2/21/2011

David J. Stern: Bandleader for a Symp…

FDL TV Just Say Now « Lew Previews Obama Budget Cuts Obama Makes Nice with the Chamber of Commerce »

David J. Stern: Bandleader for a Symphony of Foreclosure Fraud
By: David Dayen Monday February 7, 2011 9:56 am Tweet Share8

It’s really something that we have to get the scoop on foreclosure mill con artist David J. Stern from the AP and not some police blotter, but that’s life in post-rule of law America. The story provides a service, however, profiling a man who’s really a symbol for the foreclosure fraud crisis. Stern sought to corner the market in shepherding foreclosures through Florida’s courts. He saw them as a growth opportunity and he wanted to increase profits. He did so through cutting corners along every step of the way, becoming an expert in the kind of skills needed to keep the foreclosure train moving – document fraud, fabrication, forgery, etc. He and his firm were very good at what they did, which was basically commit crimes against homeowners and state courts. And it paid off with a suite of cars, yachts, fabulous homes and all manner of luxury goods. His possessions increased in a direct relationship to the repossessions his law firm were illegally pushing through the courts. As Yves Smith points out, the article intimates that the foreclosure mills came up with robo-signing as a cost-cutting measure, and that fits with how Stern ran his business. The key for him was volume, processing as many foreclosures as possible. So he would naturally welcome the idea of having one employee sign off on all the foreclosure documents as a dedicated job every day. This benefited the servicers as well, since they didn’t want a whole lot of scrutiny on verification and would rather the question of whether or not they own the mortgages go unexplored. Stern was the perfect role player for this era, because he was always basically a garden-variety crook: Almost from the beginning, Stern faced trouble. In 1998, he was named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that he padded fees on foreclosed homeowners. Stern settled for $2.2 million. According to legal testimony at the time from a Fannie Mae official, Fannie was warned about troubles at the Stern firm. But Fannie continued referring cases to Stern. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus says, “At all times, Fannie Mae has had a reasonable expectation that our servicers and the law firms adhere to proper procedures and conduct under the law. In instances where we learn that servicers or law firms are not adhering to our requirements or applicable law, we immediately engage and take appropriate action, which may include termination.” Soon after, Stern was sued again, this time for sexual harassment. A former paralegal alleged that Stern created a “sexually-laden” atmosphere in which he routinely “touched and grabbed and subjected to simulated intercourse” his employees. Stern settled that suit in 2000 for an undisclosed amount. By this time, lawyers and homeowner activists were also warning lenders, federal regulators and the Florida Bar about Stern. In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded Stern for submitting “potentially misleading” fee affidavits. Even a built-for-speed operation like Stern’s firm could not keep up with the volume of foreclosures. As the article explains, law firms typically get a flat fee per foreclosure, but must get the foreclosure done within a set time frame, usually around six months, to collect. This led to the need for a solution that streamlined the process as much as possible. Employee depositions paint a picture of a firm under constant pressure from the banks to move faster. The longer it took to foreclose, the more money the banks stood to lose. Like so many in the industry, Stern had a strategy to cope with all the volume and velocity: robo-signing. One employee testified that Stern’s chief lieutenant, a one-time file clerk named Cheryl Samons who rose to become the firm’s chief
…firedoglake.com/…/david-j-stern-ban… 1/2

2/21/2011

David J. Stern: Bandleader for a Symp… operating officer, signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading a single word. The employee said Samons’ hand got so tired that she told three other employees to forge her signature. Samons also signed numerous mortgage assignments with a notary stamp that didn’t even exist at the time of signing. Notary stamps are only valid for four years. The only way Samons could have signed mortgage assignments at the time they were supposedly notarized was if she had been capable of time travel.

Stern rewarded Samons with a new BMW SUV every year, paid all her bills and took care of the mortgage payment on her home, according to testimony from two employees. Samons did not respond to request for comment. The people getting foreclosed upon were an inconvenient facet of this scheme. And when Stern showed how this model could work, the servicers undoubtedly pressured every other firm they worked with to operate in the same fashion. This keeps fees to a minimum and benefits the servicers by giving them an out rather than modifications, which aren’t cost-effective for them. The servicer model never had to deal with a flood of delinquent loans before the popping of the housing bubble in 2006; they were too new to ever need to confront such a problem. And the resultant chaos proved that they simply could not handle the flood without cutting corners massively and maximizing profits through forms of abuse like illegal fee increases. The foreclosure mills worked in concert with this. This kind of profile, quite rare for the AP, exposes the clear fraud at the heart of the mortgage servicing, modification and foreclosure system. Stern’s company is now a penny stock, he’s being investigated by the state Attorney General and federal prosecutors, his staff has shrunk from 1,200 to 200, banks have abandoned him, and his headquarters is in default. He hasn’t gone to jail yet but he’s a likely candidate. However, if we are to learn anything from this episode, it’s how depressingly normal Stern’s machinations were.

…firedoglake.com/…/david-j-stern-ban…

2/2

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BANKUNITED, non-successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB., purported plaintiff(s), vs. JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al., purported defendants. _________________________________________________________________________/ CANCELLATION OF HEARING UNDER COURT’S POLICIES & PROCEDURES IN DISPOSED CASE (NOTICE) EMERGENCY WRITTEN DEMAND TO CANCEL HEARING IN DISPOSED CASE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES & PROCEDURES FROM: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, “BankUnited” fraud victim CERTIFIED DELIVERIES The Honorable Daniel R. Monaco The Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, “Disposition Judge” Circuit Court Judges, Twentieth Judicial Circuit Judicial Assistants Karen / Jan Collier County Government Complex 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239.774.8118; 239.252.8119; Fax: 239.252.8870; 239.775.5538; 239.774.9654; 239-252-8020 Email: dmonaco@ca.cjis20.org, jmetcalfe@ca.cjis20.org, hhayes@ca.cjis20.org RE: CANCELLATION of unlawful hearing in disposed wrongful foreclosure case 09-6016-CA “BANKUNITED” v. FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER DISPOSED CASE NO. 09-6016-CA; DISPOSITION JUDGE HAYES, HUGH D. UNAUTHORIZED “02/22/11 HEARING” [AMENDED TO 02/14/11 & CANCELLED] 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION FOR LACK OF “BANKUNITED’S” STANDING 1. “Disposition Judge” Hayes had disposed of this prima facie frivolous action on 08/12/2010 for record lack of any “BankUnited” standing and interest. “BANKUNITED” WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY HEARING DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA

2/21/2011

Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yac…
Search Quotes and News
Anyw here Professional Solutions About Log in

Related New s: Executive · Law · U.S. · Real Estate

More Stories
Blake Griffin's All-Star Slam Dunk Over Car Win Gets Record TV Audience Manchester United Plans Bid for Tottenham's Modric, News of the World Says
Email Print

Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yacht, Mansions for Attorney
By David McLaughlin - Oct 20, 2010 3:49 AM GMT+1300 Recommend 122

60

Share Share

More

Republican Lawmakers Say House Majority Isn't Seeking Government Shutdown

For Americans, the foreclosure crisis has wiped out fortunes, bringing destitution and homelessness. For Florida attorney David J. Stern, it has brought mansions, a Bugatti sports car and a luxury yacht.
A screengrab taken from Google Earth shows the home of David J. Stern in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The larger boat to the right is his yacht, "Misunderstood". Source: Google Earth/wbipi.com via Bloomberg

Delta Flight Makes Emergency Landing in Florida After Engine Is Damaged
Rate These Stories
Advertisement

More New s

»

Florida has the third-highest residential foreclosure rate in the U.S., and Stern, 50, has made a fortune off the bust. His foreclosure-processing business has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue preparing documents for the cases that his law firm brings on behalf of lenders seeking to reclaim homes from borrowers who can’t pay their mortgages. Now his business is under scrutiny, as banks suspend foreclosures and evictions amid allegations that some home seizures were based on fraudulent documents. Attorneys general in every U.S. state have joined to probe foreclosure practices generally. Stern’s foreclosure firm and three others are under investigation by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. “Some of these law firms we’re dealing with, we have reason to believe, actually forged documents, committed fraud, did all kinds of things,” McCollum said in an interview Oct. 15. “We don’t know where this is headed right now.”

Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida. Photographer: Ric Feld/Bloomberg

Stern’s attorney, Jeffrey Tew, said Stern has used technology and a well-organized operation to efficiently process

foreclosures. Stern gets a flat fee of about $1,400 a foreclosure, according to Tew, of Tew Cardenas LLP in Miami. ‘His Acumen’ “David’s wealth is a reflection of his acumen and the tremendous volume of foreclosures,” Tew said in an interview yesterday. “He had something to do with the acumen part. He had nothing to do with the amount of foreclosures we have.” Stern’s firm handles thousands of cases a month. It conducted a review of its files and found 21 had “issues with the affidavits,” Stern said in a Sept. 8 conference call to discuss second-quarter results for DJSP Enterprises Inc. DJSP provides non-legal foreclosure services, such as title searches, for his law firm, Law Offices of David J. Stern PA. Both businesses share the same

bloomberg.com/…/florida-attorney-bu…

1/5

2/21/2011
Plantation, Florida, address.

Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yac…
Market Snapshot
U.S. Europe Asia

Stern sold those operations this year in a transaction that formed DJSP, a publicly traded company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Stern, the chairman and chief executive officer of DJSP, declined through his attorney to be interviewed for this story. Stern grew up in Liberty City section of Miami and worked his way through school, Tew said. He received his law degree from South Texas College of Law in 1986 and founded his firm in 1994. Before that, he worked for a law firm that specialized in representing mortgage lenders, according to a regulatory filing by the company that became DJSP. Island Mansion Stern owns a $15 million mansion on an island in Fort Lauderdale, a $6 million beachfront condominium in the city, and a $6 million home in nearby Hillsboro Beach, according to property records. The mansion includes an adjoining property he bought in 2009 to make room for a tennis court and parking spaces, according to building records. Cars registered under Stern’s name in Florida include three Ferraris, four Porsches, a RollsRoyce, a Cadillac and the Bugatti, according to the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. He also owns a yacht, Tew said. “He started from scratch and has built a wonderful legal practice and has made a lot of money,” Tew said. “That’s the American dream isn’t it?” One in 34 housing units in Florida was in the foreclosure process or bank-owned as of Oct. 1, the third-highest rate in the country, according to Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc., which monitors foreclosure data. State courts have hired additional judges to hear foreclosure cases and clear the backlog. Foreclosures Quadruple Foreclosures processed by Stern’s law firm more than quadrupled to 70,328 in 2008 from 15,332 in 2006, according to the regulatory filing. Revenue from non-law-firm operations jumped to $199.2 million in 2008 from $40.4 million over the same period, the filing said. DJSP depends on the firm for case referrals, according to the regulatory filing. Stern’s law firm received more than 6,000 new foreclosure cases a month and managed 100,000 at any given time, according to the filing, which is dated Dec. 28, 2009. “David and foreclosure lawyers are foreclosing legitimate mortgages that are in default,” Tew said. “And yet, they have been successfully villainized.” According to the filing, the law firm has represented the biggest banks and mortgage servicers in the U.S., including Wells Fargo & Co.; Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Litton Loan Servicing, Countrywide Financial, now owned by Bank of America Corp.; and government-supported Fannie Mae, the mortgage- financing company. Stern was named Fannie Mae’s attorney of the year in 1998 and 1999, according to the filing. State Bar Rebuke The Florida Bar, which regulates lawyers in the state, has an open investigation into Stern, according to Karen Kirksey, a spokeswoman. She declined to comment on the nature of the investigation because it’s confidential. The Supreme Court of Florida approved a reprimand of Stern in 2002 after the bar said he submitted “potentially misleading” affidavits about his costs in foreclosure cases, according to court documents. He consented to the reprimand, court documents show.

NIKKEI TOPIX HANG SENG

10794.20 970.26 23595.20

-48.57 (-0.45%) -3.34 (-0.34%) +293.40 (1.26%)

Stocks on the Move

Most Popular Stories
Dubai Shares Drop as Mideast Unrest Sparks Risk Aversion; Emaar, Zain Fall Icelanders to Have Final Say on British, Dutch Updated 56 minutes ago Depositor Debt Jordan Regrets U.S. Veto of UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements BHP's CEO Kloppers Has M&A on List Even After Investment Pledge
More Most Popular Stories »
Advertisements

Sponsored Links

10 Keys to Short Selling Do you want to start Short Selling? This Free report will show you how.
MoneyMorning.com/Short_Selling

Transfer Money Overseas Moving Overseas Or Buying Property Abroad? Great Rates, Low Fees!
www.NZForex.co.nz

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

bloomberg.com/…/florida-attorney-bu…

2/5

2/21/2011

Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yac…

At an investor conference in California in March, Stern told investors that rising foreclosures were the key to DJSP’s success, according to a securities lawsuit filed against Stern and DJSP filed in federal court in Florida in July. Foreclosures, he said, would stay high until 2017, even as President Barack Obama acted to keep people in their homes. “No matter what the Obama administration brings our way, we have found the way to create a profit center on it,” Stern said at the conference, according to the lawsuit. ‘A Factory’ Hilton Wiener, a Florida attorney who has defended homeowners in foreclosure cases against Stern’s firm, described Stern’s operations as “more similar to a factory than a law firm.” The business, he said, depends on homeowners’ not contesting foreclosures so that cases can move quickly through the courts to judgment, Wiener said, basing his view on former Stern paralegals whom he has hired. “This is like a production line,” he said. “The bank needs them to get certain results. It just becomes a foreclosure processing mill.” Stern’s employees were under pressure to process cases as quickly as possible, according to a deposition of Tammie Lou Kapusta, a former paralegal in his law firm. Under oath, Kapusta told lawyers for the Florida attorney general’s office that Stern’s business grew from about 250 employees in 2008, when she started, to 1,100 when she was fired in July 2009. She said she was fired after refusing to follow a practice that she said she believed was improper. ‘Getting the Judgments’ Employees repeatedly signed affidavits without reviewing them, forged signatures, and improperly notarized and backdated documents, she said, according to a transcript of the interview. “Everything was about getting the judgments entered because we have to report back to the banks,” Kapusta said. Tew, Stern’s attorney, declined to comment specifically on Kapusta’s allegations. He said that she was fired for cause and that she provided no evidence to back her claims. Kelly Scott, a legal assistant who said she left the firm in February 2009 due to illness, made allegations similar to Kapusta’s in a sworn interview Oct. 4 with the Florida attorney general’s office. Paralegals at Stern’s firm signed documents on behalf of bank employees and had the authority to do so, Tew said. In May 2009, they stopped that practice so that only bank employees now sign the documents. Fixed Fees Stern’s businesses are paid fixed fees for legal and nonlegal work, such as $400 for title searches, according to the regulatory filing and Stern’s remarks at the investor conference, as quoted in the securities lawsuit. Profit depends on cutting costs and boosting volume. The business is supported by an operation in the Philippines that provides data entry and document preparation, according to the filing. This year, Stern made about $146 million when he sold his non-legal foreclosure operations to China-based Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp., a “blank check” company originally formed to do business in China, according to a regulatory filing. The company was renamed

bloomberg.com/…/florida-attorney-bu…

3/5

2/21/2011
DJSP Enterprises.

Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yac…

Stern and his businesses were paid as much as $58.3 million in cash, given a note of at least $52.7 million and promised another $35 million in cash that must be paid in full within five years, according to the filing. He also received about 6 million common and preferred shares in the company. Stern is the seventh-largest shareholder of DJSP with a stake of 4.2 percent, according to Bloomberg data. DJSP reported a profit of $3.8 million on revenue of $56.1 million in the second quarter. On Oct. 14 DJSP said it was laying off 10 percent of its workforce because foreclosure referrals had “declined dramatically,” after lenders including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. suspended foreclosures and evictions. DJSP rose 9 cents to $1.60 yesterday in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares have dropped 82 percent this year. To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in New Y ork at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.
Recommend 122

60

Share Share

More

Email

Print

Videos You May Like

‹ Prev 1 of 3 Next ›
10 Keys to Short Selling Do you w ant to start Short Selling? This Free report w ill show you how .
MoneyMorning.com/S…

Play Video Big Lenders May Be First to Settle Foreclosure P…

Play Video Douglas Holtz-Eakin Discusses FCIC Repo…

Play Video Boeing Unveils 747-8 Passenger Jet

Related News

Executive · Law · U.S. · Real Estate

Sponsored Links

"Give a Gift of Bloomberg Markets Magazine and Get Great Savings! "

News
Exclusive Rate this Page Go to the old version of Bloomberg.com Worldw ide Regions Markets Industries Economy Politics Law Environment Science Opinion Muse: Arts, Culture & Spend Sports

Market Data
Stocks Rates & Bonds Currencies Mutual Funds ETFs Commodities Economic Calendar

Personal Finance TV Radio Video Podcasts Personalities Keene On Demand Mobile Leaders Technology

More from Bloomberg
Bloomberg Businessw eek Business Exchange Bloomberg on Tw itter Bloomberg on Facebook Bloomberg Briefs Bloomberg Government Bloomberg HT 日本語サイト Bloomberg Law Bloomberg Link Bloomberg Markets Magazine Bloomberg New Energy Finance Bloomberg Open Symbology Bloomberg Press Bloomberg Sports Bloomberg UTV

Company
About Bloomberg Solutions Careers Contact Us Press Room Help Sitemap Trademarks Feedback

bloomberg.com/…/florida-attorney-bu…

4/5

2/21/2011
©2011 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yac…
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Advertising

Unless indicated otherw ise, intraday market data is at least 15 minutes delayed.

bloomberg.com/…/florida-attorney-bu…

5/5

2. “BankUnited” has had no right to sue and/or schedule any hearing. Here, Jennifer FranklinPrescott did not owe any debt to “plaintiff BankUnited” pursuant to the evidence on file in this disposed wrongful action. The record and evidence never identified “BankUnited”. AFTER DISPOSITION THE MOTIONS WERE MOOT 3. After the 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION, the “Motion to Dismiss” was MOOT. “BANKUNITED” KNEW/CONCEALED THAT IT LACKED ANY STANDING 4. “Plaintiff BankUnited” was not any “creditor” in the disposed wrongful action. 5. Here, undersigned “Camner Lipsitz, PA”, and/or founder of bankrupt and defunct “BankUnited, FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., “represented the interest of the plaintiff [BankUnited]”. See facially frivolous and insufficient Complaint. “BankUnited” had fraudulently alleged in the Complaint (¶ 16, Count II) that “plaintiff” [“BankUnited”] owns and holds the note and mortgage.” 6. The purported note and/or mortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”. “BANKUNITED” AND/OR “ALBERTELLI LAW” DECEIVED THE COURT 7. Here, “BankUnited” and/or “Albertelli Law” perpetrated fraud on the Court, because after disposition in the record absence of any “BankUnited” note, “BankUnited” falsely pretended entitlement to the “hearing” of a MOOT “Motion to Dismiss / Enjoin”. “… it is the responsibility of the lawyers to keep the judge's office informed. Our office cannot possibly call all the lawyers on a trial docket to check the status of each case prior to trial. PLEASE let us know when you have settled or otherwise disposed of your case. Please cancel your trials and hearings.” “BANKUNITED’S” SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT AND FRAUD 8. Here, “BankUnited” failed to comply with the Rules … “PLEASE READ THE "GENERAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS" AND ENSURE THAT YOUR ATTORNEY HAS BOTH READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE "GENERAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS" AND THE "STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND CONDUCT." The Standards of Professional Courtesy and Conduct govern scheduling, hearings, motion practice, submissions to the Court, etc. and may be found at www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/ao_2_20.pdf FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES, REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AND THE MATTER NOT BEING HEARD” See Judicial “Office Policies and Procedures”. ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS SCHEDULING OF UNAUTHORIZED HEARING 9. Arbitrary, ambiguous, and/or unlawful acts undermine the authority of this Court. Here, violations of this Court’s “OFFICE POLICES AND PROCEDURES” in favor of crooked bank lawyers threatened the integrity of the Court. COURT ADMINISTRATION MUST CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED 02/22/11 HEARING VIOLATIONS OF “OFFICE POLICIES & PROCEDURES” IN DISPOSED CASE 10. All motions other than MSJ and DJ will be CANCELLED by Court Administration. In this disposed action, “Motions to Dismiss / Enjoin” were scheduled without any authority.

2

“Only hearings for Summary and Default Judgments may be scheduled on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday dockets before Judge Daniel Monaco. These timeslots will be in 5 minute increments. (DO NOT schedule any other kind of motions on this docket.) All motions other than MSJ and DJ will be cancelled by Court Administration. No additional motions will be heard with the Summary/Default Judgments before Judge Monaco.” See “OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE, Senior Judge Foreclosure, Collier County Clerk of Court. MANDATORY CANCELLATION FOR LACK OF SERVICE IN DISPOSED ACTION “A party/attorney scheduling a hearing must concurrently notice the matter in conformance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and ensure timely notice is served on all pro-se parties and counsel of record in advance of the hearing. The original notice must be timely filed with the Clerk of Court.” Id. 11. Here accordingly, “BankUnited” was not entitled to sue nor to any hearing and did not serve any “timely notice” of hearing on Jennifer Franklin-Prescott as also conclusively evidenced by the Clerk’s 02/18/2011 Docket. UNAUTHORIZED ATTORNEY “ANDREW LEE FIVECOAT”, ESQ. 12. “Andrew Lee Fivecoat” had no authority to schedule any hearing in said disposed wrongful foreclosure action. Here, Fivecoat knew and/or fraudulently concealed that “BankUnited” had no standing and that the exhibits on file conclusively evidenced that “BankUnited” was not identified as “lender” and was not any note holder and/or owner. PRIMA FACIE FRIVOLITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY “BANKUNITED” NOTE 13. Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University, believes 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,” Gillers said. See New York Times, “Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures”. FIVECOAT CONCEALED PRIMA FACIE NULLITY OF PURPORTED NOTE 14. Here, Fivecoat knew that the complaint in this disposed action had been “incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous”, because no note had been properly executed and no note and/or instrument “transferred” from bankrupt and lawfully seized “BankUnited, FSB”, to the “F.D.I.C.”, and/or “BankUnited”. Disgraced founder of defunct “BankUnited, FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., and/or Camner Lipsitz, PA, had filed the facially frivolous complaint on 07/09/2009. A. L. FIVECOAT, ESQ., LACKS AUTHORITY 15. Here, A. L. Fivecoat has lacked any authority to appear. Fivecoat knew/concealed that bankrupt “BankUnited, FSB” is not any party to this disposed action.

3

MANDATORY CANCELLATION OF HEARING

16. This Court had instructed the parties: “If you CANCEL a hearing, you are required to file a Notice of Cancellation. If you are canceling your hearing ten (10) working days before the hearing date you can go to JACS and cancel on-line by following the instructions. If you are canceling less than ten (10) working days please, immediately cancel the hearing, by FAX'ing you're a request to (239) 252-8870 attention Karen. Include the reason for canceling, our case number and style with date and time of hearing and what party you represent. You do not need to attach the Notice of Cancellation (just send the original to the Clerk of Courts).” “REASONS FOF CANCELLATION” 17. In disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA, the “reasons for cancellation” included, e.g.: a. Cancellation is mandatory under Court’s “Office Policies & Procedures”; b. “BankUnited’s” lack of standing; c. Lack of authority to have 02/22/2011 hearing; d. e. “Motion to Dismiss” has been MOOT since 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION; f. Disposition of the wrongful foreclosure action on 08/12/2010; g. The unauthorized “Amended hearing” did not take place on 02/14/2011; h. Dissolution of fraudulent “lis pendens”. FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE EXPECTED TO APPEAR 18. Pursuant to Franklin-Prescott’s “Notice of Unavailability”, she has been in the Pacific. In this disposed action, and in the absence of any notice of service on Franklin-Prescott, she could not possibly and reasonably be expected to appear for the “Amended Hearing”. Here, the “Amended Hearing” never took place on 02/14/2011. 19. Furthermore, if there would have been any lawful and legitimate hearing, Prescott would not be permitted to appear by telephone from the Pacific in this disposed wrongful action: “All Hearings before Judge Monaco will be in person. As of January 2010, Telephonic appearance will NOT be permitted for any foreclosure hearing before the Senior Judge.” Id. ESTOPPEL PREVENTS “BANKUNITED” FROM FURTHER ACTS OF FRAUD 20. Estoppel prevents identical parties from re-litigating issues that have previously been litigated and which resulted in a final disposition of a court with competent jurisdiction. See Mobil Oil Corporation v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1977); Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40 4

(Fla. 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 878, 73 S. Ct. 165, 97 L.Ed. 680 (1952). Here, “BankUnited” never had any standing in the first place and cannot frivolously “re-litigate” its prima facie lack of standing. 21. In dealing with the identities of the parties, estoppel requires that the “real parties in interest” be identical. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Cox, 338 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1976). The well-established rule in Florida has been and continues to be that estoppel may be asserted when the identical issue has been litigated between the same parties or their privies. See Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So.2d 843 - 45 (Fla. 1984). Here the file and evidence in this disposed action had conclusively evidenced that “BankUnited” was not any “real party in interest” BINDING PRECEDENT: BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM SUPPORTED DISPOSITION 22. The Second District confronted a similar situation in BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), when the trial court had granted the alleged assignee U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. That court reversed because, inter alia, "[t]he incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as an exhibit to U.S. Bank's response to BAC's motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing U.S. Bank's standing to foreclose the note and mortgage." Id. at 939. Said Appellate Court in BAC Funding Consortium, properly noted that U.S. Bank was "required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage it sought to foreclose." Id. RECORD LACK OF ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: “BANKUNITED” WAS NOT ANY OWNER AND HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE PRESCOTT 23. In the instant case, the purported note was, e.g., not properly executed, not assigned, the falsely pretended assignment not recorded, and the endorsement in blank was unsigned and unauthenticated, creating genuine issues of material fact as to whether “BankUnited” was ever the lawful owner and holder of the purported note and/or mortgage. As in BAC Funding Consortium, here there were no supporting affidavits or deposition testimony in the record to establish that “BankUnited” validly owned and held the improperly executed note and mortgage, no evidence of an assignment to “BankUnited”, no proof of purchase of the debt nor any other evidence of an effective transfer to “BankUnited”. AUTOMATICALLY DISSOLVED “LIS PENDENS” 24. Here, the improper and unauthorized lis pendens was automatically dissolved upon the disposition of foreclosure. See Rule 1.420(f), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010). The validity of a notice of lis pendens is one year from filing. § 48.23(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). 25. In this disposed action, the purported “plaintiff” sought to re-establish the missing note in “COUNT I (Reestablishment of Lost Instruments)” of the complaint (see p. 2 of 8). FranklinPrescott had filed her answer(s) and motions to dismiss and proven plaintiff’s lack of standing, which was one of the ultimate affirmative defenses. Here, the record reflected that plaintiff could not possibly re-establish the note and that no authentic note could possibly be proven under the Evidence Code. FRAUD ON THE COURT & RECORD EVDENCE THEREOF 26. Here however, alleged ‘plaintiff(s)’, BankUnited & BankUnited, FSB, fraudulently asserted: “that all conditions to the institutions of this action have occurred, been performed or excused …”

5

27. Prior to the 08/12/2010 disposition, plaintiff had failed to re-establish and could not have possibly re-established the destroyed and/or lost note/mortgage. Here, the time and manner of the loss/destruction had been uinknown. See UCC §§ 3-309; 3-305. FILE & DOCKET SHOWED FRAUD EVIDENCE & DEMAND IN DISPOSED ACTION

INCORRECT CASE NUMBER 28. “BankUnited” used incorrect “Case No. 11-2009-CA-006016CA”. MANDATORY RETIREMENT 29. Pursuant to various reports, the Hon. Judge Daniel R. Monaco had exceeded the mandatory judicial retirement age in 2008. The unjustified threat of the loss of Franklin-Prescott’s house is a matter that demands the highest applicable standards. TIMELINE OF FRAUD ON THE COURT IN DISPOSED WRONGFUL ACTION 30. The below timeline illustrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of the alleged “”02/22/2011 hearing”, which had been amended and then cancelled. 02/20/2011 02/19/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/17/2011 02/15/2011 02/08/2011 02/08/2011 Docket shows unlawful / unauthorized “02/22/2011 hearing” in disposed case even though 02/22/11 hearing had been amended [02/14/11 hearing cancelled] Franklin-Prescott again contacted Hon. Daniel R. Monaco’s Office Clerk and Sen. Judge give conflicting information Prescott called Hon. Dwight E. Brock’s Office & Foreclosure Judge’s JA J. Franklin-Prescott called Office of “Disposition Judge” Hayes No hearing appeared on the Clerk’s Docket Franklin-Prescott filed her “NOTICE OF APPEAL …” Franklin-Prescott filed her “AFFIDAVIT in support of fraud on court …” Franklin-Prescott filed “NOTICE OF OBJECTION to any hearing …” Alleged “02/08/2011” Docket entries: “AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 02/14/11 @3:30P.M., AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR ATORNEY FEES AGAINST PEDRO LUIS LICOURT” “NOTICE OF HEARING 02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS/MOTION TO ENJOIN” Franklin-Prescott filed “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION …” CANCELLATION of unauthorized “12/0610 hearing” CANCELLATION of unauthorized “09/02/10 hearing” DISPOSITION Franklin-Prescott again filed “Motion to Dismiss”

02/08/2011 02/01/2011 12/06/2010 09/02/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010

6

FRAUD - INVESTIGATIONS BY THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL 31. Foreclosure mills like “Albertelli Law” have been under investigation, which evidenced socalled “robo signing” of fraudulent documents and/or affidavits. See, e.g., Office of the Florida Attorney General, Dept. of Legal Affairs, AG # L10-3-1145, IN RE: Investigation of Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.. “ROBO-SIGNING” OF FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS – NO FILE REVIEW 32. In this disposed wrongful foreclosure action, Ashley Simon, Esq., Florida Bar 64472, stated under oath that she “had not reviewed the actual file in this [disposed] case.” See prima facie fraudulent “Affidavit as to reasonable attorneys fees”; 11/10/2010 “Notice of Filing”. 33. Employees of “foreclosure mills” in Florida [e.g. Jeffrey Stephan; Angela Nolan, Cheryl Samon] admitted under oath that they signed hundreds of affidavits a day to process pending foreclosures without actually having read or checked the documents. It later came to light that said employees were not alone, and in 23 states that require a court to approve a foreclosure, thousands of foreclosures are now potentially under question. Robo-signing and similar practices are unlawful and egregious. “FORECLOSURE GATE” 34. The lender, formerly known as GMAC, admitted that employees signed thousands of foreclosure documents without reading them, a practice dubbed “robo-signing”. 35. In this disposed action, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been defending against, e.g., “robo signing”, “BankUnited” fraud, and the cover-up by foreclosure mill “Albertelli Law”. “BANKUNITED’S” FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 36. In this disposed action, “BankUnited” had failed to show they it had the contractual right to enforce the alleged note, which had never been properly executed. Accordingly, any hearing under these circumstances would be unlawful and unauthorized. The allegations by “BankUnited” have been facially frivolous and unsupported. The Exhibits on file did not identify “BankUnited” as any note holder and/or owner. Here, the alleged note was never properly executed.

7

ILLEGALITY OF “ROCKET DOCKET” 37. Here after said 08/12/2010 disposition and in the absence of any note and standing, “BankUnited” was not entitled to “5 minute increments” of a “rocket docket”, because “BankUnited’s” fraud on the Court is illegal. In this disposed Case, “BankUnited” and/or Attorney Fivecoat are playing “another round of [illegal] games of paper”. 38. Cases like this have led experts like Katherine Porter, visiting professor of law at Harvard University, to seriously question the mortgage industry: “The foreclosures and the whole loss of wealth are going to deepen the disappointment and distrust in financial institutions to follow the rules of law," Porter said, "and be fair when dealing with the little guy.” PUBLICATIONS AS TO DISPOSED WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE ACTION 39. The communications with the Court and Officers are published at, e.g., www.scribd.com, www.YouTube.com. See www.google.com. WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands the MANDATORY CANCELLATION of said 02/22/2011 hearing and removal of Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Esq. in this disposed wrongful foreclosure case. Respectfully, /s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, fraud victim ATTACHMENTS Docket et al.

CC: Florida Bar New York Times June M. Clarkson, Esq., Theresa B. Edwards, Esq. Mark R. Briesmeister, Financial Investigator Office of the Florida Attorney General

8

5. “BankUnited, FSB” was not any “plaintiff” in this disposed action. 6. The electronic docket in this disposed action had erroneously listed “BankUnited, FSB” as a “plaintiff” in this disposed action. 7. In this disposed action, “Plaintiff” “BankUnited” had deceptively alleged “that all conditions precedent to the institution of this action have occurred…” (see complaint, ¶ 2, p. 2 of 8, “General Allegations”). 8. The “subject mortgage referenced” in the wrongful complaint identified “BankUnited, FSB” rather than the “plaintiff”, i.e., “BankUnited”. 9. The “logo” of bankrupt and lawfully seized “BankUnited, FSB” included a palm tree and “BANKUNITED”. 10. “Plaintiff BankUnited” had falsely alleged that “The plaintiff [is] named in the attached complaint [“BankUnited”] is the creditor to whom the debt is owed … The undersigned attorney represents the interest of the plaintiff.” See “Notice Required by the Debt Collection Practices Act …” attached to disposed complaint. 11. “Plaintiff BankUnited” was not any “creditor” in the disposed wrongful action. 12. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott did not owe any debt to “plaintiff BankUnited” pursuant to the evidence on file in this disposed wrongful action. 13. Undersigned “Camner Lipsitz, PA”, and/or founder of bankrupt and defunct “BankUnited, FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., “represented the interest of the plaintiff [BankUnited]”. 14. “BankUnited” had fraudulently alleged in the Complaint (¶ 16, Count II) that “plaintiff” [“BankUnited”] owns and holds the note and mortgage.” 15. The purported note and/or mortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”.

2

16. The purported note/mortgage identified “BankUnited, FSB” as a “lender”. 17. No admissible evidence of any obligation to pay money to “BankUnited” existed on the record of this disposed wrongful action, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was not obligated to make any payment to “BankUnited”. 18. “Plaintiff BankUnited’s” purported “01/12/2011 Affidavits as to amounts due and attorneys fees” were fraudulent and not founded on any note and/or mortgage identifying “BankUnited” as a “lender”. 19. An affidavit that is not executed in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 92, Florida Statutes, is not competent evidence in a civil case. 20. The alleged promissory note was never properly executed. 21. “BankUnited” has had no right to enforce the falsely pretended mortgage/note. 22. “BankUnited” never satisfied the required conditions precedent. 23. “BankUnited” had no standing. 24. “BankUnited” failed to state any cause of action. 25. “BankUnited” could not have possibly been entitled to any summary disposition and/or hearing in this disposed action. 26. “Pedro Luis Licourt” is not any known party to the disposed action, Case # 09-6016-CA 27. The purported “Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against Pedro Luis Licourt” was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action. 28. Said action was disposed, because here no note and/or mortgage had been “transferred”” to “BankUnited”.

3

29. The record and/or docket of this disposed action conclusively evidenced the “genuine issues of material fact”, which prohibited any summary disposition after the 08/12/2011 disposition. 30. The “02/08/2011 “Amended Mtoin for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against Pedro Luis Lizourt” was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action. 31. There was no service of notice of 02/14/2011 hearing upon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott nor any “02/14/2011 hearing”. 32. There was no service of notice of 02/22/2011 hearing upon Franklin-Prescott, and the “amended hearing on 02/14/2010” did not take place. 33. In this disposed action, the purported “Defendant’s motion to dismiss/motion to enjoin” was moot and irrational. 34. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was never properly served either by personal service of process or by any other service of process in strict compliance with Chapters 48 and 49, Florida Statutes. 35. “BankUnited” failed to conduct a diligent search in strict compliance with the Florida statutes governing service of process. 36. The record established that the falsely alleged service by publication was void. 37. Florida’s Statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed to assure that defendants have the opportunity to protect their rights. 38. Any judgment against a defendant based upon improper service by publication would have lacked authority of law.

4

2/18/2011

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: 02/09/2011 Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Disposed: 08/12/2010 Reopen Reason: Reopened: Reopen Close: A ppealed: Filed: 07/09/2009

Parties

Dockets of 6 page s. Text

Events

Financials Entrie s pe r page :

6
Date

20

All Entries

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 02/07/2011 NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AFFIDAVITS BY JASO N M TAR O KH ESQ & O F UNLAW FUL/ UNAUTHO R IZED AC T BY ALBER TELLI LAW (UNSIGNED) 02/08/2011 NO TIC E O F HEARING 02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT'S MO TIO N TO DISMISS/MO TIO N TO ENJO IN 02/08/2011 AMENDED NO TIC E O F HEAR ING 02/14/11 @3:30P M AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

1/2

2/18/2011

02/14/11 @3:30P.M. AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST PEDR O LUIS LIC O UR T

Public Inquiry

02/08/2011 AMENDED MTO IN FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST P EDR O LUIS LIC O UR T 02/09/2011 DEMAND O F FO R ENSIC R EVIEW & AUDIT AND NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AND/O R INAC C UR ATE AC C O UNTING IN DISPO SED AC TIO N

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

2/18/2011

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: 02/09/2011 Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Disposed: 08/12/2010 Reopen Reason: Reopened: Reopen Close: A ppealed: Filed: 07/09/2009

Parties

Dockets

Events

Financials Judge HAYES, HUGH D PER EZ-BENITO A, MAGISTR ATE Court Date 12/06/2010 09/02/2010 Court Time 13:30 11:30

Docket Type MO TIO N HEAR ING MO TIO N HEAR ING

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

2/17/2011

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: 02/09/2011 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…

1/3

2/17/2011 / /

Q

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 02/07/2011 NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AFFIDAVITS BY JASO N M TAR O KH ESQ & O F UNLAW FUL/ UNAUTHO R IZED AC T BY ALBER TELLI LAW (UNSIGNED) 02/08/2011 NO TIC E O F HEARING 02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT'S MO TIO N TO DISMISS/MO TIO N TO ENJO IN 02/08/2011 AMENDED NO TIC E O F HEAR ING 02/14/11 @3:30P.M. AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST PEDR O LUIS LIC O UR T 02/08/2011 AMENDED MTO IN FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST P EDR O LUIS LIC O UR T 02/09/2011 DEMAND O F FO R ENSIC R EVIEW & AUDIT AND NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AND/O R INAC C UR ATE AC C O UNTING IN DISPO SED AC TIO N

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC…

2/3

2/21/2011

MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…

From: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com> To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <naplesnano@aol.com> Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully Date: Sun, Feb 20, 2011 8:40 pm

Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott: Your fax to HON. DANIEL R. MONACO at +1 (239) 252-8870 has been successfully sent: Your fax was delivered at 2/20/2011 7:40:23 AM, and contained 21 page(s). Thank you for choosing MyFax, The MyFax Team http://www.myfax.com

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

1/1

2/21/2011

MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…

From: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com> To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <naplesnano@aol.com> Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 1:53 pm

Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott: Your fax to HON. HUGH D. HAYES at +1 (239) 774-9654 has been successfully sent: Your fax was delivered at 2/21/2011 12:51:36 AM, and contained 21 page(s). Thank you for choosing MyFax, The MyFax Team http://www.myfax.com

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx

1/1

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful