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

“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

MANDATORY CANCELLATION NOTICE AS FILED ON 02/21/2011