Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BANKUNITED,
as [purported] successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,
purported plaintiff(s),
MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE IN THE RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY note
AND TO CANCEL FRAUDULENT AND UN-NOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED hearing
[State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)]
1. On 09/02/10 Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had filed her “Motion for Recusal” and “Notice in
Support of Recusal”:
See Docket.
BANKUNITED WARRANT & SEIZURE (F.D.I.C.) – FRAUD ON THE COURT
“interest” and no right to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Furthermore, Camner Lipsitz, P.A.
does not represent purported BankUnited. Here, Serena Kay Paskewicz is not any counsel.
3. Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes has been a Defendant, e.g., U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A.
2
“plaintiff(s)” FAILED to surrender ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE
4. Here, “plaintiffs” had asserted unknown loss and/or destruction of the original note and
so that it does not remain in the stream of commerce. Here, “plaintiff(s)” seized & bankrupt
bank and BankUnited had alleged that the note was lost, destroyed or stolen, and that the
manner and time of loss/destruction were unknown. Therefore, the court is authorized by
statute to take the necessary actions to protect the purported defendant against loss that
might occur by reason of a claim by another party to enforce the purported instrument. See
3
section 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been entitled to
and demanded protection and removal of the alleged note from the stream of commerce.
5. Here, after the self-reported and conceded loss and/or destruction of the pretended note,
most obviously, the non-existent note could not have possibly been assigned.
7. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all “bonds, notes, bills of
exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought” to its
complaint. Here, the unauthorized plaintiff(s) failed to attach a copy of the purported
promissory note. Therefore here, the non-meritorious claim had no base and was disposed.
8. The original document required to be filed with the court in a mortgage foreclosure
proceeding is the promissory note. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the
definition of section 673.1041(1), and either the original must be produced, or the lost
document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. See Mason v.
Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat'l Bank of Lake
City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 673 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.
5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of plaintiff defunct bank, re-establishment was legally &
factually impossible. Furthermore, seizure is not any transfer by delivery in the ordinary
course of business. Accordingly, the Disposition Judge disposed the frivolous action.
4
PRESCOTT RAISED GENUINE QUESTIONS AS TO THE note’s authenticity
9. The Evidence Code provides the rationale for the above conclusion and demand. Section
90.952, Florida Statutes (2002), indicates that original documents are required to prove the
contents of a writing, unless otherwise provided by statute. Here pursuant to Section 90.953,
Florida Statutes, Jennifer Franklin has been raising genuine questions as to the
PRESCOTT HAD BEEN DEMANDING DUE PROCESS AND THE PURPORTED note
10. Here, the facially frivolous action was filed in July 2009 and disposed on 08/12/2010. As of
12/03/2010:
11. Hereby, J. Franklin-Prescott again objects to the fraudulent, un-noticed, and unauthorized
hearing in this disposed action, which had lacked any base and sufficiency.
Here, lawful seizure was not any negotiation and/or transfer by delivery in the ordinary
course of business.
5
13. Under Florida Statute 701.02, an assignment is only effective if it indicates that it is an
light of the foregoing, this Court had disposed this frivolous action on 08/12/2010,
14. Prescott again gives notice of publication of said objection(s), proof of fraud and fraud on
the court, and Prescott’s demands under the law. See, e.g., www.scribd.com.
15. In this disposed & contested foreclosure fraud case, “plaintiff” seized and bankrupt bank
and/or BankUnited did not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument lawfully
seized. Here, “Plaintiff” lawfully seized and bankrupt bank and BankUnited had non-
“plaintiff(s)” SEIZED BANK & BANKUNITED ARE NOT ANY “holder in due course”
16. Here purported “plaintiffs” are not any “holder(s) in due course”. Here in particular,
“plaintiff” bankrupt bank’s lawful seizure was not any business in due course. Here, there
were, e.g., bankruptcy, creditor’s sale, and/or similar proceedings, and “plaintiff(s)” did not
acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument lawfully seized. See Uniform
6
17. Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of “plaintiff” bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, no assignment
was contained in any document and recorded according to law. See Collier Clerk of Court’s
public records. See Ch. 701, Fla. Stat.; § 701.02 et al. Here, there was no “assignment chain”.
“(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove
the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that
proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement
had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the
person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the
instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim
by another person to enforce the instrument …”
Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not protected against further fraudulent “claims” after
said lawful seizure and alleged unknown “loss and/or destruction” of the purported
19. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “plaintiffs’” fraudulent claims of any
7
“plaintiffs” HAD NO right to sue / foreclose AT TIME OF FILING
20. A person suing to foreclose must have the right to foreclose and reestablish when he files the
lawsuit. Here at the time of filing, “plaintiffs” had admittedly lost and/or destroyed any
right to foreclose. Here, “plaintiffs” knew that they could not possibly establish any
negotiable instrument.
21. Any post-lawsuit assignments establish that the lender did not own at time of suit. See State
Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla.4th DCA 2003); Nat. Loan Invest. v. Joymar Ass.,
767 So.2d 549 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000); Mason v. Rubin, 727 So.2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
22. A person not in possession of an instrument is not entitled to enforce the instrument if the
loss and/or destruction was the result of a lawful seizure, § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.,
Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument. Here “plaintiff” bankrupt bank was
lawfully seized and knew that it could not possibly enforce the admittedly lost / destroyed
23. Here, the “plaintiff” bankrupt and lawfully seized bank did not give any notice of any
transfer of the lost and/or destroyed note / instrument. Here, the F.D.I.C. had lawfully
24. Here pursuant to plaintiff(s)’ own complaint and assertions of record, the purported note
Therefore, “plaintiff(s)” could not have possibly had any cause of action, interest, standing,
and right to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Accordingly, this Case had been disposed.
8
WHAT IS GOING ON? - DISPOSITION OF FRIVOLOUS action IN AUGUST 2010
25. “Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes” had disposed the facially non-meritorious action on
26. Here, purported “plaintiff(s)” and BankUnited, FSB, knew that said defunct bank had been
lawfully seized (F.D.I.C.) and could not have possibly (re) established any admittedly lost
and/or destroyed note under Florida law. See State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790
(Fla. 4 Dist. 2003); and Federal and F.D.I.C. BankUnited seizure reports on file.
27. Here, the “plaintiff(s)” had conceded “unknown” loss and/or destruction of the purported
“note”, which “was the result of a lawful seizure” (F.D.I.C.), Section 673.3091, Florida
Statutes. See also § 90.953, Fla. Stat. Therefore, “plaintiff” knew that it could not have
possibly met the requirements to (re) establish a lost/destroyed/stolen note under the law.
BANKRUPT BANKUNITED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY action & attorney’s fees
28. Here, the “plaintiff(s)” lawfully seized and bankrupt bank failed to, e.g.:
plaintiff could not satisfy the requirements of § 673.3091(1)(b). Therefore, BankUnited had
9
29. Because here admittedly, lawfully seized BankUnited did not even know WHO had
lost/destroyed the purported note WHEN and HOW, no satisfactory explanation was ever
given or could have possibly been given. Therefore here, said “lawfully seized” bankrupt
Bank was not entitled to any action, attorney’s fees, and “hearing”.
30. Here, “plaintiff” had no cause of action. BankUnited Financial had filed for protection under
Chapter 11 of the Federal bankruptcy code, listing total assets of $37.7 million and total
debts of $559.7 million. Here, shareholders and other stakeholders were wiped out.
31. Here in the absence of any note and after said bank seizure, BankUnited had no right to sue
32. Here concededly, BankUnited could not (re)establish any lost/destroyed note. See
Complaint and case law on file. Here expressly, BankUnited had stated that it could not
possibly (re) establish any note, because it knew that it could not determine:
Furthermore, if the holder of an instrument destroys it, he thereby forgives and discharges
any debt and may not maintain an action. See District of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 US 655,
32 L ed 1041, 9 S Ct 694.
10
FRIVOLOUS ACTION IN THE ADMITTED ABSENCE OF ANY NOTE
33. Therefore here under Florida law, “plaintiff(s)’” action was facially frivolous. Because
seized BankUnited knew that it could not possibly (re) establish the lost/destroyed note/
34. In the admitted absence of any note, BankUnited was not entitled to any attorney’s fees and
b. Serena Kay Paskewicz’, Esq., lack of any authority to represent seized BankUnited, FSB.
36. Here on 12/02/2010, Prescott had reviewed the Clerk’s electronic docket while abroad and
on her way to Australasia. Here, the Clerk’s electronic docket did not show any “event”.
37. Here after the lawful seizure of bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, “Erin M. Rose, Esq.” is not any
“co-counsel”. Absent any possibility to establish the lost note, S. Kay Paskewicz, Esq. and
Camner Lipsitz (BankUnited founder Alfred Camner) were fired and no longer authorized to
11
NO record address
38. Here, the electronic docket does not show any “address”, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was
a. “notice of hearing”;
b. “affidavit”; and “notice of filing”. No address to send anything to existed. See attachment.
39. In the record absence of any address and possibility to (re) establish any note, Prescott
could not have possibly been “served” and obligated to pay any “attorney’s fees”.
40. J. Franklin-Prescott is abroad, on her way to Australasia, and could not possibly appear.
Prescott had her recent pleadings delivered to the Clerk, Disposition Judge, and parties. See
1. An Order compelling “plaintiff” seized and bankrupt bank and BankUnited to show cause
2. An Order recusing Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes, because he has been a Defendant and
3. An Order canceling said unauthorized hearing in this frivolous, fraudulent, and hence
disposed action;
12
4. An Order quieting title in the record absence of any original note/instrument & transfer and
5. An Order taking judicial notice that purported “plaintiff” and seized bank in this disposed
& frivolous action could not have possibly been holder(s) in due course and assignee(s);
cause of action and interest and because of the absolute impossibility to establish any note;
8. An Order declaring Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s record title to the subject property free and
clear, because of said conceded and absolute impossibility to establish any instrument/note.
ATTACHMENTS (12/02/2010)
• Docket as of 12/02/2010
• “Events” pursuant to Docket
• § 673.3091, Fla. Stat., Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.
• State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)
• Certificates of Deliveries upon Clerk, Disposition Judge, Albertelli Law
By Certified Facsimile and Delivery to Clerk of Court, Dwight E. Brock & Disposition Judge.
By Rush Messenger Service West, Inc., 12/03/2010.
13
14
12/1/2010 Public Inquiry
Find it here...
Site Search
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
12/3/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
Loc ation: Home > Statutes & Constitution > View Statutes
Go
Site Map Session: Bills · Calendars · Journals · Citator · Search · Appropriations · Redistricting · Bill Information
Reports
Committees: Committee Pages · Committee Publications
Senators: · Member Pages · District Information · Find Your Legislators
Information Center: Introduction · About the Legislature · Publications · Glossary · Frequently Asked Questions
· Employment · Links
Statutes & Constitution: Introduction · View Statutes · Search Statutes · Constitution · Laws of Florida · Order
V ideo Broadc asts
Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes.
Copyright © 2000-2010 State of Florida. Privacy Statement. Contact Us.
www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?… 1/1
12/3/2010 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST CO…
Home
Case Law Full Display RSS Feed
Exclusive Bar Offers
Podcasts
2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11066,*;851 So. 2d 790;
Blogs
51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 191;28 Fla. L. Weekly D 1694
Top Blogs
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE FOR HOLDERS OF BEAR
Forums
STEARNS MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
News Headlines
SERIES 1993-12, Appellant, v. HARTLEY LORD, BOCA GROVE PLANTATION PROPERTY
Martindale.com OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and BOCA GROVE GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB, INC.,
Research Value Packages Appellees.
[*1] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County;
Edward Fine and John Wessel, Judges; L.T. Case No.CL 99-006652 AW.
DISPOSITION:
Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Forrest G. McSurdy of Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., Plantation, for Your State's Research
appellant. Materials: One Day - $47-$56
Exclusive for Bar Members -
State Case Law and Codes:
Harold B. Haimowitz, Boca Raton, for Appellee-Hartley Lord. One Day - $29-$42
JUDGES: STONE, J. GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. Exclusive for Bar Members -
National State and Federal
OPINION BY: STONE Research Materials: One Day -
$151
OPINION
STONE, J.
The issue on appeal is whether a mortgagee by assignment, State Street Bank, may pursue a
mortgage foreclosure in the absence of proof that either the mortgagee, or its assignor, ever
had possession of the missing promissory note. A summary judgment was entered in favor of
the mortgagor, Hartley Lord. We affirm.
State Street sought to establish the promissory note and mortgage under section 71.011,
lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw… 1/3
12/2/2010 Public Inquiry
Find it here...
Site Search
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/3
12/2/2010 Public Inquiry
06/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
06/17/2010 LETTER TO GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
06/17/2010 NO TIC E O F AC TIO N
TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT & ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N
PAR TIES C LAIMING
06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F MAILING MAILED 6/18/10
06/18/2010 C O NFIR MATIO N O F EMAIL R EC EIVED BY GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F PUBLIC ATIO N
NO TIC E O F AC TIO N TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/ANSW ER
W ITHIN 30 DAYS O F FIRST PUBLIC ATIO N 6/25/10
07/09/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT
07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E MO TIO N TO DISMISS
07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT /PR O SE
07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO ENJO IN / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT -P RO SE
07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
O F PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D & MO TIO N TO DISMISS
BY DEFENDANT
07/23/2010 MO TIO N FO R C LAR IFIC ATIO N O F C O UNSEL
07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS
07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO C LAR IFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D FR AUD
08/12/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS PR O SE JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT
08/12/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED
08/12/2010 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (DISPO SITIO N)
08/17/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED
08/17/2010 NO TIC E
O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED INC IDENT R EPO R T APP AR ENT FALSIFIC ATIO NS NO TIC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED DO C KET ALTER ATIO NS EVIDENC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT NO N SER VIC E NO TIC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E
O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED EMER GENC Y DEMAND TO EXTINGUISH FR AUDULENT
AC TIO N
08/18/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL
FR O M ALTER ATIO N O F REC O R D NO O R DER ATTAC HED
NO FEES ENC LO SED
08/20/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLEER K TO DC A W /NO TIC E O F AP PEAL
NO FEE INC LUDED
08/20/2010 BILLED APP EAL FILING FEE $150.00
08/26/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING 9/2/10 @ 11:30 MO TIO NS TO DISMISS & ENJO IN
08/30/2010 NO TIC E O F R ELEASE O F LIS PENDENS FILED BY DEFENDANT
08/30/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M
08/31/2010 NO TIC E
O F R ELEASE & DISC HAR GE O F FRAUDULENT LIS PENDENS BY DEFENENDANT
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
08/31/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M BY DEFENDANT
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
09/01/2010 DEFENDANT NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N O F HEAR ING 9/2/10 FILED BY DEFENDANT
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F R EC O R DATIO N O F RELEASE O F LIS PENDENS
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
O F NO TIC E O F DISPO SITIO N AND NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED
09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
09/02/2010 R EC EIP T FR O M DC A
AC KNO W LEDGMENT O F NEW C ASE FILED W /DC A 8/18/10 2D10-4158
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL W ITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/3
12/2/2010 Public Inquiry
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL FO R W AR D FILING FEE O R O R DER O F INSO LVENC Y W ITTHIN
40 DAYS
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL SHO W C AUSE W ITHIN 15 DAYS
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E
09/02/2010 MO TIO N FO R R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E IN SUPPO R T O F HUGH HAYES R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 O R IGINAL SENATE STAFF R EC O R D EVIDENC E IN SUPPO R T O F SANC TIO NS
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUSIDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F AUTO MATIC DISSO LUTIO N O F LIS PENDENS
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS
09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A
09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED
NO TIC E O F APP EAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER
10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A
THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS
C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 3/3
12/4/2010 Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
§ 3-306. CLAIMS TO AN INSTRUMENT.
A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is
subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds,
including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A
person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.
(1) "Fiduciary" means an agent, trustee, partner, corporate officer or director, or other
representative owing a fiduciary duty with respect to an instrument.
(b) If (i) an instrument is taken from a fiduciary for payment or collection or for value, (ii) the
taker has knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, and (iii) the represented person
makes a claim to the instrument or its proceeds on the basis that the transaction of the
fiduciary is a breach of fiduciary duty, the following rules apply:
(1) Notice of breach of fiduciary duty by the fiduciary is notice of the claim of the
represented person.
(2) In the case of an instrument payable to the represented person or the fiduciary as
such, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i) taken in
payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of the
fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit of
the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as
such, or an account of the represented person.
(3) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, and made
payable to the fiduciary personally, the taker does not have notice of the breach of
fiduciary duty unless the taker knows of the breach of fiduciary duty.
(4) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, to the
taker as payee, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i)
taken in payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of
the fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit
of the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as
such, or an account of the represented person.
(b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection
(a), a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves
entitlement to enforce the instrument under Section 3-301, unless the defendant proves a
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm 15/33
12/4/2010 Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
unless the purchaser is a converter under subsection (c) or has notice or knowledge of
breach of fiduciary duty as stated in subsection (d).
(f) In an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor has a
defense if payment would violate an indorsement to which this section applies and the
payment is not permitted by this section.
§ 3-207. REACQUISITION.
Reacquisition of an instrument occurs if it is transferred to a former holder, by negotiation or
otherwise. A former holder who reacquires the instrument may cancel indorsements made
after the reacquirer first became a holder of the instrument. If the cancellation causes the
instrument to be payable to the reacquirer or to bearer, the reacquirer may negotiate the
instrument. An indorser whose indorsement is canceled is discharged, and the discharge is
effective against any subsequent holder.
(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent
evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into
question its authenticity; and
(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that
the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with
respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without
notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v)
without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without
notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
(b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not
notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who
became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a
document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to
the instrument.
(c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due
course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i)
by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor's sale or similar
proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of
the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.
(d) If, under Section 3-303(a)(1), the promise of performance that is the consideration for
an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due
course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument
equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm 12/33
12/4/2010 Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
defense or claim in recoupment. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved, the right to
payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim, except to the extent the plaintiff
proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the
defense or claim.
(A) was entitled to enforce it the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was
entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure;
and
(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the
instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful
possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to
service of process.
(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the
terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is
made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced
the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking
enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately
protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce
the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
(b) Unless otherwise agreed and except as provided in subsection (a), if a note or an
uncertified check is taken for an obligation, the obligation is suspended to the same extent
the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the
instrument were taken, and the following rules apply:
(1) In the case of an uncertified check, suspension of the obligation continues until
dishonor of the check or until it is paid or certified. Payment or certification of the check
results in discharge of the obligation to the extent of the amount of the check.
(2) In the case of a note, suspension of the obligation continues until dishonor of the note
or until it is paid. Payment of the note results in discharge of the obligation to the extent
of the payment.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), if the check or note is dishonored and the obligee
of the obligation for which the instrument was taken is the person entitled to enforce the
instrument, the obligee may enforce either the instrument or the obligation. In the case of
an instrument of a third person which is negotiated to the obligee by the obligor, discharge
of the obligor on the instrument also discharges the obligation.
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm 16/33
12/4/2010 Uniform Commercial Code - Article 3
INSTRUMENTS
(b) If there is conflict between this Article and Article 4 or 9, Articles 4 and 9 govern.
(c) Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating
circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provision of this Article to
the extent of the inconsistency.
§ 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In this Article:
(5) "Drawer" means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering
payment.
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm 1/33
12/4/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
Loc ation: Home > Statutes & Constitution > View Statutes
Search
Year: 2010
Search
Go
Site Map Session: Bills · Calendars · Journals · Citator · Search · Appropriations · Redistricting · Bill Information
Reports
Committees: Committee Pages · Committee Publications
Senators: · Member Pages · District Information · Find Your Legislators
Information Center: Introduction · About the Legislature · Publications · Glossary · Frequently Asked Questions
· Employment · Links
Statutes & Constitution: Introduction · View Statutes · Search Statutes · Constitution · Laws of Florida · Order
V ideo Broadc asts
Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes.
Copyright © 2000-2010 State of Florida. Privacy Statement. Contact Us.
www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cf… 1/1
12/4/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
Loc ation: Home > Statutes & Constitution > View Statutes
Site Map Session: Bills · Calendars · Journals · Citator · Search · Appropriations · Redistricting · Bill Information
Reports
www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cf… 1/2
12/4/2010 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
From: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com>
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <bhtjw@aol.com>
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully
Date: Sat, Dec 4, 2010 3:12 pm
Your fax to Dwight E. Brock at +1 (239) 252-8020 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/4/2010 9:11:41 PM, and contained 29 page(s).
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
12/4/2010 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
Your fax to Dwight E. Brock at +1 (239) 252-8020 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/4/2010 2:21:52 PM, and contained 27 page(s).
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
12/3/2010 Send a Fax for Free - Try e-Faxing wit…
MyFax Free lets you send a fax for free to over 40 countries. This free faxing service is provided by Protus IP Solutions.
* Please note that existing MyFax® customers cannot use this free Service.
© 2010 Protus IP Solutions. All rights reserved. | FAQ | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | www.myfax.com
http://www.myfax.com/free/ 1/1
12/3/2010 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
Your fax to Dwight E. Brock at +1 (239) 252-8020 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/3/2010 3:31:26 PM, and contained 7 page(s).
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
CERTIFIED INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY
Hon. Hugh D. Hayes
“Disposition Judge”; Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Style: [SEIZED] BANKUNITED vs. JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
T: 239.252.8116
Fax: 239.774.9654 [www.MYFAX.COM]
E-Mail: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org
ID Number: 160093
Collier County Government Complex
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112-4961
United States
Phone: 239.252.8116
Fax: 239.774.9654
E-Mail: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org
MyFax Free lets you send a fax for free to over 40 countries. This free faxing service is provided by Protus IP Solutions.
* Please note that existing MyFax® customers cannot use this free Service.
© 2010 Protus IP Solutions. All rights reserved. | FAQ | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | www.myfax.com
http://www.myfax.com/free/ 1/1
12/3/2010 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
Your fax to HUGH D. HAYES, HON. JUDGE at +1 (239) 774-9654 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/3/2010 4:36:02 PM, and contained 10 page(s).
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
12/3/2010 RE: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Frankli…
Andy,
Simone
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: bhtjw@aol.com
An: Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com;
Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com; hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; BHTJW@aol.com
Verschickt: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 12:56
Thema: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
-----Original Message-----
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: BHTJW@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50 am
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
12/3/2010 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
Your fax to ALBERTELLI LAW FIRM at +1 (904) 356-4754 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/3/2010 7:43:31 PM, and contained 12 page(s).
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
PAID DELIVERY ORDER, 12/03/2010
TO:
RUSH MESSENGER SERVICE WEST, INC.
F: 001-239-498-6727; D.
[AMEXPRESS]
FROM:
Jennifer Franklin Prescott
bhtjw@aol.com
After delivery, please e-mail first page of document stamped by Clerk to:
bhtjw@aol.com
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF § 673.3091, CH. 90, FLA. STAT, AND
State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)
Clerk of Court
Dwight E. Brock
Collier County Courthouse
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112
United States
Your fax to Dwight E. Brock at +1 (239) 252-8020 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 12/4/2010 2:21:52 PM, and contained 27 page(s).
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1