LOAN SERVICES, LLC Plaintiff, vs. xxxxxxx., _________________________________________/ MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE COME NOW, the Defendants, xx (Collectively herein after referred to as “Defendants”), and files this Motion to Dismiss/Strike Plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, LLC’s (herein after referred to as “Plaintiff”) foreclosure complaint pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(C), 1.210(a), 1.140(b), 1.150(a), and 1.420(b) and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with F.S. 92.525, and moves the Court to order dismissal and/or strike all of Plaintiff’s complaint as it is one based on fraud and one which violates federal, state, and trust statutes and would further show the Court: 1. The Plaintiff has egregiously violated Discovery Rules and remains in violation status for failure to comply with the Defendants' served discovery requests within reasonable and permitted time for pleading, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350. 2. The Plaintiff, for almost one year has failed to produce any valid response to the Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents which was filed on July 21, 2011 and served on Plaintiff’s attorney, Joseph H. Wolenski on July 25, 2011 via certified mail. Rule 1.350, “Production of Documents and Things” clearly states: “(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. On September 16, 2011, Defendants sent out a valid Qualified Written Request (QWR) pursuant to RESPA directly to Defendant, which was delivered via USPS Certified Mail No. 7010 CASE NO.: Civil Division: 32

. the Plaintiff must prove: (a) The existence of the note in question. 2010.S. The Plaintiff has abused the Florida Rules of Court and has chosen to ignore the Rules of Discovery within proper time for pleading. 11. See U. 2011. it is Defendants contention that Plaintiff’s complaint is deceptive. 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 will be dismissed with prejudice.2780 0001 4801 9659 (Attached Exhibit “A”). and (d) That a certain balance is due and owing on the note.150(a). Bank National Assoc. 8. 9. 7. the Plaintiff was prohibited from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to the Court. ET AL vs. 10. Judge Lynn Tepper dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice based on a myriad of abuses by U. 2012 are fraudulent and are not the same documents . LLC (F/K/A Homecomings Financial Network. and a sham pleading pursuant to Rule 1. (c) That the Plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note in due course. Plaintiff as of this date has failed to acknowledge or respond to this request. As Trustee.S. 5. 4. Bank National Assoc. 6th Judicial Circuit Court. Ernest Harpster. 512007-CA-6684ES). The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants for mortgage foreclosure on June 20. Plaintiff states it now owns and holds the note and mortgage referred to in its complaint. when no prior legal plea for time was requested and or granted. Furthermore. The mortgage referred to in Plaintiff’s complaint was issued by Homecomings Financial. nor is it believed that the Court holds such jurisdiction. Judge Tepper ordered that as a sanction for egregious failure to comply with discovery rules. 6. Defendants contend that the mortgage and adjustable rate note that were filed both with the Plaintiff’s Complaint and recently on May 24. and its counsel. On March 25. Inc. In order to recover on a promissory note. (b) That the party sued signed the note. (Case No. fraudulent.) and NOT the Plaintiff. It would be unconscionable for the Court to allow the Plaintiff to attempt to file or accept as filed late responses and objections to Defendants’ Request for Discovery.

” 15. (which it is Defendants contention that they are not). The copy of the mortgage document that Plaintiff attaches to its complaint appears to be witnessed by one “Janet G. Port Orange. 2012. Cueto never witnessed the signing of a mortgage by Defendants. it states “Nancy L.” a notary in Maryland.” The correct property address as recognized by the U. Walker. 13. It is Defendants’ contention that: a) The Corporate Assignment of Mortgage document is fraudulent as it is signed by one. Domenic Albanese and Ann Albanese. the copy of the mortgage which they originally signed. but yet clearly the signatures are quite different from one another. Postal Service is 410 Country Circle Dr E (or 410 E. (MERS). Her signature appears to be made twice on page 15. Cueto. FL 32128. Walker. reflect that the property address as “410 Country Circle Dr E. a question is raised as to the validity of the mortgage and note itself being that the property address noted in these documents is incorrect. Inc. FL 32127. LLC (F/K/A) Homecomings Financial Network. Vice-President” who it is believed to NOT BE a representative of either Homecomings Financial. specifically the “zip code. Further. Port Orange. 2011 and filed on May 12. adjustable rate rider. (Attached Exhibit “B”) Therefore. The copy of the mortgage document that Plaintiff attached to its complaint fails to include page #2. it is Defendants contention that Ms. 12. Volusia County Land Records further notes the property address as 410 E Country Circle Dr E. nor even Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. “Nancy L. 2011 to its complaint that it is the real party in interest and holder of the mortgage and note. Furthermore. (On the “Note Allonge” filed by Plaintiffs. Port Orange. FL 32128. adjustable rate rider and the adjustable rate note. Plaintiff alleges by its attaching a Corporate Assignment of Mortgage dated April 12. 14. Assistant Vice President” – (Which is it? . Defendants have propounded discovery on Plaintiff in order to establish same. Inc. even if it is rendered that the copies filed by Plaintiff are indeed copies of the original mortgage. and the adjustable rate note that Plaintiff attached to its complaint and subsequently filed with the court on May 24. Country Circle Dr).

” MERS has not been given a legal. AN UNMARRIED MAN AND XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. therefore. legal.) F. and Defendants further would show below: d) Furthermore. as invalid for the aforementioned reasons. “Did she fly to Nebraska in order to execute the assignment as it was notarized in Nebraska?” This document therefore should be rendered. said assignment would be completely ineffective. electronic system for registering the assignments and sales of residential mortgages.S..” Therefore. at minimum. or pecuniary right in the debt obligation secured by the Defendants’ homestead Property. 689. “has Plaintiff acceded or legally been assigned the right to seek this foreclosure?” . And. XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX contend that their names are not “XXXXXXXXXXXXXX” or “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.. with the goal being the elimination of costly paperwork every time a loan is sold. HUSBAND AND WIFE…. the question then is raised.01. this document should be rendered invalid for the aforementioned reasons. it’s Attorney-in-Fact. it is apparent that a severance of the ownership has occurred and a question as to. Furthermore. Walker is an employee of MERS or Homecomings.S. It is noted that this assignment fails to comply with F. equitable.” The Defendants.President or Vice-President?) for Deutsche Bank Trust company Americas as Trustee by Aurora Loan Services LLC. “who is the proper holder in due course of the Note and Mortgage?” is raised.01 requires that all land or interests in land for a term of more than one year be conveyed by an instrument in writing. b) The Corporate Assignment of Mortgage is also invalid due to it stating that the assignment was assigning a mortgage which was “Executed by: XXXXXXX.. The instrument must be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party conveying or transferring the interest or by his lawfully authorized agent. this document should be rendered invalid for the aforementioned reasons. “MERS is a private company created by the mortgage banking industry for the purpose of establishing a centralized. 689. c) The Corporate Assignment of Mortgage is also invalid as on its face it states that the assignor is MERS and. Therefore. even if it is established that Ms.

(Bank of N. 86 AD3d 274.It should be noted that in the 12th Judicial Circuit of Florida this subject was addressed in the matter of Aurora Loan Services. MERS does not even act as the servicing agent to receive the payments and remit them to the lender. N. v Silverberg. Mortgage Elec. U. v Gress. Dellarmo (standing-NY Sup. Specifically. and that assignment is completely ineffective. LLC v.Van Lew. it does so without rights to the debt. v Collymore. v Barnett. “In a mortgage foreclosure action. therefore. v Collymore. Bank of N. MERS has no substantive rights itself and. Cisco v.A.S. v Silverberg.” LaSalle Bank Nat. v Silverberg.S.. v Coakley. 2006 WL 2251721 (Sup. cannot assign what it does not have. Ass’n v. As nominee for the lender. In this case. 86 AD3d at 280. MERS records the mortgage and tracks ownership of the lien. e.g. MERS’ rights under the deed are pursuant to a nominee capacity. Silverberg. it was found “that the assignment attached to the amended complaint is from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Although MERS holds the security in a nominee capacity. App. MERS has no rights to the underlying debt repayment secured by the mortgage. Inc. 279. The court ruled that MERS had no right to assign The Silverbergs’ mortgage because MERS did not hold (own) the promissory note for the underlying mortgage loan. In its ordinary meaning. 2011) the court dismissed a foreclosure case on the basis that the alleged “assignment” of the mortgage by MERS was invalid. 68 AD3d 709). 141 P. Bank. Inc. 753). while assignment of a promissory note also effectuates assignment of the mortgage (see Bank of N.Y.. See. Inc.2006).Y. Judith Mendes Da Costa. Bank v. 09-142-CA.2d 769. see Countrywide Home Loans. Moreover. 824 N. 2d 575. a nominee represents the principal in only a "nominal capacity" and does not receive any property or ownership rights of the person represented. Lamy. Where a defendant raises the issue of standing.2d 433 .Y. 583-84. the plaintiff must prove its standing to be entitled to relief (see CitiMortgage. Inc.S. MERS serves in a very limited capacity. Registration Sys.Ct. (hereinafter “MERS”) to Plaintiff. Trust Co. 60 Cal. a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” (Bank of N.) the court stated. N. 279 (2d Dept.Y. 68 AD3d 752.Y.S. “A nominee of the owner of the note and mortgage may not effectively assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in said note and mortgage by the nominee. In a New York appellate court.A. 88 AD3d 759. Bank. Also noted in the matter of U. 88 AD3d 636. 86 AD3d 274. Deutsche Bank Natl.” Additionally. U. 86 AD3d at 280). 68 AD3d at 753-754. v Rosenthal.

Inc.(1943).W. independent of the direction of the specific Lender who holds the repayment interest in the security instrument at the time MERS purports to act. 2d 784 (2005). 704 N. Further. MERS argued that it is not authorized to engage in practices that would make it a party to either the enforcement of mortgages or the transfer of mortgages. NO. Furthermore. Inc. at 535. The deed says that MERS acts "solely as nominee for Lender. 56. see also Applebaum v. Kinko’s Graphic Corp. 901 S. 812 A. 08-1299 (Sup.. App. v. MERS challenged an administrative finding that it was a mortgage banker subject to license and registration requirements. 856 (1995) citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 33 (1958)) and (Mortgage Electronic Registration System.” . “An agent is authorized to do. MERS may not act on its own.Sys. 889 (Del. MERS explains that it merely “immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.) In another forum.2d 880..” 270 Neb. “MERS has no independent right to collect on any debt because MERS itself has not extended any credit. The Nebraska Supreme Court found in favor of MERS. 529. Florida law actually prevents MERS from foreclosing on property because it is not the note owner or note holder.e. v. v. noting. Avaya. In Mortgage Elec. Inc. Nebraska Department of Banking. 270 Neb.. MERS argues that it does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and has no right to payments made on the notes. Ark 2009)). Southwest Homes of Arkansas. 2d 854. and to do only. and none of the mortgage debtors owe MERS any money. Reg . 2002) (referring to nominees "as agents of the beneficial owners"). 50 Ark. St. 59. The Court in Nebraska further noted the following representation made by MERS: “MERS argues that it does not acquire mortgage loans and is therefore not a mortgage banker under § 45-702(6) because it only holds legal title to members' mortgages in a nominee capacity and is contractually prohibited from exercising any rights with respect to the mortgages (i. what is reasonable for him to infer that the principal desires him to do in light of the principal’s manifestation and the facts as he knows or should know them at the time he acts. foreclosure) without the authorization of the members. (Hot Stuff." There is no express grant of any right to MERS to transfer or sell the mortgage or even to assign its duties as nominee.W. and Florida law prevents MERS from acting in a fiduciary capacity relating to the loan. Inc.

17. purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note. The ability to foreclose on the property at issue is affected because the mortgage has been separated or split from the note. which contains borrower’s conveyance of legal title to MERS as nominee. 271. MERS is acting as a trust or trustee without appropriate approval from the Florida Department of Finance. Macy 9 Cal. and thereby conveying legal title to the property to MERS. hold escrows for taxes and insurance. the Security Deed of the Plaintiff naming MERS. The note and mortgage at issue herein violates Florida public policy because MERS is not a trust company or bank.”) Indeed. which is made payable to the originating lender. MERS has no authority to hold legal title to real property and/or mortgages or promissory notes in the State of Florida as a trust or trustee. According to the Court. counsel for MERS further explained: [T]hat MERS does not take applications. MERS has no authority to sell or assign real property and/or mortgages and/or promissory notes as a trust or trustee for any entity. collect mortgage payments. also causes a problem with the ability to foreclose on the property in the event of a default in repayment of the loan. acting solely as nominee. Longan. as opposed to conveying legal title to the Lender.W. 1858) (“The debt and the mortgage are inseparable. 787 (citing brief for MERS) (emphasis added). MERS has no authority to neither sell nor assign real property and/or mortgages or promissory notes as a trust or trustee for any entity. acting solely as nominee. See also Nagle v. thus is operating unlawfully as a corporate fiduciary by obtaining legal title to real property in the State of Florida as a trust or trustee for the benefit of MERS members and non members. from the mortgage. 426. or provide any loan servicing functions whatsoever. The U. make decisions on whether to extend credit.” Carpenter v. 1858 WL 818 (Cal. MERS merely tracks the ownership of the lien and is paid for its services through membership fees charged to its members. it . Supreme Court has held that “the note and the mortgage are inseparable.S. MERS cannot register to act as a trust or trustee in the State of Florida because it does not now meet the registration requirements to be registered by the Florida Department of Finance. 2d 784. 274 (1872). underwrite loans.S. Loans originated with MERS as the original Grantee as in this case. 83 U.704 N. 16. In addition to being void because MERS cannot lawfully be a Grantee of a mortgage and/or promissory note acting solely as a nominee for a lender because MERS would be acting as a corporate fiduciary in mortgage when it lacks the capacity to act as a corporate fiduciary.

. Comment. the same person holds both the note and the deed of trust. stripping off the lien. 81077338. In Bellistri v. Id.went on to state that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note. the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. As such. and Merscorp.App. Inc. & Mortgage Electronic Regristration Systems. are insufficient to empower MERS to effectuate a valid assignment of mortgage. this Court finds that MERS’s ‘nominee’ status and the rights bestowed upon MERS within the Mortgage itself.” Ultimately.4. 83 U. 284 S. at *16 (E. In re Agard . Ocwen Loan Servicing. E. the MERS security agreement that purports to grant a deed independent of the promissory note as in this case. the Court held that “MERS never held the promissory note. at 274.3d 619 (Mo. appellate courts have found that MERS did not have the right to assign a deed of trust. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. In Missouri. Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.S. No.D. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose. unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. as a practical matter becomes unsecured. 10.”) More recently in an Atlanta court. In another decision in New York. the note.Y.2009) MERS’ involvement in the loan effectively led to the stripping of deed of trust lien from the land. Inc.W. Judge Amy Totenberg stated “that MERS assignment of a Security Deed without the note as a “nominee” to any entity is without force in the state of Georgia. therefore attempts to convey something that cannot exist by law. Morgan vs.2011) (“[W]ithout more. Id.” The Court effectively quieted title in favor of Bellistri. Ocwen Loan Servicing. Judge Totenberg ruled that Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief (Count II). Carpenter. Feb. 1:10-CV-3555-AT In this case. 2011 WL 499959. The Missouri Court of Appeals treated the recorded assignment as a legal nullity. Ocwen produced an assignment of the deed of trust from MERS to Ocwen.D. In this instance. In the Event that the note and the deed of trust are split. LLC.N.” In Re: Michael L. . Looking to the American Law Institute’s Third Restatement of Property Law the court stated: “Typically. Without the agency relationship.. thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force. The mortgage loan became ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust.

2d 680 (Fla 4th DCA 2004) regarding the assignment of a mortgage.” but rather should be given great consideration. Byrd (2008). Gross. . N. The First District Court of Appeals in Ohio has set crucial recent foreclosure case law. When exhibits are inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s allegations of material fact as to whom the real party in interest is. 424 So.. 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 as of the date of the commencement of the action. Given the recent reported cases wherein it has been noted that there are more than 100. 2nd DCA 2005).wrongful foreclosure (Count VI). 4th DCA 1983). Progressive Express Insurance Company v. 441 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Costa Development Corp.2d 1281 (Fla. Inc. McGrath Community Chiropractic. The plaintiff ’s failure to meet the standing requirements as of the commencement of this foreclosure action renders the complaint fatally defective and. as the Second District Court of Appeals noted. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. v. intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII). such allegations cancel each other out. 3rd DCA 1983). Inc. 2000).000 instances of fraudulent assignments perpetrated by banks. including Aurora. LLC v. 187 (Fla. in Wells Fargo Bank. Costa Bella Development Corp. 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. 21. 913 So. In Florida. 316 So. 19. However.A. negligence (Count VIII). Your Construction Center. 772 So. 874 So. this matter should not simply be “swept under the rug. 4th DCA 1975) 20. The Defendants recognize the precedent set in WM Specialty Mortgage. Greenwald v. Fladell v. and RICO (Count IX) was DENIED. Plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a foreclosure action in which it seeks to foreclose on a note which it does not own. therefore constitutes misrepresentation as to who the Plaintiff really is.. 2d 596 (Fl. Salmon. v. v. The assignment cannot post date the filing of this action if assignment does not relate back to the commencement of the litigation. the prosecution of a foreclosure action is by the owner and holder of the mortgage and the note. 18. 2d 185. Triple D Properties.2d 1240 (Fla. that particularly involved MERS as well.

130(b) provides in pertinent part: “Any exhibit attached to a pleading shall be considered a part thereof for all purposes. Plaintiff lacks the legal standing to sue and seek foreclosure on the Defendants as Plaintiff was not a party to the mortgage contract. yet it is the belief of the Defendants that the note was part of larger securitization process and sold to several un-named parties and beneficial owners and any claims by Plaintiff. 187 (Fla..210(a) are met. Brody."A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has. v. 178 Ohio App." Wells Fargo Bank." 22. in the absence of the original note endorsed to Plaintiff. " If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed.C. those allegations are neutralized and Plaintiff ’s complaint is rendered objectionable.P. Concoran v.” Because the facts revealed by Plaintiff ’s exhibit are inconsistent with Plaintiff ’s allegations as to its ownership of the subject note and mortgage.P. It went on to hold.2d 722 (2008). 27. 26. 1. 23.3d 285.C. 2d 185. The Plaintiff is legally barred from entering into evidence any alleged proof of standing per its refusal to address such demand for proof and accounting by its own failure to reply in a timely fashion to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents.R. 1. Triple D Properties.R. . In one Florida case it was found that a separate entity may not maintain suit on a note payable to another entity unless the requirements of F. it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. some real interest in the subject matter of an action. 4th DCA 1977). F. in an individual or a representative capacity. 424 So. Furthermore. Byrd. 897 N. 4th DCA 1983). 25. Greenwald v. the Plaintiff alleges that it is the holder in due course on the subject mortgage and note. are a clear misrepresentation of the actual facts. 347 So. Inc. It is the position of the Defendants that if the courts were to allow a Plaintiff to bring a cause of action in a scenario where the Plaintiff alleges that it owns a certain note and mortgage but fails to provide any evidence to the courts that this. 2008-0hio-4603. in fact true. 24.2d 689 (Fla.E. the courts would open the door to incredible harm to any homeowner whose home is secured by a mortgage.

Erickson v. Harpster Sl-2007-CA-6684-ES. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation and is required to post a nonresident cost bond. Pardus.S.525 as construed by Moss v. 89. it was noted that “any verification of a foreclosure complaint must be in conformity with F. In a 7-page written opinion by Judge Anthony Rondolino of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Pinellas County. In accordance with the Supreme Court of the . based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff. Pursuant to F. as Trustee v.. Lennar Florida Partners. 32. fraudulently.” In Re. wherein it has no legal authority to seek foreclosure on a mortgage which Plaintiff knew was not legally in its name. Defendants are appearing Pro se.S. 29. 94 (2007). but at minimum. that they be allowed to amend their Motion to correct any and all deficiencies.S. Plaintiff is required to include a “Verification” of the foreclosure complaint. It is Defendants contention that the Plaintiff has unlawfully.S.001. Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure. Bank National Assoc. 31. Rule 1.S." In the matter of U. The Court cannot be in a position of enabling Plaintiff and its attorneys to commit material misrepresentation or felony crimes. 57. Judge Tepper ruled “The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 4th DCA 1996)” and that because of this he will reject verifications based on “information and belief” or using language indicating the declaration is only true and correct “to the best of my knowledge and belief”. it would result in a major injustice to the Defendant.2d 84 (Fla. This Court has the power to dismiss a case a showing of a commission of fraud on the Court by a party. Defendant hereby requests that this Court require Plaintiff to post said bond as required by Florida Statutes. If the court were to allow the Plaintiff in this case to prevail in light of serious misrepresentation and fraud upon the court. 673 So.   33. and with intent to deceive. 551 U. such language is clearly used.28. and pray that not only will this Motion to Dismiss/Strike be liberally construed and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 92. misrepresented to this Honorable Court that it had legal standing to file this action.525. Pursuant to F.” 30. In this instant matter. in relevant part.420(b) provides. 92. Ernest E. 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.

P.. WHEREFORE. Kerner. 1. to which Defendants may be entitled and for such other and further relief this Court may deem to be just and proper. FL 33324 on this ______ day of June. Esq. including declaratory and injunctive relief. award Defendants actual compensatory or statutory damages. Sandy Springs. 2012 by: _____________________________ . Anastasoff v. enter an Order declaring the subject transaction rescinded with the result that Plaintiff’s security is void and unenforceable. United States. Whereas. 953 f.540(b). at 400 Northridge Road.S. and any and all other relief. Pro-Se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a true copy of this document has been sent by U. Defendants respectfully request that this court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss/Strike the Plaintiff’s foreclosure complaint with prejudice for all of the above foregoing reasons. this Court has jurisdiction to Dismiss This Lawsuit with Prejudice upon such finding of Unconscionable and irresponsible conduct. _____________________________ . CIA. Respectfully Submitted on this 5th day of June. Inc. Attention Jayme Sellards. Georgia 30350 and to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Certified Mail to the law offices of Johnson & Freedman.A. Pro-Se _____________________________ ..I. See also: Platsky v. C.United States pro se Pleadings MAY NOT be held to the same standard as a lawyer’s and/or attorney’s. 2012. 25. RA. 1200 S Pine Island Road.R. per provision of F. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. Pro-Se . costs. Suite 1100 M/S 27. c/o CT Corporation System. and whose motions.C. pleadings and all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form. Platsky v. See: Haines v.2d. Plantation.

filed a motion on the 5th day of June. 1. 2012 to dismiss Plaintiff’s Aurora Loan Services. P.210(a).S. Parsons Circuit Judge CASE NO. LLC Plaintiff. that the foreclosure complaint is _________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ DONE and ORDERED in Daytona Beach. . IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY. vs.IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.150(a). Florida. LLC’s complaint. FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION AURORA LOAN SERVICES. 92. Volusia County. this ______ day of ______________________. Civ.420(b) and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with F.140(b). 1. and 1.380(b)(C). R. ____________________________________ William A. 1.. ET. 2011.AL. . 2011 pursuant to Fla. The court hereby states: ____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ It is hereby ORDERED. 1.: Civil Division: 32 .525. and. dated June 20. _________________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING FORECLOSURE Defendants.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful