And I've had a discussion
a summary
appears
with
is a
some
the Court
based
upon
evidence.
And it has been argued
13
evidence
not objected
24
Court in trial, and so it
25
considered
by a Court
to me that
the
to can be received
certainly
at a summary
could
by a
be
judgment
13
was
entered
into
it was
Okay.
THE
COURT:
IIlJR.
FRASER:
into
--
vJell, let me
-- correctly.
just
That's
our
position.
THE
5
6
I'm not
I'm
COURT:
really
trying
FRASER:
THE
COURT;
rule
11
because
12
reversed
13
and
correctly,
14
basis
I'm
don't
for
Sure.
-- you know,
and
I'm in thB hot
the one who
a --
have
you
just
to
seat
gets appealed
if
I did was,
judgment
and
list.en,-to"yoli;
a founded
know,
17
first
IB
out of the
19
"Unsworn
20
to records
21
insured
22
motorist's
23
was hearsay
24
ruling
I just put
and hearsay"
case
that
comes
In
record
custodian
in opposition
motion
and
for
could
the summary
next
case,
Westlaw.
"summary
The very
up is a January
1st District.
medical
The
I'm trying
it.
)6
on
know,
to be argumentative.
on the thing
What
]5
you
to --
r~lR.
]0
Well,
-- okay.
trying
2S
entered
Jmd
review
affidavit
12 case
it said,
report
attached
presented
by
to the uninsured
summary
judgment
not be considered
judgment
Mitchell
motion."
versus
motion
when
14
Westfield,
"Objected
affidavit
and attached
insufficient
judgment.
the ground
schedule
to establish
Underwriters,
the matter
evidence
and
an issue
of fact of summary
Every
would
could
here
says
can't
11
consistent
with
12
reviewed.
So I'm
not
not
single
]0
15
well,
in one morning,
16
judgments
would
help
I'm telling
19
judge'S
20
nobody
21
shouldn't
mind.
has
give
24
proposition
15
objected
this
help
me a case which
I've
send
me
I've
got
some
got 50 summary
that maybe
and
saying,
but maybe
summary
judgment.
if you
could
for the
simply
to, I can consider
on in the
at them
me out
stands
affidavits,
going
to this,
be granting
23
that
to
at these
I'm looking
So you might
22
totally
because
what's
objected
through
foreclosures.
down
you
you
I've
to create
I'm going
That's
me
in mortgage
I'm looking
and
that
just begging
upon
into
judgment."
all of the cases
that
18
be relied
do it.
cases
statements
be admissible
case
14
17
summary
Oh
"Hearsay
on
13
was hearsay,
damages
f)
the
~qe agre e . 11
Lloyds
on
it.
if it's
I
not
know
that's
15
not
)J
But,
the case here.
least be something,
found any cases which
objected
that would
haven't
support
at
even
the proposition
even if it's not
to.
MR.
The affidavit
FRASER:
instant
affidavit
in Westlaw.
10
because
can rely on hearsay
I mean,
case is distinguishable
in the
than the
in the first case in which

I
think
you
cited
that -- ours is a signed
affidavit.
THE COURT:
11
1.2
not constitute
13
knowledge
14
be determined.
15
qualification
Yeah,
a basis
which
Ie's a business
affidavit
affidavit
18
knowledge,
theY're
19
statements
therein.
says that based
THE COURT:
can
record
to make
certain
I'd really
to see in one of these
like to see?
22
cases
13
takes a deposition
24
see whether
25
for all of these affidavits.
a defense
therein
Two of our
You know what
21
where
the; per,so:n~a.-l,;~, .
upon their personal
authorized
I'd like
does
is what it is.
Paragraph
17
20
upon
of the facts contained
MR. FRASER:
16
but the affidavit
lawyer
cross-examines,
of these people,
they ought be charged
and we
can
with perjury
16
I would
just
to tell
love
I'm going
l,awyer on the phone
.;
they've
autborized
filed
supposed
IS
these
got
from
truth,
Miami
in their
somebody
by reason
personal
knowledge
WASYLI1<:
11
THE
COURT:
12
MR .
ViASYLIK
I had
office
a
that
me
who
is
of attorney
So that
record.
because
telling
of a power
to be the support
M.R.
10
you the
as a public
to see that.
that
was
they
have
for
affidavits.
Sir,
that
waS in this
case.
apologize
]4
--
15
conclusion
16
THE
17
MR. WASYLIK:
remember
18
I may
19
directing
10
brief,
COURT:
assist
Seven,
23
actually
24
Seven.
25
says.
just wanted
coming
to that
Okay.
If
the Court
the Court
which
22
the Court
affidavi:t.
at the time.
Both
2]
was this
That
for interrupting.
J3
Okay.
which
briefly.
in very
the
Seven
issue
that we have
on Page
The last
line
Six,
the affidavit
of our
of hearsay.
cited
bu~
of that,
think
briefly
is the CSX Transport
cited
"Thus,
may
to Page
addresses
cases
on Page
case
quoted
was
on Page
Your Honoy,
is based
on hearsay
20
So when put in the context
of the
constitutional
their
trial on any facts that could
decide
their
case,
-- that
pretty
argument
this case.
think that that would
thoroughly
being
rebuts
you
started
to have
the discretion
lobbied by the plaintiff
Well,
THE COURT:
8
9
right of the parties
your argument
have
in
in my hand
Zoda and CSX.
Both
1U
of those cases deal with an insufficiency
1l
an affidavit
12
business
13
and they both are 2nd District
14
seem
15
that we have today.
based
records
upon examination
or the contents
to be very closely
with
by Jones
Compensation,
of
cases which
17
Florida
18
2nd District
19
affidavit
ro
allegations
that all the assertions
21
allegations
in the complaint
22
kind
23
Workers'
of
of:.recoxds .r>:
on point
I'm also enlightened
16
when
the case
versus
is a 2001
which
case that finds that the
was insufficient
of an affidavit
I also reviewed
24
certified
Industrial
15
that affidavit
in that it had
and
are true,
that
is insufficient.
Hurricane
Boats
Fabricators
to be insufficient
versus
and found
when
it
21
related
2
being
to the allegations
in the complaint
true.
I'll note that there are
significant
difference
witness
has for establishment
records
and the ability
testify
about those
of a record is different
is a
a
in the foundation
of business
of that witness
facts.
to
Authentication
than admissibility.
And I'll note the case of Dollar
]0
versus
11
901.
12
the Courts with regard
13
of official
14
McCormick
State of Florida,
Similar
concerns
records
which
is 685 So.2d
have been expressed
16
hearsay,
17
1st,
to the authen~icatiDn'
in Monroe
County
18
all recited
19
hearsay
20
judgment
21
affidavits
22
a movant
23
also affidavits
co the inadmissibility
this Court
has determined
in cases
and
that
the
cannot be considered
and applies
at a summary
this rule,not
of the plaintiff
in support
have
the fact that inadmissible
only
in support
of a summary
of the DioceSe
to the
of -- or
judgment,
in opposition.
The 5th DCA in Mullan

Bishop
,_
verstis
2nd, 3rd and 4th and 5th Districts
24
by
at 692 SO.2d 214 and other cases.
In regard
15
25
-- there
versus
the
at 540 So.2d
174
but
22
reversed
a summary
The
judgment
1st District
hearsay.
.3
ADT,
judgment.
P-a-w-l-i-k,
at 528 So.2d
observations
about
the
989 So.2d
And
And
upon
in Rose
reversed
1244.
versus
a summary
the 1st District
3rd District
based
in Pawlik,
965 had
some
the inadmissible
in Capello,
to perhaps
address
625 So.2d
the
that
I brought
10
have
found
J ]
the proposition
12
where
!3
the appellate
J4
this
15
Court
16
of a 1 9 8 0 For d pic kup,
77 9 So. 2d 45 0 .
17
was a summary
proceeding.
was
one case
-- there
court
reversed
This
inadmissible
hearsay
20
competent
21
forfeiture
12
in the
23
forfeiture
24
judgment
that the
25
reliance
on unopposed
in the
opinion
for
circumstances
In Re:
affidavit
case,
"\~e
judgment
reversed
court
but
Th ere
was not
though
it was based
trial
Forfeiture
was
thus,
even
And
court.
2nd District
the summary
tha t
because
case,
and,
to support
to stand
lower
is the
judgment
19
an--unopposed"a_ffc~d9-'::\T-.it,
in a forfeiture
of Appeal.
appears
even under
was
The detective's
JB
the non-objection,
which
that
474.
concerns
the
up about
hearsay,
it's
of
noted
the
upon
had
a summary
entered
insufficient
in
23
affidavits,
2
Civil
pursuant
1.510 (e)
Procedure
So base
to
upon
a.mprovidently
All
8
9
entered
MR. WASYLIK:
11
MR. WASYLIK:
12
THE COURT;
MR. FRASER;
15
THE COURT:
10
MR.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to grant
summary judgment
Your
Honor,
in tnis
Yes.
Ma]ce
Yes,
T~ank
Okay.
the order
it
Your
would you
FRASER:
Thank
All
like
then?
simple.
Honor.
you very
you.
right.
Bye.
(At 4:25 p.m . the proceedings

conclude. )
th
the previously
Counsel.
14
IB
to have
me to take a crack at drafting

THE COURT:
17
of
right.
10
13
Rule
otITer cases,
ana
going
and set aSlae
Florida
.11
those
Court has had -- rm

t e motlon
the
ml-l~cb f'..:'-"';'-~:'"
24
CERTIFICATE
OF REPORTER
STATE OF FLORIDA:
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH:
I,
and
for
certify
the
my
Ann
State
Florida
of
that I reported
proceedings
that
Kimberly
at
the
shorthand
typewriting
time
notes
under
Roberts,
in
at Large,
and
place
were
and
pages
record-or
th ev a f o r e s a i d p r o c e e d i n q s .
the
City
of
my hand
and
that
correct,
seal
designated;
reduced
thereafter
and
in
do hereby
therein
foregoing
Witness
a true
Public
the foregoing
shorthand
my supervision;
are
Notary
April
to
the
verbatim
12,
2010,
Tampa,
Florida.
Notary
State
n Roberts
Pub ic
oE Florida at Large
in

Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USPS CERTIFIED MAIL NO: 70100290000151818070

FEDEX AIRBIL NO: 872650965714

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

July 29, 2010

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The Plaintiff has apparently

on March 19,2010 (See Exhibit B). To date there has been no

response by the Plaintiff to the stated

Request For Production, and importantly, the Plaintiff

On March 25, 2010,

The Pasco County Court ordered that as a

COPY OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND EXHIBITS

In Count II however, Plaintiff contradicts itself

Plaintiff and its counsel

The Florida amendment additionally is made to prevent defendants from suffering

The Complaint and its

On the date this action was

Stachnik v. Winkel, 394 Mich.

375, 387; 230 N.W.2d 529, 534 (1975).

PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION IN FLORIDA

PLAINTIFF'S FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A FRAUD UPON THE COURT

by Plaintiffs and or their attorneys in Foreclosure proceedings is

State Of Florida has launched an investigation pertaining to fraudulent foreclosure filings by

The 18th Judicial Circuit

in the 6th Judicial Circuit Court For Pasco County; Circuit

to the Court as to the Real Party In

THE AFFIDAVITS FILED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

In support of the allegations in said Complaint, Plaintiff attached as exhibit an

to be specifically 110 Woodside Green, #2A, Stamford, CT 06705 (Ex. K)

Service was successfully made upon

Plaintiff and its counsel knowing that

The Plaintiff, and counsel Law Offices Of David J Stern

DCA 1983); Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Costa Development

Corp., 441 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983).

Ms. Samons' vacillating

The legal effect of Ms. Samons alleged

disclosure is one of a material misrepresentation.

In simple layman's terms, Cheryl Samons is

Florida Statute 117.05(4)(d). (See Exhibit G)

Moreover, case law in the United States is

the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in

FL, admits to signing Cheryl Samons name on documents (transcript of Deposition,

Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Judge Anthony

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUEST FOR VALIDATION

Defendants, in invoking their rights of the

LACK OF STANDING AND JURISDICTION

FOR TESTIMONY OFFERED BY ATTORNEYS

has no personal knowledge constitutes professional misconduct, unconscionability, falsification

hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.

Karen & John Krondes

Additional Service Was Made to:

OfXaren 5\.. Krondes

DATE: Signature Confirmation made this~Day

'Under Oath. and/withou: Prejudice

DATE: Signature Confirmation made this

Day of July, 2010

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION

In fact, such activity complained of is

Similarly, the same unorthodox and non-

Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, has failed

in Hearing of April 7,2010, Judge Anthony