MANDATORY CANCELLATION NOTICE AS FILED ON 02/21/2011

2/22/2011

Judicial Automated Calendaring Syste…
ADA Vie w Te x t Vie w Site Map C ontact Us Book m ark !

Se arch

Home

Programs

Services

Resources

Media

Self Help
Page Options: Print | Favorite s Your Full Nam e : Frie nds E-m ail: Se nd Page

Fe bruary 22, 2011

Court Services

Online Services

O nline Se rvice s » O nline Se rvice s Disclaim e r » JACS » C JIS » Traffic Citation Paym e nt » TurboC ourt - Florida C ourtroom Se rvice s

Web Site Location: Hom e » Court Se rvice s » O nline Se rvice s

Select County
Lee County | Charlotte County | Collier County

Important Logon Information
» Vie w Tim e Slots For first time users, click the "Schedule Time Slots" link, » Sche dule Tim e Slots enter your bar number for both user ID and password, select a judge, and then click "Login". Please omit any leading zeros w hen entering the bar number. The system w ill give you the opportunity to set a passw ord of your choice. If you are unable to successfully login, send an email w ith your bar number to CollierJACS@ca.cjis20.org

Motion Guidelines
Only contact the Judge's office if your case parameters don't allow you to set the hearing or under special circumstances already listed in the system. Select Judge Judge Hayes Judge Pivacek Magistrate James M. McGarity, III Sr. Judge Foreclosure Magistrate Foreclosure Senior Judge Foreclosure SCHEDULING HEARINGS Collier County Courthouse Clerk of Courts 3315 Tamiami Trail E Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8119 Karen Bailey, Administrative Assistant Nancy Figueroa-Ibanez, Administrative Assistant Diane Williams, Administrative Assistant OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SENIOR JUDGE FORECLOSURE - Summary Judgments only 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 w ill be heard w ith the Summary/Default Judgments before Judge Monaco. For scheduling question please contact Nancy or Diane at (239) 252-8133 or (239) 252-8785. For any questions pertaining to the Judges' procedures contact Karen at (239) 252-8119. All cancellations will be FAX'ed to (239) 252-8870 attention Karen. Include the reason for cancelling, our case number and style w ith date and time of hearing. Special Set Hearings If you have a hearing for Summary/Default Judgment requiring more than 5 minutes, you may request in writing by email pforeclosures@ca cjis20 org or

www.ca.cjis20.org/web/…/jacs.asp

1/3

2/22/2011

Judicial Automated Calendaring Syste…

writing by email.pforeclosures@ca.cjis20.org or hforeclosures@ca.cjis20.org. Also, all other motions over 30 minutes, objections to the Magistrate (objection must be filed), must be requested in writing and may be emailed to the above email addresses. The administrative assistant w ill contact the attorney's office to schedule these hearings, so please provide contact information. Include in the written request cases number and style, amount of time needed, motion description, and w ho the attorney is representing (plaintiff or defendant). These hearings w ill be scheduled by the administrative assistant only and w ill be heard in front of Judge Monaco. Emergency Hearings must be requested in w riting to Judge Daniel Monaco. Describe the nature of the emergency and estimate the hearing time needed. Do not argue your motion in the letter. The administrative assistant will contact the attorney's office to schedule these hearings. Miscellaneous Hearing Notes: Except for cancellations, there can be no changes, additions, sw apping, or other alterations of the motion calendar. Attempts to accommodate such requests in the past have resulted in unnecessary confusion and inadequate notice of opposing counsel.

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. The Judges' and Magistrates ask that NO courtesy copies be sent to their offices on foreclosure cases only. If you CANCEL a hearing, you are required to file a Notice of Cancellation. If you are cancelling your hearing ten (10) working days before the hearing date you can go to JACS and cancel on-line by follow ing the instructions. If you are cancelling less than ten (10) w orking days please, immediately cancel the hearing, by FAX'ing you're a request to (239) 252-8870 attention Karen. Include the reason for cancelling, our case number and style w ith date and time of hearing and w hat party you represent. You do not need to attach the Notice of Cancellation (just send the original to the Clerk of Courts). When cancelling hearings over 30 minutes (Special Set) you are required to write to the Court for approval or provide written proof the Issue is Settled. Once a motion is scheduled through JACS, subsequent motions may not be "piggybacked" using the time reserved for the first motion absent prior approval of the Court. This does not preclude an independent reservation of another timeslot during the same hearing period for a different motion the same case, provided the timeslot is appropriate in length of time for the motion. Generally, each attorney/party w ith a stake in the outcome of a motion scheduled to be heard w ill be entitled to a proportionate share of the reserved hearing time. 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. If you need 30 minutes, ask for 30 minutes. Please don't say, "Can I get in sooner if I only ask for 15 minutes?" The Judge will limit the length of the hearing to the time requested. If the hearing is not finished in time, the motion will have to be rescheduled. When estimating necessary hearing time, remember to include opposing counsel's time!

www.ca.cjis20.org/web/…/jacs.asp

EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDERS

2/3

2/22/2011

Judicial Automated Calendaring Syste…

EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDERS Exceptions MUST be filed w ith the Clerk of Courts. If an exception to the Recommendation of the Magistrate is filed, please contact the Judge's office to schedule a hearing. A Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration must be submitted in w riting. The presiding Judge will then decide w hether to refer back to Magistrate. TELEPHONE Telephone hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Due to the high volume of phone calls received, you will at times not reach the assistant in person. Therefore, w hen calling and receiving voice mail, please leave your name and a brief message. Your phone call w ill be returned. It is not necessary to call back to confirm that your message was received. Calls of that nature are not returned. FORECLOSURE SUMMARY/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS set on this docket are before the Honorable Daniel Monaco and do not require an Order of Referral in Collier County. To check the Foreclosure Judges' docket schedule click here. Thank you for your cooperation. Other People Who Can Help Administrative Assistant...................Karen Bailey (239) 252-8119 Administrative Assistant (scheduling only)...............Nancy Figueroa-Ibanez (239) 252-8133 Administrative Assistant (scheduling only).............................Diane Williams (239) 252-8785 Court Administration ................................................ (239) 252-8800

Online Services: Courtroom Services:

O nline Se rvice s Disclaim e r, JAC S, CJIS, Traffic Citation Paym e nt, TurboC ourt - Florida Digital C ourt R e porting, W iFi Inte rne t Acce ss, ADA, Court Inte rpre te r

Adm inistrative O ffice of the Courts • 20th Judicial C ircuit • 1700 Monroe Stre e t • Fort Mye rs, FL 33901 • (239) 533-1700 Te rm s of Use | Privacy Policy | Disclaim e r | Cre dits Copyright © 2006 - , The 20th Judicial C ircuit.

www.ca.cjis20.org/web/…/jacs.asp

3/3

2/22/2011

POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…

Switch to full desktop version
BONITA

POLL COLLIER’S NEW FORECLOSURE HEARING PROCESS FAVORS BANKS, ATTORNEYS SAY
By LAURA LAYDEN Published Sunday, June 20, 2010

NAPLES — Foreclosure attorneys who represent homeowners say recent changes in the way hearings are scheduled in Collier County have given banks the upper hand. They say they’ve had trouble getting hearings and that five-minute hearings on foreclosure cases appear to now be reserved for banks’ motions for default and summary judgment. When a bank gets a summary judgment, it has the right to take a house. At that point, a homeowner is unlikely to get a second chance. Mark Middlebrook, a senior deputy court administrator in Collier County, said, “We have not changed anything regarding the scheduling of these hearings. That’s absolutely not true.” Foreclosure hearings are scheduled through an automated calendaring system online called JACS. Users in Collier County are warned to read the foreclosure rules carefully “due to recent changes.” Middlebrook said the changes haven’t been made yet. Under the rules for booking hearings, it says “only hearings for summary judgment and default may be scheduled for the five-minute time slots. In parenthesis, it says: “Do not schedule other hearings in these time slots.” Foreclosure attorneys who represent homeowners say these rules only appear to apply in Collier and they’ve never been enforced until recently. “Somebody is speaking without understanding how the scheduling occurs,” Middlebrook said. He said five-minute hearings still are available outside of an online calendaring system and that changes are planned over the coming months that will significantly increase the amount of hearing time available for foreclosure cases. With money from a state grant, Collier County plans to increase hearings from one day a week to three by August. In January, there will be hearings four days a week, Middlebrook said. Defense attorneys likely haven’t been getting hearings because there’s such a backlog of cases and time slots fill up so quickly, not because of any rule changes, Middlebrook said. There are about 9,000 unresolved foreclosure cases in the county and that’s why changes are planned in the future, he said.
…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 1/4

2/22/2011

POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…

“There just wasn’t enough time available to accommodate everybody,” Middlebrook said. Mike Schneider, a Naples foreclosure attorney who represents homeowners, said the rules have changed in favor of the banks. He said he was taken off-guard recently when a five-minute hearing he scheduled through the online calendar was automatically canceled by the court through an e-mail. When he tried to schedule a 10-minute hearing _ the next shortest time slot available _ for the same client, there were none available for months. It’s even harder to book 15-minute or 30-minute hearings, he said, and he doesn’t need that much time. “I guarantee many people have lost their house because of this,” Schneider said. “How are we supposed to argue our case?” Dwight Brock, Collier County’s clerk of courts, said he wasn’t aware of any new rules and his office had nothing to do with them. “We have no control over it,” he said. Those rules are made by judges or magistrates, Brock said. Schneider said he was trying to stop a foreclosure that never should have been filed. He struggled to get a hearing. His client signed a forbearance agreement, in which the lender agreed to temporarily modify the loan payments and not foreclose. The lender foreclosed anyway, Schneider said. “They are coming to his house and basically telling him to get out,” he said. “That’s just one of a million stories.” Marc Shapiro, one of the most active foreclosure defense attorneys in Naples, said he used to schedule his motions for five-minute hearings online, but now he can’t. He can argue a homeowner’s case during a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, but time is limited. At that point it might be too late. “You are taking a little bit of a gamble,” Shapiro said. Judges often frown on requests for emergency hearings. So some attorneys say they generally don’t ask for them. In one of Shapiro’s cases, he was trying to get a court order to force a bank to produce documents it had refused to share and he couldn’t get a hearing a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the bank was proceeding to foreclose.
…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 2/4

2/22/2011

POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…

Shapiro also saw some of his five-minute hearings suddenly canceled recently. It hadn’t happened like that before, he said. For about a month, few hearings were available to defense attorneys on foreclosure cases. “As of last week they started freeing up more time for us,” said Donald Schold, one of Shapiro’s legal assistants. “The bank is still the only ones to get the five-minute hearings, which for some reason are being set before our hearing dates.” In Collier, foreclosure cases that are contested by homeowners are mostly handled by magistrates. To have their arguments heard by a magistrate, foreclosure attorneys who represent homeowners must get an order of referral from a judge. Banks aren’t required to do the same for hearings on their motions for summary judgment, giving them another time advantage, attorneys who represent homeowners say. Where foreclosures might have taken a year or two in the past, now they can happen in less than six months. Conrad Willkomm, another foreclosure defense attorney in Naples, said he hasn’t faced any big problems in scheduling his hearings. “A lot of the time, I’m letting the banks schedule the hearings, and we’re working around them,” he said. Even if a bank gets a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, a judge can continue the hearing if there are motions pending from the defense that haven’t been heard. “It’s not like you lose the case out from under you,” Willkomm said. “Usually we are in front of the magistrates for a lot of these cases and the magistrates have been pretty cooperative.” __ Connect with Laura Layden at www.naplesnews.com/staff/laura_layden.

9 COMMENTS

RELATED STORIES

Bank begins foreclosure proceedings on Marco Rubio's Tallahassee home
Updated Jun 18, 2010 42 Comments

Collier, Lee foreclosures slow, debate begins whether banks are backing off
Published Jun 12, 2010 16 Comments RELATED LINKS

Web: Check out foreclosuretoursrus.com
…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 3/4

2/22/2011

POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…

Search Florida foreclosure properties on RealtyTrac.com
BONITA

Fatal accident closes U.S. 41 in Bonita Springs
Published 6:18 p.m. 1 Comment

10-year-old girl reports $280 necklace ripped from neck at Bonita Springs Library
Published 1:52 p.m. 13 Comments STORY SEARCH

Search

Switch to full desktop version Return to top
Scripps Interactive Newspaper Group ©2011 The E.W. Scripps Co.

…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore…

4/4

2/22/2011

Naples Attorneys complain – Collier Co…

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 | Posted by Amitesh Kumar

Naples Attorneys complain – Collier County new foreclosure hearing process only favors banks
The Attorneys representing home owners in foreclosure cases at Naples are the worried lot – they say recent changes in the way hearings are scheduled in Collier County give banks undue advantage. They have had trouble getting hearings and the five minute hearings by magistrates on foreclosure cases, seem to be reserved now for banks’ motions for default and summary judgment. What happens when a bank gets a summary judgment? It gets the right to forfeit a house, when the distressed homeowner is not likely to get a second chance. The officials of the Court deny these allegations. According to Mark Middlebrook, a senior deputy court administrator in Collier County, this is absolutely not true and they have not changed anything regarding the scheduling of these hearings. In the normal course, Foreclosure hearings are scheduled through an automated calendaring system online, known as JACS. In Collier County, users are warned to read the foreclosure rules carefully “due to recent changes”. But Middlebrook refutes that the changes have not been made yet. The practice at Collier County is foreclosure cases that are contested by homeowners are generally handled by magistrates. Foreclosure attorneys representing homeowners must get an order of referral from a judge, to have their arguments heard by the concerned magistrate. Attorneys on behalf of homeowners, handling foreclosure cases say that Banks are not required to do the same for hearings on their motions for summary judgment, which gives them unfair time advantage. With the result, where foreclosures might have taken a year or two in the past, the Attorneys allege that they can happen now in less than six months. What the rules are saying? The rules for booking foreclosure hearings say “only hearings for summary judgment and default may be scheduled for the five-minute time slots”. In other words it says “Do not schedule other hearings in these time slots”. Naples foreclosure Attorneys, representing troubled homeowners, caught in the legal proceedings of foreclosures, say that these rules only appear to apply in Collier County and they have never been enforced until recently. So the tussle continues and we will see more of it in the near future. Share/Bookmark

naplesshortsaleexperts.com/…/naples-…

1/1

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. “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

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

“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

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

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

2/21/2011

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

2/21/2011
Reprints

David J. Stern Sale of Back-Office Ope…

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

February 1, 2011

Bet on Foreclosure Boom Turns Sour for Investors
By JULIE CRESWELL and BARRY MEIER

David J. Stern may be the best-known beneficiary of the foreclosure boom, having made millions in recent years from evictions processed by his law firm, the largest of its kind in Florida. But when he took part of his firm public early last year, he had plenty of help from a constellation of investors also looking to cash in on people losing their homes. Early in 2010, the back-office processing operations of Mr. Stern’s law firm were converted into a publicly traded company called DJSP Enterprises. Mr. Stern pocketed nearly $60 million from that transaction, public filings show. Behind that big-money deal was a curious cast of characters, including some with previous runins with regulators. Other parties included a small Wall Street investment bank headed by a former presidential candidate, the retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, and a little-known private equity firm based in New York. Even before the DJSP windfall, Mr. Stern enjoyed a lifestyle that featured grand mansions, flashy sports cars and a yacht called Misunderstood. But the days of easy money are over for Mr. Stern, his law firm and DJSP investors. As the Florida attorney general’s office continues to investigate whether Mr. Stern’s law firm falsified documents in order to speed up foreclosures, the firm has lost its biggest clients, including Citibank and Fannie Mae. Many of DJSP’s executives have left the company, and it has laid off about 80 percent of its 1,200 employees. Meanwhile, investors in DJSP are not doing any better. Shares of the company, which were worth $14 apiece last summer, trade now for about 50 cents on the Nasdaq exchange. DJSP faces a lawsuit from investors who claim they were misled about its financial prospects, an accusation the company has denied. Separately, former employees of DJSP who performed back-office work related to Mr. Stern’s law firm have sued, contending that the company failed to follow federal regulations in laying them off; the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims.
nytimes.com/2011/02/…/02stern.html… 1/4

2/21/2011
Reprints

Florida’s High-Speed Answer to a Fore…

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

September 4, 2010

Florida’s High-Speed Answer to a Foreclosure Mess
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and GERALDINE FABRIKANT

TEN days from now, a four-bedroom house on a cul-de-sac in Middleburg, Fla., is scheduled to be auctioned off at the Clay County courthouse, 25 miles south of Jacksonville. A judge who recently took over their foreclosure case has ordered Rodney Waters; his fiancée, Terri Reese; and their four children to leave the home they bought in 2006. Mr. Waters, a supervisor at a local packaging company and the family’s sole breadwinner, fell behind on his mortgage two years ago after his property taxes jumped unexpectedly. He now owes $264,000 on the house; a similar home down the street sold for $138,500 in February. The predicament of the Waters-Reese family is common in Florida today. The state routinely sets new records for foreclosures — in the second quarter, 20.13 percent of its mortgages were delinquent or in foreclosure, a national high, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. And with housing prices still in a free fall, almost half of all borrowers in Florida owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, says CoreLogic, a data firm. While the Waters-Reese case may not be unusual in Florida, the coming auction of the home is still notable: it will be a result of the Florida Legislature’s new effort to cut the number of foreclosures inching their way through the state’s courts. Earlier this year, Florida earmarked $9.6 million to set up foreclosures-only courts across the state, staffed by retired judges. The goal of the program, which began in July, is to reduce the foreclosures backlog by 62 percent within a year. No one disputes that foreclosures dominate Florida’s dockets and that something needs to be done to streamline a complex and emotionally wrenching process. But lawyers representing troubled borrowers contend that many of the retired judges called in from the sidelines to oversee these matters are so focused on cutting the caseload that they are unfairly favoring financial institutions at the expense of homeowners. Lawyers say judges are simply ignoring problematic or contradictory evidence and awarding
nytimes.com/2010/09/…/05house.htm… 1/9

2/21/2011
Reprints

Big Legal Clash on Foreclosure is Taki…

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

October 20, 2010

Battle Lines Forming in Clash Over Foreclosures
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and ANDREW MARTIN

About a month after Washington Mutual Bank made a multimillion-dollar mortgage loan on a mountain home near Santa Barbara, Calif., a crucial piece of paperwork disappeared. But bank officials were unperturbed. After conducting a “due and diligent search,” an assistant vice president simply drew up an affidavit stating that the paperwork — a promissory note committing the borrower to repay the mortgage — could not be found, according to court documents. The handling of that lost note in 2006 was hardly unusual. Mortgage documents of all sorts were treated in an almost lackadaisical way during the dizzying mortgage lending spree from 2005 through 2007, according to court documents, analysts and interviews. Now those missing and possibly fraudulent documents are at the center of a potentially seismic legal clash that pits big lenders against homeowners and their advocates concerned that the lenders’ rush to foreclose flouts private property rights. That clash — expected to be played out in courtrooms across the country and scrutinized by law enforcement officials investigating possible wrongdoing by big lenders — leaped to the forefront of the mortgage crisis this week as big lenders began lifting their freezes on foreclosures and insisted the worst was behind them. Federal officials meeting in Washington on Wednesday indicated that a government review of the problems would not be complete until the end of the year. In short, the legal disagreement amounts to whether banks can rely on flawed documentation to repossess homes. While even critics of the big lenders acknowledge that the vast majority of foreclosures involve homeowners who have not paid their mortgages, they argue that the borrowers are entitled to due legal process.
nytimes.com/2010/…/21standoff.html… 1/6

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful