IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BANKUNITED, as [purported] successor

in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB., purported plaintiff(s), vs. JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al., purported defendants. ___________________________________________________________________/ NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK OF FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT, AND SHAM “motion for summary judgment” WITHOUT authority IN DISPOSED CASE RECORD 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION 1. The facially frivolous and previously contested action had been disposed on 08/12/2010. Here, the record disposition proved the prima facie substantial controversy. LEGAL SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB 2. Bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, was legally seized (FDIC). See Warrant on file. PRIMA FACIE VIOLATIONS OF F.R.C.P. 1.510 3. In this disposed case, the electronic docket showed an unauthorized “motion for summary judgment” on 01/22/2011: DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA

However, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 expressly prohibits said sham “motion”. Here, the disposed action could not have possibly “commenced”. See also Rule 1.150, SHAM PLEADINGS. PROOF OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, FRAUD, & FRAUD ON COURT 4. Because the record evidenced substantial controversies and fraud, and because the purported “plaintiff” was not entitled to sue, the non-meritorious action had been disposed. See Final

Disposition Form. Substantial controversies, disputes, and opposition are evidenced by, e.g., J. Franklin-Prescott’s pleadings on the docket, including the 01/04/2011 filing of:

FAILURE TO PRODUCE “note” AND STATE ANY cause of action 5. Attorney(s) for plaintiff seized and bankrupt bank and/or BankUnited are unable to “offer the original note and/or a lost not affidavit to this Court”. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT “hold and own note” 6. Plaintiff does not hold and own any genuine “note”. As a matter of law, the purported “plaintiff” could not possibly “hold and own” the “note”. 7. Any plaintiff must be the owner/holder of the “note” as of the date of filing suit. See Jeff-Ray Corp. v. Jacobsen, 566 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). On the date of the filing, law firm Camner Lipsitz had asserted the unknown loss and/or destruction of a purported note.
NO signed authenticated original note & NO standing – NO summary judgment evidence

8. Purported “plaintiff” is not any holder and not in possession of any genuine instrument payable.
See § 671.201(21), Fla. Stat. (2010). Because BankUnited had no standing, the case had been disposed. See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean Jacques, 2010 WL 476641 (Fla. App. 2 DCA Feb. 12, 2010). Here, no summary judgment evidence could have possibly existed.

UNKNOWN LOSS / DESTRUCTION OF PURPORTED “note” 9. As a matter of fact, “plaintiff” had asserted the loss and/or destruction of the alleged “note”. Plaintiff did not know WHO had lost and/or destroyed the “note” WHEN. PROOF OF FRAUD ON THIS COURT ON RECORD 10. E.g., on December 3 and 6, 2010, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (via Rush Messenger Service) had given notice of “plaintiff’s” and Albertelli Law’s fraud and fraud on the Court. See Docket and absence of any “note”, instrument, and/or obligation. PRIMA FACIE INSUFFICIENCY OF “complaint” 11. Albertelli Law had never filed any “complaint”, and the purported “plaintiff” was not entitled to “complain”. Here, bankrupt BankUnited’s founder Alfred Camner and Camner Lipsitz had been fired.

2

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

3

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

RECORD NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY 23. Jennifer Franklin Prescott had given notice of her unavailability, and she is overseas in the Pacific. PATTERN OF FRAUD 24. The New York Times recently reported the pattern of fraud exhibited by the Albertelli Law “foreclosure mill”: “In numerous opinions, judges have accused lawyers of processing shoddy or even fabricated paperwork in foreclosure actions when representing the banks…” See Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures, New York Times, January 10, 2011. INCORRECT CAPTION 25. Said sham “motion” does not indicate the correct file number of the disposed case:

DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT 26. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all “bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought” to its complaint. Here, the unauthorized plaintiff(s) failed to attach a copy of the purported promissory note. Therefore here, the non-meritorious claim had no base and was disposed.

4

“plaintiff(s)” HAD NO cause of action AND NO original note 27. The original document required to be filed with the court in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding is the promissory note. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the definition of section 673.1041(1), and either the original must be produced, or the lost document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. See Mason v. Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat'l Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 673 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of plaintiff defunct bank, re-establishment was legally & factually impossible. Furthermore, seizure is not any transfer by delivery in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the Disposition Judge disposed the frivolous action. FAILURE TO SERVE & COMPLY WITH RULE 1.510 28. The motion for summary judgment, supporting affidavits and notice of hearing must be served on a defendant at least (20) twenty days before the summary judgment hearing. See Rule 1.510(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010); Verizzo v. Bank of New York, 2010 WL 711862 (Fla. 2 DCA Mar. 3, 2010); Mack v. Commercial Industrial Park, Inc., 541 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott was not served under said Rule. DISPOSITION & BANKUNITED’S FAILURE TO refute AND disprove 29. The movant for summary judgment must factually refute or disprove the affirmative defenses raised, or establish that the defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. See Leal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l. Trust Co., 21 So. 3d 907, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Here, BankUnited had failed to disprove the affirmative defenses, and the case had been disposed. Purported “plaintiff” FAILED THE BURDEN OF PROOF

5

30. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish the non-existence of disputed issues of material fact. See Delandro v. Am.’s. Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 674 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). Here, BankUnited, non-successor in interest, failed the burden of proof. Because of the disputed issues of material fact, the case had been disposed. NO verified complaint 31. A complaint must be verified. Rule 1.110(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) (02/11/2010). Here, no verified complaint exists. NO note 32. Rule 1.130(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) mandates that a copy of the note and mortgage be attached to the complaint. See Eigen v. FDIC, 492 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because no executed, authorized, genuine note existed, and none was attached to the insufficient complaint by fired law firm Camner Lipsitz, the frivolous action had been disposed. SHAM AFFIDAVITS AND MOTION & NO entitlement to any fees and/or costs 33. Purported “plaintiff’s” “affidavits” and “motion for summary judgment” in this disposed action are a prima facie sham, and Albertelli Law is not entitled to any attorney’s fees and/or costs. Any hearing, and none appears on any calendar (JACS), would be unauthorized and without any legal and/or factual basis. WHEREFORE Jennifer Franklin Prescott respectfully demands 1. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” without any authority to sue, foreclose, and/or demand any payment from Jennifer Franklin Prescott; 2. An Order declaring any hearing unauthorized;

6

3. An Order declaring the prima facie sham “motion” and “affidavits” unlawful in this previously disputed and disposed action; 4. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” to be in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.510 in this disposed and previously controverted action; 5. An Order declaring the purported 2009 “lis pendens” invalid on its face; 6. An Order declaring the affidavits “hearsay” and lacking any legal and/or factual basis in the absence of any authentic “note”; 7. An Order taking judicial notice of the lack of any genuine “note”, “plaintiff’s” proven fraud on the Court, opposition, opposition evidence, and case law as to this disposed case; 8. An Order prohibiting Counsel who did not file any notice from appearing in this disposed action. /s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, BankUnited foreclosure fraud victim ATTACHMENTS New York Times: Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures (January 10, 2011) Other Certificates of Deliveries upon Clerk, Disposition Judge, BankUnited, Albertelli Law (Messenger Service) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND UNAVAILABILITY IN

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

7

Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of Court, and Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, Courthouse, Naples, FL 34112, USA, on January 22, 2010, Pacific Time. /s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim

8

Jennifer Franklin-Prescott 01/31/2011 CERTIFIED DELIVERY Hon. Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Courts Courthouse Naples, FL 34112, U.S.A. RE: DISPOSED CASE # 0906016CA; NOTICE OF FRAUD EVIDENCE … Hon. Clerk Brock: 1. Attached is another copy of the “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE…” submitted on Jan. 21, 2011, 16:20:16, together with a copy of the Docket (01/31/11). See attachments. The undersigned has been in the Pacific. 2. Here, the above fraudulent Case was disposed on 08/12/2010, because the purported “plaintiff” was not in possession of any genuine original note, could not reestablish the destroyed and/or lost note, and could not possibly foreclose on the purported note and mortgage. See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Dasma Invest., LLC v. Realty Associates Fund III, L.P., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2006). 3. Furthermore, BankUnited is not any “successor in interest” to lawfully seized and bankrupt BankUnited, FSB. See Uniform Commercial Code. Here, no authentic note was executed, delivered, and/or assigned to the alleged “plaintiff”. See also Collier County Public Records. 4. The style of the prima facie insufficient and frivolous complaint, “BankUnited, FSB v. JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.”, did not even indicate BankUnited as a plaintiff. See, e.g., attached page 3 of 8. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, founder Alfred Camner, Esq., and Camner Lipsitz, PA, were fired and are not any “counsel”. See attached p. 4 of 8. 5. Here admittedly without any “actual review of the file” and disposed Case, foreclosure mill Albertelli Law has been attempting to extort money and/or property, and Franklin-Prescott is again giving Notice of said Fraud and Fraud on the Court. 6. Here, the purported “plaintiff” in said disposed Case is not entitled to any hearing, money, fees, judgment, and legal action against Franklin-Prescott. Respectfully, /s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, fraud victim CC: Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge), Albertelli Law Other hhayes@ca.cjis20.org, Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com, darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com, Collierclerk@collierclerk.com, Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com, Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com … ATTACHMENTS (25 pages)

“plaintiff(s)” FAILED to surrender ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE 1. Here, “plaintiffs” had asserted unknown loss and/or destruction of the original note and failed to surrender the original promissory note. See Complaint, page 3:

Because a promissory note is negotiable, it must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding so that it does not remain in the stream of commerce. Here, “plaintiff(s)” seized & bankrupt bank and BankUnited had alleged that the note was lost, destroyed or stolen, and that the manner and time of loss/destruction were unknown. Therefore, the court is authorized by statute to take the necessary actions to protect the purported defendant against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another party to enforce the purported instrument. See …

9

10

2. Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of “plaintiff” bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, no assignment was contained in any document and recorded according to law. See Collier Clerk of Court’s public records. See Ch. 701, Fla. Stat.; § 701.02 et al. Here, there was no “assignment chain”. THIS COURT MAY NOT enter judgment in favor OF SEIZED BANKUNITED 3. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code: “(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument …” Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not protected against further fraudulent “claims” after said lawful seizure and alleged unknown “loss and/or destruction” of the purported note/instrument. See U.C.C., § 3-309:

CONTROVERTED authenticity of “seized” bank’s claims AND note ON THE RECORD 4. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “plaintiffs’” fraudulent claims of any “payment obligation” and negotiable instrument and/or note. 11

1/12/2011
HOME PAGE TODAY'S PAPER VIDEO MOST POPULAR

Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …
TIMES TOPICS

Try Times Reader today Log In

Register Now

Help

TimesPeople

Business Day
W ORLD U.S. N.Y . / REGION BUSINESS T ECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEA LT H SPORT S OPINION A RT S ST Y LE Global DealBook Markets Econom y Energy Media

Search All NYTimes.com

T RA V EL

JOBS

REAL ESTATE

AUTOS

Personal Tech

Sm all Business

Your Money

www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-me-jobs

Ads by Google

Advertise on NYTimes.com

Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures
By JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: January 10, 2011

Log in to see w hat your friends are sharing on nytimes.com. Privacy Policy | What’s This?

Log In With Facebook

With judges looking ever more critically at home foreclosures, they are reaching beyond the bankers to heap some of their most scorching criticism on the lawyers.
Enlarge This Image

RECOMMEND TWITTER SIGN IN TO EMAIL PRINT SINGLE PAGE REPRINTS SHARE

What’s Popular Now
Obam a’s Rem arks in Tucson Prom inent Chinese Artist’s Studio Torn Dow n

In numerous opinions, judges have accused lawyers of processing shoddy or even fabricated paperwork in foreclosure actions when representing the banks.

Ozier Muhammad/The New Y ork Times, lef t; Julie Glassberg/The New Y ork Times

Judge Arthur M. Schack of New Y ork State Supreme Court in Brooklyn has taken aim at an upstate lawyer, Steven J. Baum, referring to one filing as “incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous.” But New Y ork judges are also trying to take the lead in fixing the mortgage mess by leaning on the lawyers. In November, a judge ordered Mr. Baum’s firm to pay nearly $20,000 in fines and costs related to papers that he said contained numerous “falsities.” The judge, Scott Fairgrieve of Nassau County District Court, wrote that “swearing to false statements reflects poorly on the profession as a whole.”

Judge Arthur Schack, left, of New York State Supreme Court, called one filing “outrageous.” Jonathan Lippman, the state’s chief judge, says law yers must ask clients if their paperw ork is sound.

Breaking News Alerts by E-Mail
Sign up to be notified w hen important new s breaks. Privacy Policy

Multimedia
The Takeaw ay With John Schw artz

More broadly, the courts in New Y ork State, along with Florida, have begun requiring that lawyers in foreclosure Wells Fargo & Co cases vouch for the accuracy of the documents they Go to your Portfolio » present, which prompted a protest from the New Y ork bar. The requirement, which is being considered by courts in other states, could open lawyers to disciplinary actions that could harm or even end careers.
Add to Portfolio

MOST POPULAR - BUSINESS DAY
E-MAILED BLOGGED VIEWED

1 . Is Law School a Losing Gam e? 2 . Rising Chinese Inflation to Show Up in U.S. Im ports 3 . Econom ic Scene: The Real Problem With China 4 . Econom ix: Why So Many Rich People Don’t Feel Very Rich 5. Auto Show Outsiders Seek Rebirth 6. Weather Monitoring Com pany Turns to Greenhouse Gases 7 . Judges Berate Bank Lawy ers in Foreclosures 8. Itineraries: Sneeze-Free Zone 9. Film Studio Born of Com ic Books Grabs Holly wood’s Attention 1 0. Flex Tim e Flourishes in Accounting Industry
Go to Complete List »

Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New Y ork University, agreed with Judge Fairgrieve that the involvement of lawyers in questionable transactions could damage the overall reputation of the legal profession, “which does not fare well in public opinion” throughout history. “When the consequence of a lawyer plying his trade is the loss of someone’s home, and it turns out there are documents being given to the courts that have no basis in reality, the profession gets a very big black eye,” Professor Gillers said. The issue of vouching for documents will undoubtedly meet resistance by lawyers elsewhere as it has in New Y ork.

nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht…

1/3

1/12/2011

Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …

Anne Reynolds Copps, the chairwoman of the real property law section of the New Y ork State bar, said, “We had a lot of concerns, because it seemed to paint attorneys as being the problem.” Lawyers feared they would be responsible for a bank’s mistakes. “They are relying on a client, or the client’s employees, to provide the information on which they are basing the documents,” she said. The role of lawyers is under scrutiny in the 23 states where foreclosures must be reviewed by a court. The situation has become especially heated for high-volume firms whose practices mirror the so-called robo-signing of some financial institutions; in these cases, documents were signed without sufficient examination or proper notarization. In the most publicized example, David J. Stern, a lawyer whose Florida firm has been part of an estimated 20 percent of the foreclosure actions in the state, has been accused of filing sloppy and even fraudulent mortgage paperwork. Major institutions have dropped the firm, which has been the subject of several lawsuits, and 1,200 of the 1,400 people once at the firm are out of work. The Florida attorney general’s office is conducting a civil investigation of Mr. Stern’s firm and two others. “There’s been no determination” in a court that Mr. Stern or his employees “did wrong things, said Jeffrey Tew, Mr. Stern’s lawyer, adding that the impact was nevertheless devastating. “There are groups in society that everybody likes to hate,” Mr. Tew added. “Now foreclosure lawyers are on the list.” Such concerns have, in recent months, brought a sharp focus on activities in New Y ork State, and in particular on the practice of Mr. Baum, a lawyer in Amherst, outside Buffalo. Judges have cited his firm for what they call slipshod work that, in some cases, was followed by the dismissal of foreclosure actions. One case involved Sunny D. Eng, a former manager of computer systems on Wall Street. He and his wife, who has cancer, stopped paying the mortgage on their Holtsville, N.Y ., home after Mr. Eng’s Internet services business foundered. The mortgage was originally held by the HTFC Corporation, but the foreclosure notice came from Wells Fargo, a bank that the Engs had no relationship with. They hired an experienced foreclosure defense lawyer on Long Island, Craig Robins. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Eng.
1
A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition.

The New Yorker confidential
ALSO IN OPINION »

Goldman's mutual friend Does one word change 'Huckleberry Finn'?

ADVERTISEMENTS

Fi n d y ou r dream h om e wi th Th e N ew Y ork Ti m es Real Estate

Fan Th e N ew Y ork Ti m es on Facebook

Th e n ew i ssu e of T i s h ere

See th e n ews i n th e m aki n g. Watch Ti m esCast, a dai l y n ews v i deo.

2

NEXT PAGE »

Get the full newspaper experience, and more, delivered to your Mac or PC. Times Reader 2.0: Try it FREE for 2 full weeks.

SIGN IN TO EMAIL PRINT SINGLE PAGE REPRINTS Advertise on NYTimes.com

Ads by Google

what's this?

Home Foreclosures in USA
Buy foreclosed Property in the USA Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns

Ads by Google

what's this?

Home Foreclosures in USA
Buy foreclosed Property in the USA Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns

CashflowGold.com

CashflowGold.com
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics Foreclosures Legal Profession

nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht…

2/3

1/30/2011
From: bhtjw@aol.com

NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITI…
To: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com; Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com; erose@albertellilaw.com; BHTJW@aol.com; NAPLESNANO@aol.com Bcc: JRBU@aol.com

Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ... Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2011 10:20 am Attachments: NOTICE_OF_OPPOSITION_&_OPPOSITION_EVIDENCE,_FRAUD_EVIDENCE_..._012211.pdf (779K)

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

1/1

1/31/2011

Public Inquiry

Find it here...

Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Case Status: DISPO SED Next Court Date: Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Disposed: 08/12/2010 Reopen Reason: Reopened: Reopen Close: A ppealed: Filed: 07/09/2009

Parties

Dockets of 2 page s. Text

Events

Financials Entrie s pe r page :

2
Date

60

All Entries

09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE 09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED 09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS 09/02/2010 R EC EIP T FR O M DC A AC KNO W LEDGMENT O F NEW C ASE FILED W /DC A 8/18/10 2D10-4158 09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL W ITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL 09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL FO R W AR D FILING FEE O R O R DER O F INSO LVENC Y W ITTHIN 40 DAYS 09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL SHO W C AUSE W ITHIN 15 DAYS 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E 09/02/2010 MO TIO N FO R R EC USAL 09/02/2010 NO TIC E IN SUPPO R T O F HUGH HAYES R EC USAL 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/07/2010 O R IGINAL SENATE STAFF R EC O R D EVIDENC E IN SUPPO R T O F SANC TIO NS 09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUSIDIC TIO N 09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E 09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F AUTO MATIC DISSO LUTIO N O F LIS PENDENS 09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

1/2

1/31/2011

Public Inquiry

09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158 09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS 09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158 09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A 09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL 2D10-4158 09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED NO TIC E O F APP EAL 09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER 10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED 10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED 11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING 11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES 11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES 12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE 12/03/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O 12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK 12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING 12/06/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO & MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T 12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES 12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS 12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT 12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT 12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT 12/17/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O 12/20/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO (EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED & UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL 12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT 01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT 01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E 01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT 01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE 01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES

W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur. W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce. Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

2/2

1/31/2011

Public Inquiry

Find it here...

Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Case Status: DISPO SED Next Court Date: Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Disposed: 08/12/2010 Reopen Reason: Reopened: Reopen Close: A ppealed: Filed: 07/09/2009

Parties Name

Dockets

Events

Financials Type PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF'S ATTO R NEY PLAINTIFF'S C O -C O UNSEL DEFENDANT DEFENDANT DEFENDANT DEFENDANT MIAMI, FL 33134 TAMP A, FL 33623 DOB City, State, Zip

BANKUNITED BANKUNITED FSB PASKEW IC Z, SER ENA KAY ESQ R O SE, ER IN M ESQ FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER PR ESCO TT, W ALTER DO E, JO HN DO E, MAR Y

W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur. W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce. Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

1/1

1/31/2011
From: bhtjw@aol.com

Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
To: JRBU@aol.com; Naplesnano@aol.com

Subject: Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ... Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2011 10:23 am Attachments: NOTICE_OF_OPPOSITION_&_OPPOSITION_EVIDENCE,_FRAUD_EVIDENCE_..._012211.pdf (779K)

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

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
erose@albertellilaw.com The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007

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

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

1/2

1/31/2011
=

Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…

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

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

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

2/2

12/4/2010
Von: postmaster@albertellilaw.com An: jrbu@aol.com

Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…

Thema: Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA Datum: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 13:28 Anhang: HON._D._E._BROCK,_DELIVERIES_(CERT.)_OF_MOTIONS_&_NOTICE,_DISPOSED_CASE_NO.09-6016CA_(1).pdf (1160K)

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
erose@albertellilaw.com The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007

Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: albertellilaw.local erose@albertellilaw.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers:
Received: from p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) by TPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:28:35 -0500 Received: from unknown [205.188.91.97] (EHLO imr-db03.mx.aol.com) by p02c11m114.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP id fc639fc4.0.788619.00-2144.985007.p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <jrbu@aol.com>); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:28:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-db03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oB3IRokw004781; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:50 -0500 Received: from JRBU@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id w.f67.b3d5975 (43913); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.170]) by cia-dc08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADC082-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:45 -0500 Received: from webmail-d052 (webmail-d052.sim.aol.com [205.188.168.25]) by smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE035-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:44 -0500 References: <8CD6129B65D41B4-1B44-6D7B@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com> <8CD612A7ABF0434-1B44-6E8E@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com> To: <afivecoat@albertellilaw.com>, <simone@albertellilaw.com>, <nreed@albertellilaw.com>, <tbaron@albertellilaw.com>, <jsawyer@albertellilaw.com>, <jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com>, <erose@albertellilaw.com> Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 79.211.86.188 In-Reply-To: <8CD612A7ABF0434-1B44-6E8E@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: <jrbu@aol.com> X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary= "--------MB_8CD612EE93CE4C3_1CB0_10D59_webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 32992-STANDARD Received: from 79.211.86.188 by webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com (205.188.168.25) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500 Message-ID: <8CD612EE7906D43-1CB0-741C@webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean X-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/0 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-AOL-SENDER: JRBU@aol.com X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; B=0.500(0); spf=0.500; STSI=0.500(9); STSM=0.500(9); CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2010120328); S=0.200(2010120101); SC=none] X-MAIL-FROM: <jrbu@aol.com> X-SOURCE-IP: [205.188.91.97] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=tOBHjLs4_5wA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=s1-bI8_kuh] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=XaU3MG2NMZ7IwRi2zXA4Ow==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=XYJ] X-AnalysisOut: [RSn9hAAAA:8 a=StNULilYAAAA:8 a=J2ZUkIx5YQREXUxgZ8YA:9 a=l4] X-AnalysisOut: [QDlNRdM8nIpH_QbYuP0bohVtsA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=U8Ie8Enqy] X-AnalysisOut: [SEA:10 a=_JzL8g0GY9oA:10 a=JtZ1zMYNN3LUi7kfzdMA:7 a=BFkvR0] X-AnalysisOut: [WKUWyW899fpkO0KKn4jZgA:4 a=5FPhOs0AS1lMV_1zBlYA:9 a=FtCU1E] X-AnalysisOut: [ZuVnDh3Spi_4VqGdZcGa4A:4 a=n3BslyFRqc0A:10 a=bhkaYMs-ANYA:]

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

1/2

12/4/2010
X-AnalysisOut: [10] Return-Path: jrbu@aol.com

Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…

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

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

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----Von: bhtjw@aol.com An: Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com; Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com; hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; BHTJW@aol.com Verschickt: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 12:56 Thema: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA

-----Original Message----From: bhtjw@aol.com To: BHTJW@aol.com Sent: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50 am Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

2/2

2/3/2011

Public Inquiry

Find it here...

Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Case Status: DISPO SED Next Court Date: Last Docket Date: 02/01/2011 Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Disposed: 08/12/2010 Reopen Reason: Reopened: Reopen Close: A ppealed: Filed: 07/09/2009

Parties

Dockets of 2 page s. Text

Events

Financials Entrie s pe r page :

2
Date

60

All Entries

09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE 09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED 09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS 09/02/2010 R EC EIP T FR O M DC A AC KNO W LEDGMENT O F NEW C ASE FILED W /DC A 8/18/10 2D10-4158 09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL W ITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL 09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL FO R W AR D FILING FEE O R O R DER O F INSO LVENC Y W ITTHIN 40 DAYS 09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL SHO W C AUSE W ITHIN 15 DAYS 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E 09/02/2010 MO TIO N FO R R EC USAL 09/02/2010 NO TIC E IN SUPPO R T O F HUGH HAYES R EC USAL 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N 09/07/2010 O R IGINAL SENATE STAFF R EC O R D EVIDENC E IN SUPPO R T O F SANC TIO NS 09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUSIDIC TIO N 09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E 09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F AUTO MATIC DISSO LUTIO N O F LIS PENDENS 09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

1/2

2/3/2011

Public Inquiry

09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158 09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS 09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158 09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A 09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL 2D10-4158 09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED NO TIC E O F APP EAL 09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER 10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED 10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED 11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING 11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES 11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES 12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE 12/03/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O 12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK 12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING 12/06/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO & MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T 12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES 12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS 12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT 12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT 12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT 12/17/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O 12/20/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO (EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED & UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL 12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT 01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT 01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E 01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT 01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE 01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES 02/01/2011 C O PY (FAX) NO TIC E O F O PPO SITIO N & O PPO SITIO N EVIDENC E/FR AUD EVIDENC E & UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPO SED AC TIO N/NO TIFIC ATIO N O F C O URT & C LER K ET AL

W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur. W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce. Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

2/2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful