8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 1/30
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
as [purported] successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,
purported plaintiff(s),
vs. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al .,
purported defendants. ___________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND
UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION
NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK OF FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT, AND
SHAM “motion for summary judgment ” WITHOUT authority IN DISPOSED CASE
RECORD 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION
1. The facially frivolous and previously contested action had been disposed on 08/12/2010.
Here, the record disposition proved the prima facie substantial controversy.
LEGAL SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB
2. Bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, was legally seized (FDIC). See Warrant on file.
PRIMA FACIE VIOLATIONS OF F.R.C.P. 1.510
3. In this disposed case, the electronic docket showed an unauthorized “motion for summary
judgment ” on 01/22/2011:
However, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 expressly prohibits said sham “motion”. Here, the disposedaction could not have possibly “commenced ”. See also Rule 1.150, SHAM PLEADINGS.
PROOF OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, FRAUD, & FRAUD ON COURT
4. Because the record evidenced substantial controversies and fraud, and because the purported
“plaintiff” was not entitled to sue, the non-meritorious action had been disposed. See Final
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 2/30
2
Disposition Form. Substantial controversies, disputes, and opposition are evidenced by,
e.g., J. Franklin-Prescott’s pleadings on the docket, including the 01/04/2011 filing of:
FAILURE TO PRODUCE “note” AND STATE ANY cause of action 5. Attorney(s) for plaintiff seized and bankrupt bank and/or BankUnited are unable to “offer
the original note and/or a lost not affidavit to this Court ”.
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT “hold and own note”
6. Plaintiff does not hold and own any genuine “note”. As a matter of law, the purported
“ plaintiff ” could not possibly “hold and own” the “note”.
7. Any plaintiff must be the owner/holder of the “note” as of the date of filing suit. See Jeff-Ray
Corp. v. Jacobsen, 566 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1990); WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v.
Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680, 682 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2004). On the date of the filing, law firm
Camner Lipsitz had asserted the unknown loss and/or destruction of a purported note.
NO signed authenticated original note & NO standing – NO summary judgment evidence
8. Purported “ plaintiff ” is not any holder and not in possession of any genuine instrument payable.
See § 671.201(21), Fla. Stat. (2010). Because BankUnited had no standing , the case had been
disposed. See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean Jacques, 2010 WL
476641 (Fla. App. 2 DCA Feb. 12, 2010). Here, no summary judgment evidence could have
possibly existed. UNKNOWN LOSS / DESTRUCTION OF PURPORTED “note”
9. As a matter of fact, “ plaintiff ” had asserted the loss and/or destruction of the alleged “note”.
Plaintiff did not know WHO had lost and/or destroyed the “note” WHEN.
PROOF OF FRAUD ON THIS COURT ON RECORD
10. E.g., on December 3 and 6, 2010, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (via Rush Messenger Service)
had given notice of “ plaintiff’s” and Albertelli Law’s fraud and fraud on the Court. See
Docket and absence of any “note”, instrument , and/or obligation.
PRIMA FACIE INSUFFICIENCY OF “complaint ”
11. Albertelli Law had never filed any “complaint ”, and the purported “plaintiff” was not entitled
to “complain”. Here, bankrupt BankUnited’s founder Alfred Camner and Camner Lipsitz had
been fired.
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 3/30
3
RECORD LACK OF ANY witness & notarial acknowledgment
12. Here, no “note” was witnessed and/or notarized .
RECORD LACK OF ANY assignment
13. Here, the purported “ plaintiff ” and Albertelli Law knew and/or fraudulently concealed that
there had been no assignment and no recordation of any assignment .
NO assignment & NO recording of any assignment
14. Assignments must be recorded to be valid against any alleged obligor. See § 701.02, Fla.
Stat. (2010). See Glynn v. First Union Nat’l. Bank, 912 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2005).
NO right to foreclose
15. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott was not obligated to pay any money, and so-called
“ plaintiff ” had no right to foreclose.
PRIMA FACIE “GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT”
16. Because of the prima facie “genuine issues of material fact”, the controverted case had been
disposed. Here, there had been substantial controversies.
PRIMA FACIE INVALID “lis pendens”
17. The purported “lis pendens” is facially invalid. Validity of a notice of lis pendens is one year
from filing. See § 48.23(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). Upon dismissal of foreclosure, a lis pendens is
automatically dissolved. See Rule 1.420(f), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010). Here, the lis pendens was
dissolved.
AFFIDAVITS MADE IN BAD FAITH
18. Pursuant to said Rule 1.510, the purported “ plaintiff ” presented so-called “affidavits” in bad
faith and solely for improper and/or unlawful purposes in this disposed case. See subsection
(g). Here, the purported affidavits lacked a foundation or predicate.
FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT ON RECORD
19. One affidavit, e.g., asserted that the under signed attorney (Ashley Simon, Florida Bar #
64472) had “not reviewed the actual file in this case” and that “a review of the actual
foreclosure file of Albertelli Law in this case would be unnecessary and futile event .”
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “ served ”
20. Defendants were not “duly and regularly served with process”.
UN-SERVED DEFENDANTS WERE ALLEGEDLY “ DROPPED”
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 4/30
4
21. “ Plaintiff ” purportedly dropped un-served “defendants” absent any authority in this disposed
case. The disposed case was not reopened , and no reopening fees appeared.
NO NOTICE(S) OF APPEARANCE
22. The purported and undersigned “attorney” filed no notice of appearance. See Docket:
RECORD NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY
23. Jennifer Franklin Prescott had given notice of her unavailability, and she is overseas in the
Pacific.
PATTERN OF FRAUD
24. The New York Times recently reported the pattern of fraud exhibited by the Albertelli Law
“ foreclosure mill ”:“ In numerous opinions, judges have accused lawyers of processing shoddy or even
fabricated paperwork in foreclosure actions when representing the banks…”
See Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures, New York Times, January 10, 2011.
INCORRECT CAPTION
25. Said sham “motion” does not indicate the correct file number of the disposed case:
DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT
26. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all “bonds, notes, bills of
exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought ” to its
complaint. Here, the unauthorized plaintiff(s) failed to attach a copy of the purported
promissory note. Therefore here, the non-meritorious claim had no base and was disposed.
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 5/30
5
“ plaintiff(s)” HAD NO cause of action AND NO original note
27. The original document required to be filed with the court in a mortgage foreclosure
proceeding is the promissory note. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the
definition of section 673.1041(1), and either the original must be produced, or the lost
document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. See Mason v.
Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat'l Bank of Lake
City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 673 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.
5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of plaintiff defunct bank, re-establishment was legally &
factually impossible. Furthermore, seizure is not any transfer by delivery in the ordinary
course of business. Accordingly, the Disposition Judge disposed the frivolous action.
FAILURE TO SERVE & COMPLY WITH RULE 1.510
28. The motion for summary judgment, supporting affidavits and notice of hearing must be
served on a defendant at least (20) twenty days before the summary judgment hearing. See
Rule 1.510(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010); Verizzo v. Bank of New York, 2010 WL 711862 (Fla.
2 DCA Mar. 3, 2010); Mack v. Commercial Industrial Park, Inc., 541 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla.
4th DCA 1989). Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott was not served under said Rule.
DISPOSITION & BANKUNITED’S FAILURE TO refute AND disprove
29. The movant for summary judgment must factually refute or disprove the affirmative defenses
raised, or establish that the defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. See Leal v. Deutsche
Bank Nat’l. Trust Co., 21 So. 3d 907, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Here, BankUnited had failed
to disprove the affirmative defenses, and the case had been disposed.
Purported “ plaintiff ” FAILED THE BURDEN OF PROOF
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 6/30
6
30. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish the non-existence of disputed issues of
material fact. See Delandro v. Am.’s. Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 674 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1996); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). Here, BankUnited, non-successor
in interest, failed the burden of proof. Because of the disputed issues of material fact, the case
had been disposed.
NO verified complaint
31. A complaint must be verified. Rule 1.110(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) (02/11/2010). Here, no
verified complaint exists.
NO note
32. Rule 1.130(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) mandates that a copy of the note and mortgage be
attached to the complaint. See Eigen v. FDIC, 492 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because
no executed , authorized , genuine note existed, and none was attached to the insufficient
complaint by fired law firm Camner Lipsitz, the frivolous action had been disposed.
SHAM AFFIDAVITS AND MOTION & NO entitlement to any fees and/or costs
33. Purported “ plaintiff’s” “affidavits” and “motion for summary judgment ” in this disposed
action are a prima facie sham, and Albertelli Law is not entitled to any attorney’s fees and/or
costs. Any hearing , and none appears on any calendar (JACS), would be unauthorized and
without any legal and/or factual basis.
WHEREFORE Jennifer Franklin Prescott respectfully demands
1. An Order declaring the purported “ plaintiff ” without any authority to sue, foreclose, and/or
demand any payment from Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
2. An Order declaring any hearing unauthorized;
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 7/30
7
3. An Order declaring the prima facie sham “motion” and “affidavits” unlawful in this
previously disputed and disposed action;
4. An Order declaring the purported “ plaintiff ” to be in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.510 in this
disposed and previously controverted action;
5. An Order declaring the purported 2009 “lis pendens” invalid on its face;
6. An Order declaring the affidavits “hearsay” and lacking any legal and/or factual basis in the
absence of any authentic “note”;
7. An Order taking judicial notice of the lack of any genuine “note”, “ plaintiff’s” proven fraud
on the Court, opposition, opposition evidence, and case law as to this disposed case;
8. An Order prohibiting Counsel who did not file any notice from appearing in this disposed
action.
/s/ Jennifer Franklin-Prescott , BankUnited foreclosure fraud victim
ATTACHMENTS
New York Times: Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures (January 10, 2011)
Other
Certificates of Deliveries upon Clerk, Disposition Judge, BankUnited, Albertelli Law
(Messenger Service)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this NOTICE OF OPPOSITION &
OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE, AND UNAVAILABILITY IN
DISPOSED ACTION has been delivered to BankUnited, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028,
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 8/30
8
Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of Court, and Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, Courthouse, Naples,
FL 34112, USA, on January 22, 2010, Pacific Time.
/s/ Jennifer Franklin-Prescott , foreclosure fraud victim
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 9/30
Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
01/31/2011
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Hon. Dwight E. Brock
Clerk of CourtsCourthouse
Naples, FL 34112, U.S.A.
RE: DISPOSED CASE # 0906016CA; NOTICE OF FRAUD EVIDENCE …
Hon. Clerk Brock:
1. Attached is another copy of the “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION
EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE…” submitted on Jan. 21, 2011, 16:20:16, together with
a copy of the Docket (01/31/11). See attachments. The undersigned has been in the Pacific.
2. Here, the above fraudulent Case was disposed on 08/12/2010, because the purported“ plaintiff ” was not in possession of any genuine original note, could not reestablish the
destroyed and/or lost note, and could not possibly foreclose on the purported note andmortgage. See § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Dasma Invest., LLC v. Realty Associates
Fund III, L.P., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
3. Furthermore, BankUnited is not any “ successor in interest ” to lawfully seized and bankruptBankUnited, FSB. See Uniform Commercial Code. Here, no authentic note was executed ,
delivered , and/or assigned to the alleged “ plaintiff ”. See also Collier County Public Records.
4. The style of the prima facie insufficient and frivolous complaint, “ BankUnited, FSB v.
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.”, did not even indicate BankUnited as a plaintiff .
See, e.g., attached page 3 of 8. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, founder Alfred Camner,
Esq., and Camner Lipsitz, PA, were fired and are not any “counsel ”. See attached p. 4 of 8.5. Here admittedly without any “actual review of the file” and disposed Case, foreclosure mill
Albertelli Law has been attempting to extort money and/or property, and Franklin-Prescott is
again giving Notice of said Fraud and Fraud on the Court.6. Here, the purported “ plaintiff ” in said disposed Case is not entitled to any hearing , money,
fees, judgment , and legal action against Franklin-Prescott.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, fraud victim
CC: Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge),Albertelli LawOther
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected] …
ATTACHMENTS (25 pages)
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 10/30
9
“ plaintiff(s)” FAILED to surrender ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE
1. Here, “ plaintiffs” had asserted unknown loss and/or destruction of the original note and
failed to surrender the original promissory note. See Complaint, page 3:
Because a promissory note is negotiable, it must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding so
that it does not remain in the stream of commerce. Here, “ plaintiff(s)” seized & bankrupt bank
and BankUnited had alleged that the note was lost, destroyed or stolen, and that the manner and
time of loss/destruction were unknown. Therefore, the court is authorized by statute to take the
necessary actions to protect the purported defendant against loss that might occur by reason of a
claim by another party to enforce the purported instrument . See …
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 11/30
10
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 12/30
11
2. Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of “ plaintiff ” bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, no assignment
was contained in any document and recorded according to law. See Collier Clerk of Court’s
public records. See Ch. 701, Fla. Stat.; § 701.02 et al. Here, there was no “assignment chain”.
THIS COURT MAY NOT enter judgment in favor OF SEIZED BANKUNITED
3. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code:
“(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove
the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument . If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement
had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the
person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay theinstrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim
by another person to enforce the instrument …”
Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not protected against further fraudulent “claims” after
said lawful seizure and alleged unknown “loss and/or destruction” of the purported
note/instrument . See U.C.C., § 3-309:
CONTROVERTED authenticity of “ seized ” bank’s claims AND note ON THE RECORD
4. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “ plaintiffs’ ” fraudulent claims of any
“ payment obligation” and negotiable instrument and/or note.
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 13/30
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 14/30
Search All NYTimes.com
Global DealBook Mark ets Econom y Ener gy Media Personal Te ch Sm all Business Your M one y
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Enlarge This Image
Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times, lef t;
Julie Glassberg/The New York Times
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.
Multimedia
The Takeaw ay With JohnSchwartz
Add to Portfolio
Wells Fargo & Co
Go to your Portfolio »
Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in ForeclosuresBy JOHN SCHWARTZ
Publi shed: January 10, 2011
With judges looking ever more critically at hom e foreclosures, they
are reaching beyond the bankers to heap some of their most
scorching criticism on the law yers.
In numerous opinions, judges have
accused lawyers of processing shoddy or even fabricated paperwork in
foreclosure actions when representing
the banks.
Judge Arthur M. Schack of New York
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.”
More broadly, the courts in New York State, along with
Florida, have begun requiring that law yers in foreclosure
cases vouch for the accuracy of the documents they
present, which prompted a protest from the New York 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.
Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York 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 York.
Obama’s
Remar ks in
Tucson
Prominent
Chinese Artist’s
Studio Torn
Down
Log In With Facebook
Go to Complete List »
Log in to see w hat your friends
are sharing on nytimes.com.
Privacy Policy | What’s This?
What’s Popular Now
Sign up to be notified w hen important news breaks.
Privacy Policy
Breaking News Alerts by E-Mail
MOST POPULAR - BUSINESS DAY
1 . Is Law Sch ool a Losing Gam e?
2. Rising Chinese Inflation to Show Up in U.S. Imports
3. Economic Scene: The Real Problem With China
4. Economix: Why So Many Rich People Don’t Feel
Very Rich
5. Auto Show Outsiders Seek Rebirth
6. Weather Monitoring Company Turns to
Greenhouse Gases
7 . Judges Berate Bank Lawy ers in Foreclosures
8. Itinera ries: Sneeze-Free Zone
9. Film St udio Born of Comic Books Gra bs Holly wood’s
Attention
1 0. Flex Tim e Flourishes in A ccounting Industry
Try Times Reader today Log In Register Now Help TimesPeopHOM E PAGE T ODAY 'S P AP ER VIDE O M OS T POPULA R T IM ES T OP ICS
Business Day W ORLD U.S. N.Y . / REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEA LT H SPORTS OPINION A RT S ST YLE TRA VEL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTO
www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-me-jobs Ads by Google
SIGN IN TO E-
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE
RECOMMEND
E -M AIL ED BLOGGE D V IE WED
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 15/30
A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2011, on page
A1 of the New York edition.
Anne Reynolds Copps, the chairwoman of the real property law section of the New York
State bar, said, “We had a lot of concerns, because it seemed to paint attorneys as being
the problem.” Lawyers feared they would be responsible for a bank’s mistakes. “They are
relying on a client, or the client’s employees, to provide the information on which they are
basing the documents,” she said.
The role of lawyers is under scrutiny in the 23 states where foreclosures must be reviewed
by a court. The situation has become especially heated for high-volume firms whose
practices mirror the so-called robo-signing of some financial institutions; in these cases,
documents were signed without sufficient examination or proper notarization.
In the most publicized example, David J. Stern, a lawyer whose Florida firm has been part
of an estimated 20 percent of the foreclosure actions in the state, has been accused of filing
sloppy and even fraudulent mortgage paperwork. Major institutions have dropped the
firm, which has been the subject of several lawsuits, and 1,200 of the 1,400 people once at
the firm are out of work.
The Florida attorney general’s office is conducting a civil investigation of Mr. Stern’s firm
and two others.
“There’s been no determination” in a court that Mr. Stern or his employees “did wrong
things, said Jeffrey Tew, Mr. Stern’s lawyer, adding that the impact was nevertheless
devastating.
“There are groups in society that everybody likes to hate,” Mr. Tew added. “Now
foreclosure lawyers are on the list.”
Such concerns have, in recent months, brought a sharp focus on activities in New York
State, and in particular on the practice of Mr. Baum, a lawyer in Amherst, outside Buffalo.
Judges have cited his firm for what they call slipshod work that, in some cases, was
followed by the dismissal of foreclosure actions.
One case involved Sunny D. Eng, a former manager of computer systems on Wall Street.
He and his wife, who has cancer, stopped paying the mortgage on their Holtsville, N.Y.,
home after Mr. Eng’s I nternet services business foundered. The mortgage w as originally
held by the HTFC Corporation, but the foreclosure notice came from Wells Fargo, a bank that the Engs had no relationship with. They hired an experienced foreclosure defense
lawyer on Long Island, Craig Robins. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Eng.
NEXT PAGE »
Get the full newspaper experience, and more, delivered to your Mac or PC. Times
Reader 2.0: Try it FREE for 2 full weeks.
Ads by Google what's this?
Home Foreclosures in USABuy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
CashflowGold.com
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics
Foreclosures
Legal Profession
Find your dream home with
The New York Times Real Estate
Fan The New Y ork Tim es on
The new issue of T is h ere
See the news in the makin g. Watch
TimesCast, a dai ly news video.
Advertise on NYTi mes.com
The New Yorker confidentialALSO IN OPINION »
Goldman's mutual friend
Does one word change 'Huckleberry Finn'?
ADVERTISEMENTS
Ads by Google what's this?
Home Foreclosures in USABuy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
CashflowGold.com
1 2
SIGN IN TO E-
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 2
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 16/30
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Bcc: [email protected]
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2011 10:20 am
Attachments:NOTICE_OF_OPPOSITION_&_OPPOSITION_EVIDENCE,_FRAUD_EVIDENCE_..._012211.pdf (779K)
1/30/2011 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITI…
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 17/30
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New Search Return to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MORTGAGE FOR ECLOSURES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
2 of 2 pages. Entries per page: 60
Date Text All Entries
09/01/2010 OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE
09/02/2010 CANCELLED
09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEARING SEE SCHEDULE MINUTES FOR DETAILS
09/02/2010 RECEIPT FROM DCAACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE FILED W/DCA 8/18/10 2D10-4158
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCAAPPELLANT SHALL WITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCAAPPELLANT SHALL FORWARD FILING FEE OR ORDER OF INSOLVENCY WITTHIN40 DAYS
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCA APPELLANT SHALL SHOW C AUSE WITHIN 15 DAYS
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE
09/02/2010 MOTION FOR RECUSAL
09/02/2010 NOTIC E IN SUPPORT OF HUGH HAYES RECUSAL
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/03/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/03/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/03/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/07/2010 ORIGINAL SENATE STAFF RECORD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS
09/07/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JUSIDICTION
09/07/2010 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
09/07/2010 NOTIC E OF AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTIO N OF LIS PENDENS
09/07/2010 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Find it here... Site Search
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 18/30
09/14/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 COPY CORRESPONDENCE TO 2ND DCA W/ATTACHMENTS
09/15/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 COP Y AMENDED NOTIC E OF APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DCA
09/15/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL2D10-4158
09/16/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF 2ND AMENDEDNOTICE OF APPEAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FOR FINAL ORDER
10/04/2010 ORDER BY DCATHIS APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THISCOUR TS ORDER OF 8/31/10 R EQUIR ING A COPY OF ORDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 ORDER BY DCA THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING
11/12/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL NOTE & ORIGINAL MORTGAGE
12/03/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION MOTION FORJUDICIAL NOTICE / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCO
12/06/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK
12/06/2010 MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING
12/06/2010 OBJECTION TO& MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOT
12/06/2010 NO APPEARANCE BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEARING SEE SCHEDULE MINUTES FOR DETAILS
12/07/2010 NOTIC E OF CANCELLATION 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TO HEARING BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TOSTATUS OF DISPOSITION JUDGE & RECUSAL MOTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLINPRESCOTT
12/17/2010 NOTIC E OF FRAUD & LOSS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
12/17/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN
PRESCO
12/20/2010 OBJECTION TO(EMERGENCY) TO PURPORTED NOTE IN DISPOSED ACTION & UNNOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN FRAUD ON COUR T C ASE BASED ON DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
01/04/2011 OBJECTION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
01/12/2011 NOTIC E OF DROPP ING PARTY JOHN DOE/JANE DOE
01/12/2011 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMOUNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.
We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 19/30
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 20/30
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 21/30
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New Search Return to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MORTGAGE FOR ECLOSURES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 01/12/2011 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
Name Type DOB City, State, Zip
BANKUNITED PLAINTIFF
BANKUNITED FSB PLAINTIFF
PASKEWICZ, SERENA KAY ESQ PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY MIAMI, FL 33134
ROSE, ERIN M ESQ PLAINTIFF'S CO-COUNSEL TAMPA, FL 33623
FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER DEFENDANT
PRESCOTT, WALTER DEFENDANT
DOE, JOHN DEFENDANT
DOE, MARY DEFENDANT
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
Find it here... Site Search
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 22/30
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 23/30
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2011 10:23 am
Attachments: NOTICE_OF_OPPOSITION_&_OPPOSITION_EVIDENCE,_FRAUD_EVIDENCE_..._012211.pdf (779K)
-----Original Message-----From: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 3:21 pm
Subject: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:[email protected]
The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you.Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007
Diagnostic information for administrators:Generating server: albertellilaw.local
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##Original message headers:
Received: from p02c11m065.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) byTPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:21:07 -0500Received: from unknown [205.188.105.144] (EHLO imr-da02.mx.aol.com) by
p02c11m065.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP idfb8f93d4.0.790820.00-2183.1054031.p02c11m065.mxlogic.net (envelope-from
<[email protected]>); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:04 -0700 (MST)Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by
imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p0LLKUS0022628; Fri, 21 Jan
2011 16:20:30 -0500Received: from [email protected] by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) idw.f31.1346af7 (56029); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.97])by cia-md08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD083-d3ce4d39f8902cd;Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:20 -0500
Received: from web-mmc-d08 (web-mmc-d08.sim.aol.com [205.188.103.98]) bysmtprly-mc01.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP idMAILSMTPRLYMC018-d3ce4d39f8902cd; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500X-AOL-IP: 222.152.130.175X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0From: <[email protected]>
X-MB-Message-Type: UserContent-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="--------MB_8CD87C82239F721_19F4_DD4B_web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com"X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33124-STANDARD
Received: from 222.152.130.175 by web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.98)with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean
X-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/0X-Spam-Flag: NOX-AOL-SENDER: [email protected]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; B=0.500(0); spf=0.500; STSI=0.500(0); STSM=0.500(0); CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2011012128); S=0.200(2010122901); SC=nonX-MAIL-FROM: <[email protected]>X-SOURCE-IP: [205.188.105.144]X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=mmUCS4HFsBAA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=VFcOs91RuR]
X-AnalysisOut: [IA:10 a=hciDLOP+ud79atiMCbLEAQ==:17 a=WI78ahdYjpqRM8Otj6kA]X-AnalysisOut: [:9 a=ydw_HpEerRrBzB_j418A:7 a=lw-9Qrvzv2xGl-7E6F7hXpr9hWIA]X-AnalysisOut: [:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Sww94m9cqyCiQE1SWwoA:9 a=E3UMbXGhzG]X-AnalysisOut: [jPNipGXP7B7KfvA6kA:4 a=n3BslyFRqc0A:10 a=bhkaYMs-ANYA:10]
Return-Path: [email protected]
1/31/2011 Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 24/30
=
Final-Recipient: rfc822;[email protected]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
Attached Message
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
1/31/2011 Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 2
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 25/30
Von: [email protected]
Thema: Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Datum: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 13:28
Anhang: HON._D._E._BROCK,_DELIVERIES_(CERT.)_OF_MOTIONS_&_NOTICE,_DISPOSED_CASE_NO.09-6016-
CA_(1).pdf (1160K)
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
[email protected] recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to
redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the
following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: albertellilaw.local
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##
Original message headers:
Received: from p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (208.65.144.245) byTPA2.albertellilaw.local (192.168.6.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.375.2; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:28:35 -0500Received: from unknown [205.188.91.97] (EHLO imr-db03.mx.aol.com) by
p02c11m114.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.8.0-0) with ESMTP idfc639fc4.0.788619.00-2144.985007.p02c11m114.mxlogic.net (envelope-from
<[email protected]>); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:28:31 -0700 (MST)Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) byimr-db03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oB3IRokw004781; Fri, 3 Dec2010 13:27:50 -0500
Received: from [email protected] by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) idw.f67.b3d5975 (43913); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com[205.188.249.170]) by cia-dc08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP idMAILCIADC082-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:45 -0500
Received: from webmail-d052 (webmail-d052.sim.aol.com [205.188.168.25]) bysmtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id
MAILSMTPRLYDE035-b2504cf936a0164; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:44 -0500References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500X-AOL-IP: 79.211.86.188In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0From: <[email protected]>
X-MB-Message-Type: UserContent-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=
"--------MB_8CD612EE93CE4C3_1CB0_10D59_webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com"X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 32992-STANDARD
Received: from 79.211.86.188 by webmail-d052.sysops.aol.com (205.188.168.25)with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-AOL-VSS-CODE: cleanX-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/0X-Spam-Flag: NOX-AOL-SENDER: [email protected]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; B=0.500(0); spf=0.500; STSI=0.500(9); STSM=0.500(9); CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2010120328); S=0.200(2010120101); SC=nonX-MAIL-FROM: <[email protected]>X-SOURCE-IP: [205.188.91.97]X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=tOBHjLs4_5wA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=s1-bI8_kuh]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=XaU3MG2NMZ7IwRi2zXA4Ow==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=XYJ]X-AnalysisOut: [RSn9hAAAA:8 a=StNULilYAAAA:8 a=J2ZUkIx5YQREXUxgZ8YA:9 a=l4]X-AnalysisOut: [QDlNRdM8nIpH_QbYuP0bohVtsA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=U8Ie8Enqy]
X-AnalysisOut: [SEA:10 a=_JzL8g0GY9oA:10 a=JtZ1zMYNN3LUi7kfzdMA:7 a=BFkvR0]X-AnalysisOut: [WKUWyW899fpkO0KKn4jZgA:4 a=5FPhOs0AS1lMV_1zBlYA:9 a=FtCU1E]X-AnalysisOut: [ZuVnDh3Spi_4VqGdZcGa4A:4 a=n3BslyFRqc0A:10 a=bhkaYMs-ANYA:]
12/4/2010 Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 26/30
X-AnalysisOut: [10]Return-Path: [email protected]
=
Final-Recipient: rfc822;[email protected]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
eMail im Anhang
V on: [email protected]
An: afivecoat@albertellilaw .com; simone@albertellilaw .com; [email protected]; [email protected];
jsaw yer@albertellilaw .com; [email protected]; [email protected]
Thema: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Datum: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: [email protected]
An: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Verschickt: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 12:56
Thema: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50 am
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
12/4/2010 Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 2
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 27/30
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 28/30
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 29/30
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New Search Return to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MORTGAGE FOR ECLOSURES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 02/01/2011 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
2 of 2 pages. Entries per page: 60
Date Text All Entries
09/01/2010 OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE
09/02/2010 CANCELLED
09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEARING SEE SCHEDULE MINUTES FOR DETAILS
09/02/2010 RECEIPT FROM DCAACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE FILED W/DCA 8/18/10 2D10-4158
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCAAPPELLANT SHALL WITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCAAPPELLANT SHALL FORWARD FILING FEE OR ORDER OF INSOLVENCY WITTHIN40 DAYS
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCA APPELLANT SHALL SHOW C AUSE WITHIN 15 DAYS
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE
09/02/2010 MOTION FOR RECUSAL
09/02/2010 NOTIC E IN SUPPORT OF HUGH HAYES RECUSAL
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/02/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/03/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/03/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/03/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
09/07/2010 ORIGINAL SENATE STAFF RECORD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS
09/07/2010 NOTICE OF LACK OF JUSIDICTION
09/07/2010 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
09/07/2010 NOTIC E OF AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTIO N OF LIS PENDENS
09/07/2010 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Find it here... Site Search
2/3/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1
8/7/2019 Notice of Opposition & Opposition Evidence, Fraud Evidence ...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/notice-of-opposition-opposition-evidence-fraud-evidence- 30/30
09/14/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 COPY CORRESPONDENCE TO 2ND DCA W/ATTACHMENTS
09/15/2010 NOTIC E OF APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 COP Y AMENDED NOTIC E OF APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DCA
09/15/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL2D10-4158
09/16/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPEAL CLERK TO DCA W/CERTIFIED COPY AMENDED NOTICE OF 2ND AMENDEDNOTICE OF APPEAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FOR FINAL ORDER
10/04/2010 ORDER BY DCATHIS APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THISCOUR TS ORDER OF 8/31/10 R EQUIR ING A COPY OF ORDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 ORDER BY DCA THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING
11/12/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL NOTE & ORIGINAL MORTGAGE
12/03/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION MOTION FORJUDICIAL NOTICE / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCO
12/06/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK
12/06/2010 MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING
12/06/2010 OBJECTION TO& MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOT
12/06/2010 NO APPEARANCE BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEARING SEE SCHEDULE MINUTES FOR DETAILS
12/07/2010 NOTIC E OF CANCELLATION 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TO HEARING BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
12/08/2010 OBJECTION TOSTATUS OF DISPOSITION JUDGE & RECUSAL MOTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLINPRESCOTT
12/17/2010 NOTIC E OF FRAUD & LOSS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
12/17/2010 MOTIONTO CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN
PRESCO
12/20/2010 OBJECTION TO(EMERGENCY) TO PURPORTED NOTE IN DISPOSED ACTION & UNNOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN FRAUD ON COUR T C ASE BASED ON DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NOTIC E OF FILING ORIGINAL LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
01/04/2011 OBJECTION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
01/12/2011 NOTIC E OF DROPP ING PARTY JOHN DOE/JANE DOE
01/12/2011 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMOUNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES
02/01/2011 COPY(FAX) NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE/FRAUD EVIDENCE & UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION/NOTIFICATION OF COURT & CLERK ET AL
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
2/3/2011 Public Inquiry