robo-signing & foreclosure fraud in florida
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
1/141
Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
BankUnited fraud victim
CERTIFIED DELIVERIES
The Honorable Daniel R. Monaco
The Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, Disposition JudgeCircuit Court Judges, Twentieth Judicial Circuit
Judicial Assistants Karen / Jan
Collier County Government Complex3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112
Phone: 239.774.8118Fax: 239.252.8870; 239.775.5538; 239.774.9654; 239-252-8020
Email: [email protected],[email protected] , [email protected]
RE: Unlawful hearing in disposed wrongful foreclosure case 09-6016-CA
VIOLATIONS OF OFFICE POLICIES & PROCEDURES IN DISPOSED CASE
ISSUE OF UNAUTHORIZED / UNLAWFUL HEARING
1.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 ofmotions on this docket.) All motions other than MSJ and DJ will be cancelled by
Court Administration. No additional motions will be heard with theSummary/Default Judgments before Judge Monaco.
2.
A party/attorney scheduling a hearing mustconcurrently 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. Theoriginal notice must be timely filed with the Clerk of Court.
See OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE, Senior Judge Foreclosure, Collier County
Clerk of Court.
Here accordingly, BankUnited was not entitledtosue nor to any hearingand did not
serve any timely notice of hearingon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott as also conclusively
evidenced by the Clerks 02/18/2011 Docket.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
2/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
3/141
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
non-successor in interestto [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,
purportedplaintiff(s),
vs.
DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,purported defendants.
_________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL
AND OF BANKUNITEDS LACK OFSTANDING& FRAUD ON THE COURT
1. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott hereby files herNOTICE OF APPEAL. Fraud victim Franklin-
Prescott defends against fraud on the Court and wrongful foreclosure acts by
BankUnited and/or foreclosure mill Albertelli Law.
02/18/2011 DOCKET EVIDENCE
2. In this disposed action, the Clerk of Courts 02/18/2011 Docket showed:
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
4/141
2
UNAUTHORIZED (AMENDED) 02/22/11, 10:00A.M., HEARING, DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS / MOTION TO ENJOIN
3. On 02/08/2011, BankUnited amended the NOTICE OF 02/22/11 HEARING,
10:00A.M., DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS / MOTION TO ENJOIN. The
unauthorized amended 02/14/11 HEARING did not take place.
BANKUNITED DID NOT SERVENOTICE OF HEARINGON FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
4. A party/attorney scheduling a hearing mustconcurrently 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.
See OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE, Senior Judge Foreclosure, Collier County
Clerk of Court.
5. Here, BankUnited was not entitledto any hearingand did notserve any timely notice of
hearing on Jennifer Franklin-Prescott as also conclusively evidenced by the attached
02/18/2011 Docket.
ISSUE OF UNAUTHORIZED SCHEDULING OF UNLAWFUL HEARING
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
5/141
3
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. Id.
BANKUNITEDS LACK OFSTANDING& FRAUD ON THE COURT
6. Pursuant to the conclusive evidence on file in this disposed action, BankUnited lacked any
standing, identification as note holder and/or owner, and entitlement to the pretended
hearing on 02/22/2011. As a matter of law, BankUnited had no right to sue Franklin-
Prescott who does not owe money to BankUnited.
LACK OFAUTHORITYAND/ORJURISDICTION
7. In the prima facie absence of anystandingand required conditions precedent, the Court has
no authority under the Rules. BankUniteds so-called evidence on file was inadmissible,
incompetent, and/or hearsay.
RECORD DISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF PRESCOTT FOR LACK OFSTANDING
8. Case # 09-6016-CA was disposed on 08/12/2010 in favor of Jennifer Franklin-Prescott. This
Court disposed of COUNTS I, II, and III. COUNT I (reestablishment of lost instrument)
was facially frivolous, because the lost instrument/note identified bankrupt and defunct
BankUnited, FSB [rather than BankUnited] as a lender.
9. In its facially frivolous and insufficient complaint for mortgage foreclosure, plaintiff
BankUnited wrongfully sued Jennifer Franklin-Prescott in the record absence of any
instrumentand/ornote identifying BankUnited.
BANKRUPT & SEIZED BANKUNITED, FSB WAS NOT ANY PLAINTIFF
10. BankUnited, FSB was not any plaintiff in this disposed action.
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
6/141
4
11. The electronic docket in this disposed action had erroneously listed BankUnited, FSB as a
plaintiff in this disposed action.
12. 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).
13. The subject mortgage referenced in the wrongful complaint identified BankUnited, FSB
rather than the plaintiff, i.e., BankUnited.
14. The logo ofbankrupt and lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB included a palm tree and
BANKUNITED.
15. 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.
16. Plaintiff BankUnited was not any creditor in the disposed wrongful action.
17. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott did not owe any debt to plaintiff BankUnited pursuant to the
evidence on file in this disposed wrongful action.
18. Undersigned Camner Lipsitz, PA, and/or founder ofbankrupt and defunct BankUnited,
FSB, Alfred Camner, Esq., represented the interest of the plaintiff [BankUnited].
19. BankUnited had fraudulently alleged in the Complaint ( 16, Count II) that plaintiff
[BankUnited] owns and holds the note and mortgage.
20. The purported note and/ormortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did
not identify BankUnited as a lender.
21. The purported note/mortgage identified BankUnited, FSB as a lender.
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
7/141
5
22. 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 obligatedto
make anypaymentto BankUnited.
23. Plaintiff BankUniteds 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.
24. An affidavit that is not executed in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 92, Florida
Statutes, is not competent evidence in a civil case.
25. The allegedpromissory note was never properly executed.
26. BankUnited has had no right to enforce the falsely pretended mortgage/note.
27. BankUnited never satisfied the required conditions precedent.
28. BankUnited had nostanding.
29. BankUnited failed to state any cause of action.
30. BankUnited could not have possibly been entitled to any summary disposition and/or
hearingin this disposed action.
31. Pedro Luis Licourt is not any knownparty to the disposed action, Case # 09-6016-CA
32. The purported Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against
Pedro Luis Licourt was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action.
33. Said action was disposed, because here no note and/ormortgage had been transferred to
BankUnited.
34. 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.
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
8/141
6
35. 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.
36. There was no service of notice of 02/14/2011 hearingupon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott nor
any 02/14/2011 hearing.
37. There was no service of notice of 02/22/2011 hearingupon Franklin-Prescott, and the
amended hearing on 02/14/2010 did not take place.
38. In this disposed action, the purported Defendants motion to dismiss/motion to enjoin was
moot and irrational.
39. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was neverproperly servedeither bypersonal service of process or
by any other service of process in strict compliance with Chapters 48 and 49, Florida
Statutes.
40. BankUnited failed to conduct a diligent search in strict compliance with the Florida
statutes governing service of process.
41. The record established that the falsely allegedservice by publication was void.
42. Floridas Statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed to assure that
defendants have the opportunity to protect their rights.
43. Any judgment against a defendant based upon improper service by publication would have
lacked authority of law.
44. Estoppel prevented identical parties from re-litigating prima facie frivolous issues after the
08/12/2010 disposition under the disguise of an unlawful and controvertedsummary
disposition motion.
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ANYHEARING&MAGISTRATEIN DISPOSED CASE
AND OF BINDING PRECEDENT IN SUPPORT OF 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
9/141
7
FILED NOTICE OF FRANKLIN-PRESCOTTS OBJECTION & NON-CONSENT
45. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott again objects to any hearing and/or any magistrate in this
disposed action. Here, no hearingwas authorizedand/orlawfuland the notice a sham.
RECORD DISPOSITION FOR LACK OFSTANDING& FAILURE TOSTATE CAUSE
46. This action had been disposed on 08/12/2010.
ERRONEOUS NOTICE IN DISPOSED ACTION
47. On 02/18/2011, the Docket showed a notice of hearing which was amended. Here, the
notice did notpertain to Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and/or the disposed action but to Pedro
Luis Licourt, who is not any known party.
UNLAWFUL/UNAUTHORIZEDHEARINGIN DISPOSED ACTION
48. Here, the erroneously alleged amended mtoin for summary judgment does not pertain to
this disposed action. Any hearing and/or any motion for summary disposition would be
improper, unauthorized, and/or unlawful.
NO FEBRUARYHEARINGAPPEARED ON THE DOCKET
49. Here, the 02/18/2011 Docket did not show any hearingand/orhearing date:
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
10/141
8
NO CONSENT& OBJECTION TO ANY MAGISTRATE (HEARING)
50. Previously and repeatedly, Franklin-Prescott had objected to any magistrate hearing.Because of the record lack of any consent, a previous hearing had been cancelled in this
disposed action.
51. The record lackofconsenthad been erroneously entered as non-contest:
VAGUE & AMBIGUOUS SHAM NOTICE IN DISPOSED ACTION
52. In this disposed action, the notice was vague, ambiguous, and unintelligent. A pleading is
considered a sham when it is inherently false and based on plain orconceded facts clearly
known to be false at the time the pleading was made. See Decker v. County of Volusia, 698
So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1997); Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr., 662 So.
2d 388, 390 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1995).
RECORD ABSENCE OFNOTEAND CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
53. Here, no genuine properly executed note identifying BankUnited had existed. Copies of a
null and void note/mortgage and/or hearsay were not admissible under the Code of Evidence.
Here, there were no witnesses and no notary had acknowledgedany authentic note/mortgage.
NON-BINDINGMODIFICATION AGREEMENT
54. BankUnited, FSB, and/or BankUnited knew and/or concealed that
8. The Modification will be legally binding upon the parties, only when it is signed
by Note Holder and each Borrower.
Here, Walter Prescott did not sign the purported Loan Modification Agreement. See
12/21/2010 Notice of Filing of Original Loan Modification Agreement in disposed
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
11/141
9
(08/12/2010) action. Because here the alleged 09/05/2007 Modification Agreement was
notsigned by each Borrowerand/or Walter Prescott, it was not legally binding.
FAILURE TOPROVE TERMS
55. A person seeking enforcementof an instrument under UCC 3-309(a) mustprove the terms
of the instrument and the persons right to enforce the instrument. See UCC 3-309(b). Here,
plaintiffBankUnited failed toprove any terms.
RECORD ABSENCE OFEXECUTION
56. Here, the alleged February 2006 note, mortgage, and/or security instrumentdid not identify
BankUnited and could not have possibly encumberedFranklin-Prescotts real property,
because they were notproperly executed.
NOPROOFON FILE IN DISPOSED ACTION
57. Here, Franklin-Prescott had denied the authenticity ofsignatures on the purported noteand/ormortgage alluded to in this disposed case and demanded strictproofthereof, by clear
and convincing evidence, pursuant to 673.3081, Fla. Stat. (2008). See Adjustable Rate
Note, page 4 of 4, in 12/01/2010 and/or 11/01/2010 Notice of Filing of Original Note &
Original Mortgage.
58. Here in particular, there were, e.g., no notarial acknowledgment and no signature by
purported borrower Walter Prescott.
59. The complaint and above Notice(s) of Filing established the purported note as null and
void. Furthermore, the non-genuine copies (prima facie hearsay) in the complaint and
Notices of Filing fatally conflicted.
PARTIES TO ALLEGED NOTE WERE CONFLICTING AND AMBIGUOUS
60. In this disposed action, the purported plaintiff did not assertany valid note and mortgage
assignment status in the complaint. BankUnited was neveridentified. A security could not
possibly follow a non-existent note.
61. Here, there was no assignee of any note. Here, no promissory note and no note assignment
were recorded. See Collier County Public Records. However, assignments must be recorded
to be valid against creditors and subsequent purchasers. 701.02, Fla. Stat. (2010). See also,
Glynn v. First Union Natl. Bank, 912 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2005).
62. In this disposed action, the namedpartiesplaintiffs, and/orborrowers were conflicting and
ambiguous. See Docket:
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
12/141
10
STYLE OF DISPOSED CASE DID NOTIDENTIFYBANKUNITED, FSB AS PLAINTIFF
63. Here, the style and/or title of the disposed case did not identify BankUnited, FSB as any
plaintiff. Here purportedly, the chain of title included bankrupt BankUnited, FSB,
FDIC[lawful seizure ofbankrupt bank], and BankUnited.
NO TRANSFER OF ALLEGEDINSTRUMENT
64. An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the
purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. See
UCC 3-203(a). If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument,
negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this
Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. See UCC 3-203(d). Here, the destroyed
and/or lost instrument could not have possibly been delivered and/or transferred, and the
case was disposed on 08/12/2010.
08/12/2010 DISPOSITION & UNVERIFIED 07/09/09 COMPLAINT OF LOST NOTE
65. In this disposed action, BankUnited had filed an unverified mortgage foreclosure complaint
naming Jennifer Franklin-Prescott as a defendant. Said 07/09/2009 complaint included
COUNT I for reestablishment of a lost note, COUNT II (on promissory note), and COUNT
III (on mortgage foreclosure).
UNKNOWN LOSS / DESTRUCTION OF PURPORTEDPROMISSORY NOTE
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
13/141
11
66. On behalf of BankUnited, bankrupt BankUnited, FSBs founder Alfred Camner, Esq., had
asserted in the complaint:
6. Said promissory note and mortgage have been lost ordestroyed and are not in the
custody or control of BankUnited, and the time and manner of the loss or destruction
is unknown.Here, no copy of anygenuine promissory note identifying BankUnited was attached to the
complaint.
COPY OFMORTGAGEIDENTIFIED BANKRUPT BankUnited, FSB AS LENDER
67. BankUnited had attached a copy of the mortgage it sought to foreclose to the complaint;
however, said document identified lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB as the "lender".
BankUnited had also attached an "Adjustable Rate Rider" to the complaint, which however
also identified bankrupt BankUnited, FSB as the "lender."
RECORD PROOF OF LACK OFSTANDING
68. Prior to the 08/12/2010 disposition, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had proven BankUniteds
lackofstanding, answered, and filed a motion to dismiss.
BANKUNITEDS FAILURE TOSTATE ANY CAUSE OF ACTION
69. This action was disposed, because BankUnited had failed tostate any cause action.
ATTACHMENTS PROVED BANKUNITEDS LACK OFSTANDING & CAUSE
70. On 08/12/2010, the action was disposed, because Franklin-Prescott had proven that none of
the attachments to the facially frivolous and insufficient complaint showed thatBankUnited
actually held the note or mortgage, thus giving rise to the disposition and question as to
whetherBankUnitedactually ever hadstandingto foreclose on the mortgage.
BANKUNITEDS FALSE PRETENSES & FRAUD ON THE COURT
71. In this disposed action, BankUnited had falsely pretended:
16. Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage. See COUNT II.
While here BankUnited had fraudulently alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the
holderand/orownerofthe purported note and mortgage, the copy of the mortgage attached
to the complaint listed " BankUnited, FSB" as the "lender". No authentic note identifying
BankUnited was attached.
BANKUNITEDS EXHIBITS CONTRADICTED ITS ALLEGATIONS
72. When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the
allegations of the complaint. See, e.g., Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399,
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
14/141
12
401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("Where complaint allegations are contradicted by exhibits
attached to the complaint, the plain meaning of the exhibits control[s] and may be the basis
for a motion to dismiss."); see Blue Supply Corp. v. Novos Electro Mech., Inc., 990 So. 2d
1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 2d 736,
736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (holding that when there is an inconsistency between the
allegations of material fact in a complaint and attachments to the complaint, the differing
allegations "have the effect of neutralizing each allegation as against the other, thus
rendering the pleading objectionable").
08/12/2010 DISPOSITION FOR LACK OFSTANDING& FAILURE TOSTATE
CAUSE
73. Because the exhibits to BankUnited's complaint conflicted with its allegations
concerningstandingand the exhibits did not show that BankUnited had anystandingto
foreclose the mortgage, BankUnited did not establish its entitlement to foreclose the
mortgage and/or sue as a matter of law. Accordingly, the action was disposed on 08/12/2010.
BANKUNITED WAS NEVERIDENTIFIED AND HAD NORIGHTS TO ENFORCE
74. Moreover, while BankUnited filed the purportedly lost original note after the 08/12/2010
disposition, the non-authentic and non-executed note did not identify BankUnited as the
lender orholder. BankUnited also did not attach any assignment or any otherevidence to
establish that it hadpurchased the note and mortgage. Further, BankUnited did not file any
supporting affidavits or deposition testimony to establish that it owns and holds the purported
note and mortgage. Accordingly, this Court disposed the action on 08/12/2010, because the
documents before it did not and could not possibly establish BankUnited'sstandingto
foreclose the purported note and mortgage.
BANKUINTED WAS NO HOLDER & HAD NORIGHTSTO ENFORCENOTE
75. A holder is defined as the person in possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or, in
the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in
possession. Mere ownership or possession of a note is insufficient to qualify an individual
as a holder. See also Adams v. Madison Realty & Dev. Inc., 853 F.2d 163, 166 (3d Cir.
1988). Attainment of the status of holder depends on the negotiation of the instrument to
the transferee. The two elements required fornegotiation, both of which were missing here,
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
15/141
13
were the transferof possession of the alleged instrument to BankUnited (non- transferee),
and its indorsementby the holder.
BINDING PRECEDENT BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM, INC
76. 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'sstandingto 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 ANYADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:BANKUNITED WAS NOT ANY OWNER AND HAD NORIGHT TO SUE
PRESCOTT
77. In the instant case, the purported note was, e.g., not properly executed, not assigned, the
falsely pretended assignmentnot 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 validlyownedand heldthe 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
78. 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
oflis pendens is one year from filing. 48.23(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).
79. In this disposed action, the purported plaintiff sought to re-establish the missingnote in
COUNT I (Reestablishment of Lost Instruments) of the complaint (see p. 2 of 8). Franklin-
Prescott had filed her answer(s) and motions to dismiss and proven plaintiffs lack of
standing, which was one of the ultimate affirmative defenses. Here, the record reflected
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
16/141
14
thatplaintiffcould notpossiblyre-establish the note and that no authentic note couldpossibly
beproven under the Evidence Code.
FRAUD ON THE COURT & RECORD EVDENCE THEREOF
80. Here however, plaintiff(s), BankUnited and BankUnited, FSB, fraudulently asserted:
that all conditions to the institutions of this action have occurred, been performed or
excused
81. Prior to the 08/12/2010 disposition, plaintiff had failed to re-establish and could not have
possiblyre-established the destroyed and/orlostnote/mortgage. Here, the time and manner
of the loss/destruction had been uinknown. See UCC 3-309; 3-305.
02/15/11 DOCKET SHOWED FRAUD EVIDENCE &DEMAND IN DISPOSED ACTION
PREVIOUS NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPOSED ACTION
82. Prescott who is in the Pacific had given her notice of unavailability. In this disposed action,
Prescott could not possibly be expected to appear under said entirely unreasonable
circumstances on such unintelligent, irrelevant, unauthorized, and short notice.
UNAUTHORIZED ATTORNEYS
83. Rose, Erin M. was the only attorney authorized in this disposed action.
Here unlawfully, various unknown attorneys appeared without any authority and falsely
pretended a hearing.
RECORD FRAUD ON THE COURT
84. This court knows about the fraud on the Court perpetrated by BankUnited & Albertelli Law:
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
17/141
15
In this disposed action, any hearingand/or motion for summary disposition were unauthorized
and improper.
BANKUNITED HAD NO VALIDSECURITY INTEREST
85. In Florida, a security interest in a mortgage and/or the assignment of a mortgage must be
recorded in order to perfect the security interest in the mortgage. Here, no valid BankUnited
security interestexisted.
DEMAND OFLIS PENDENSBOND
86. Florida Statutes, section 48.23, governs the use of a lis pendens, and treats a lis pendens as
one of two types. Here, the purported invalid lis pendens was not founded on a duly recorded
instrument. Here, the purported promissory note was destroyed, lost, and/or transferred.
See Complaint. Furthermore here, there was the lawful seizure of bankrupt BankUnited
and/or an alleged transfer/sale. Here, the missing note/mortgage could not have possibly
been reestablishedand/orenforced. 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (1993) authorizes the trial court to
"control and discharge the notice of lis pendens as the court may grant and dissolve
injunctions." Here, Prescott appears to be entitled to a lis pendens bond.
87. Here, Prescott showed that the bond is necessary to protect her from irreparable harm after
the disposition. Here, the lis pendens was not based on a recorded genuine instrument. See
Feinstein v. Dolene, Inc., 455 So.2d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
88. Here, the note was missing and the lis pendens was unjustified. See Florida Communities
Hutchinson Island v. Arabia, 452 So.2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here, the null and
void lis pendens placed a cloud on the title that did not exist. See Andre Pirio Assocs. v.
Parkmount Properties, Inc., N.V., 453 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
89. In this disposed action, the bond is simply mandatory. See Porter Homes, Inc. v. Soda, 540
So.2d 195, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(where a lis pendens is not founded upon a lawsuit
involving a recorded instrument, section 48.23(3) "requires the posting of a bond."). See
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
18/141
16
Machado v. Foreign Trade, Inc., 537 So.2d 607, 607 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Munilla v.
Espinosa, 533 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
CONTESTEDSIGNATUREON PURPORTEDNOTE
90. Here, the signature on the purported note was contested and not authentic. There was no
notarialacknowledgment. See evidence on file.
ALL PLEADINGS WERE SIGNED
91. Here, all of Franklin-Prescotts pleadings were signed (/s/ Jennifer Franklin-Prescott).
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROMHEARINGIN DISPOSED
ACTION
92. Here, more than one hearingappeared on the Docket after said 08/12/2010 disposition and
Franklin-Prescott appeals from the unauthorized scheduling of hearings in this disposed
action.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PRIOR TO DISPOSITION
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: FAILURE TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL NOTE
93. A person seeking enforcement of a lost, destroyed or stolen instrument must first prove
entitlementto enforce the instrument WHEN the loss of possession occurred, or has directly
or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce
the instrument when loss of possession occurred. Further, he must prove the loss of
possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and the person
cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed,
its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown
person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. 673.3091
Fla. Stat. (2009).
94. Here, Franklin-Prescott had denied the purported plaintiff has ever had possession of the
alleged note and/ormortgage. Plaintiffcould not establish foundation to show possession of
the note WHEN the loss of possession occurred. Plaintiff could not establish that plaintiff
lost possession of the note after it was transferred to the Plaintiff and that it could not
reasonably obtain possession thereof. Absent such proof in this disposed action, plaintiff
had been required by Florida Law to provide the original note and mortgage. Having failed
to provide the original note and mortgage at the time of filing, Plaintiff could notsue and/or
maintain this disposed action.
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
19/141
17
95. Here, the Plaintiff could not prove the terms of the instrument and theplaintiff banks right to
enforce the alleged instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person
seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is
adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to
enforce the instrument. Fla. Stat. 673.3091(2). In this disposed action, Franklin-Prescott
specifically had been denying all necessary terms of the note are provided in the attached
mortgage/note. Clearly, since the note is missing, necessary endorsements on the note are
missing; as such, essential terms and conditions precedent were not provided by theplaintiff.
UNCLEAN HANDS DEFENSE
96. Prescott had asserted and proven (another affirmative defense) that the plaintiff(s) had failed
to follow Florida law of negotiable instruments and including, e.g., obtaining necessary
signatures, acknowledgments, recordations, assignments, and/or endorsements on the
purported non-authentic promissory note and mortgage deceptively submitted to this Court
as alleged debtevidence. As such, theplaintiffcame to this court with unclean hands.
WHEREFORE Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands
1. Proper processing of this NOTICE OF APPEAL and/or INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL;
2. An Ordertaking judicial notice of said binding precedent (BAC Funding) in support of the
record 08/12/2010 disposition;
3. An Orderdetermining that the invalid lis pendens was not founded upon a duly recorded
authentic instrument therefore requiring a bond to prevent further irreparable harm following
the 08/12/2010 disposition;
4. An Orderdeclaring the purported plaintiff in this disposed action without any authority to
sue,foreclose, and/ordemandanypaymentfrom Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
5. An Orderdeclaring any hearingunauthorized in this disposed action;
6. An Order declaring the prima facie sham motion and affidavits unlawful in this
previously disputed and disposed action;
7. An Orderdeclaring the purported note and/ormortgage unenforceable;
8. An Ordertaking judicial notice of the prima facie unenforceability of the unrecorded, un-
assignable, and unpaid mortgage (unpaid mortgage taxes);
9. An Orderdeclaring the purported plaintiff to be in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.510 in this
disposed and previously controverted action;
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
20/141
18
10. An Orderdeclaring the purported 2009 lis pendens invalid on its face and taking judicial
notice of the nullity of the lis pendens and unenforceable mortgage and/ornote;
11. An Orderdeclaring said affidavits hearsay and lacking any legal and/or factual basis in
the absence of any authentic note and/ormortgage;
12. An Ordertaking judicial notice of the lack of anygenuine note, plaintiffs proven fraud
on the Court, opposition, opposition evidence, and case law as to this disposed case;
13. An Orderprohibiting Counsel and/or Jason M. Tharokh, Esq., who did not file any notice
from appearingin this disposed action.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, BankUnited foreclosure fraud victim
ATTACHMENTS 02/18/2011 Docket, et al.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this NOTICE OF APPEAL has been delivered to
BankUnited, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028, Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of Court,
Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, and Hon. Daniel R. Monaco, Courthouse, Naples, FL 34112, USA, on
February 18, 2011, Pacific Time.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, fraud victim
CC: Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge),Albertelli Law, Hon. Daniel R. Monaco, Karen,United States District Court, Clerk of Court,
The Florida Bar, New York Times, et al.
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
21/141
Home/ Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New SearchReturn 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: 02/09/2011 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
6 of 6 pages. Entries per page: 20
Date Text All Entries
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 FRANKLINPRESCO
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
02/07/2011 NOTICEOF FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS BY JASON M TAROKH ESQ & OF UNLAWFUL/UNAUTHORIZED ACT BY ALBERTELLI LAW (UNSIGNED)
02/08/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS/MOTION TO ENJOIN
02/08/2011 AMENDED NOTIC E OF HEARING
Find it here... Site Search
2/18/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 1
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
22/141
. .ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST PEDRO LUIS LICOURT
02/08/2011 AMENDEDMTOIN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST PEDRO LUISLICOURT
02/09/2011 DEMANDOF FORENSIC REVIEW & AUDIT AND NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT AND/OR INACCURATEACCOUNTING IN DISPOSED ACTION
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 UsThis 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.
2/18/2011 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 2
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
23/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
24/141
From: MyFax Free
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Success fully
Date: Fri, Feb 18, 2011 11:28 pm
Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott:
Your fax to Dwight E. Brock at +1 (239) 252-8020 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 2/18/2011 10:27:54 AM, and contained 24 page(s).
Thank you for choosing MyFax,
The MyFax Team
http://www.myfax.com
2/18/2011 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf
mail.aol.com//PrintMessage.aspx 1
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
25/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
26/141
From: MyFax Free
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Success fully
Date: Fri, Feb 18, 2011 3:42 pm
Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott:
Your fax to HON. JUDGE DANIEL R. MONACO at +1 (239) 252-8870 has been successfully
sent:
Your fax was delivered at 2/18/2011 9:41:46 PM, and contained 25 page(s).
Thank you for choosing MyFax,
The MyFax Team
http://www.myfax.com
2/18/2011 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf
mail.aol.com//PrintMessage.aspx 1
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
27/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
28/141
From: MyFax Free
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Success fully
Date: Fri, Feb 18, 2011 1:58 am
Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott:
Your fax to HON. JUDGE DANIEL R. MONACO at +1 (239) 252-8870 has been successfully
sent:
Your fax was delivered at 2/18/2011 7:44:18 AM, and contained 11 page(s).
Thank you for choosing MyFax,
The MyFax Team
http://www.myfax.com
2/18/2011 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf
mail.aol.com//PrintMessage.aspx 1
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
29/141
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 states 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 shoddyor 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. Baums 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 someones 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.
Obamas
Remar ks in
Tucson
Prominent
Chinese Artists
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 | Whats This?
Whats 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 Dont 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 woods
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 DayW 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-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
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 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
30/141
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 banks mistakes. They are
relying on a client, or the clients 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 generals office is conducting a civil investigation of Mr. Sterns firm
and two others.
Theres been no determination in a court that Mr. Stern or his employees did wrong
things, said Jeffrey Tew, Mr. Sterns 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. Engs I nternet services business foundered. The mortgage w as originally
held by the HTFC Corporation, but the foreclosure notice came fromWells Fargo, a bankthat 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
Facebook
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-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers -
nytimes.com/2011/01//11lawyers.ht 2
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
31/141
New York State Bar Assn
New York State
BUSINESS
The Real Problem With
China
ART & DESIGN
Elusive Art Forger Gives
but Never Steals
OPINION
More Guns,Less Crime?
A Room for Debateforum on why theshootings in Arizonahave not led to calls formore gun control.
DINING & WINE
Cabbages Sweet Side
OPINION
Op-Ed: An Ar med and
Dangerous Congress
SPORTS
Camby Knows What the
Knicks Are Missing
Home World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Back to Top
2011The New Y ork Times Company Privacy Your Ad Choices Terms of Service Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Advertise Site Map
INSIDE NYTIMES.COM
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers -
nytimes.com/2011/01//11lawyers.ht 3
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
32/141
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
Multimedia
The Takeaw ay With JohnSchwartz
Add to Portfolio
Wells Fargo & Co
Go to your Portfolio
Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in ForeclosuresPubli shed: January 10, 2011
(Page 2 of 2)
You want to call it God, you can call it God, Mr. Eng said. You
want to call it luck, you can call it luck. We just followed the system,
and thank God the system worked.
Through a spokesman, Mr. Baumsaid, The foreclosure process in New
York State is extremely complex and
subject to extensive judicial review. We
believe this review respects the due
process of anyone who challenges a
foreclosure. Consumer activists and
attorneys representing homeowners have their own agenda
in this process, including degrading the legal work we
conduct on behalf of our clients by using terms like
foreclosure mill, which I find personally and professionally insulting.
He added, What is important now is that all parties attempt to work together to resolve
issues amicably. The barrage of accusations and litigation does little to help the underlying
problems.
Cases across the nation like Mr. Engs have led New Yorks judicial system to take a hard
look at the 80,000 pending foreclosures in the state and demand that the paperwork be
sound, said the states chief judge, Jonathan Lippman. Knowing what we know, our only
option at least from my perspective is to turn to the lawyers who are officers of the
court and say, Youd better go to your clients and find out if these cases are real, he said.
The court devised a two-page affirmation to be signed by lawyers in foreclosure actions
saying they had reviewed the documents and had confirmed the factual accuracy of any
allegations with the clients.
Ann Pfau, deputy chief administrative judge for New York State, who has worked directly
with the state bar to carry out the plan, said, We need to know that this is a court process
that has some integrity.
Judge Pfau said, If you cant get good information, you shouldnt be filing the cases in the
first place.
To address some lawyer concerns, the judiciary issued a modified version of the
affirmation in November but said that the alterations were minor. In the end, the lawyers
are vouching for their filing, Judge Pfau said. They are absolutely still on the hook.
While lawyers are being implicated as part of the problem, they should also be part of the
solution, said Stephen P. Younger, the president of the New Y ork State Bar Association,
Obamas
Remar ks in
Tucson
Prominent
Chinese Artists
Studio Torn
Down
Log In With Facebook
Advertise on NYTi mes.com
Go to Complete List
Log in to see w hat your friends
are sharing on nytimes.com.
Privacy Policy | Whats This?
Whats Popular Now
Ads by Google what's this?
Hotels in New York CityAffordable Luxury in New York City. Call 800-661-731.Book today!www.CrownePlaza.com
10 Keys to Short SellingDo you want to start Short Selling? This Free report willshow you how.MoneyMorning.com/Short_Selling_Keys
USA Property Club SydneyAustralia's #1 USA Real Estate Club Learn How to BuyUSA Foreclosureswww.USAPropertyClub.info
Sign up for David Pogue's exclusive c olumn, sent every
Thursday.
See Sample | Privacy Policy
Personal Tech 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 Dont FeelVery Rich
5. Auto Show Outsiders Seek Rebirth
6. Weather Monitoring Company Turns to
Greenhouse Gases
7 . Judges Berate Bank Lawy ers in Foreclosures
8. Film St udio Born of Comic Books Gra bs Holly woods
Attention
9. Itinera ries: Sneeze-Free Zone
1 0. A Warn ing as Markets Cool in Asia
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 DayW 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
SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
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 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
33/141
A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2011, on page
A1 of the New York edition.
which has not taken an overall position on the foreclosure matter. Foreclosure defense
lawyers, he noted, have led court proceedings to throw out flawed cases.
The real problem is that there are thousands and thousands of people who are
unrepresented by lawyers, Mr. Y ounger said.
PREVIOUS 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
New York State Bar Assn
New York State
Find your dream home with
The New York Times Real Estate
Fan The New Y ork Tim es on
Facebook
The new issue of T is h ere
See the news in the makin g. Watch
TimesCast, a dai ly news video.
The New Yorker confidentialALSO IN OPINION
Goldman's mutual friend
Does one word change 'Huckleberry Finn'?
ADVERTISEMENTS
Ads by Google what's this?
Personal Loan - GE MoneyGet a Verbal Confirmation in 1 hr.
Apply for a GE Personal Loan Now!
www.GEMoney.co.nz
BUSINESS
The Real Problem With
China
ART & DESIGN
Elusive Art Forger Gives
but Never Steals
OPINION
More Guns,Less Crime?A Room for Debateforum on why theshootings in Arizonahave not led to calls for
more gun control.
DINING & WINE
Cabbages Sweet Side
OPINION
Op-Ed: An Ar med and
Dangerous Congress
SPORTS
Camby Knows What the
Knicks Are Missing
Home World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Back to Top
2011The New Y ork Times Company Privacy Your Ad Choices Terms of Service Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Advertise Site Map
1 2
SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
INSIDE NYTIMES.COM
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers -
nytimes.com/2011/01//11lawyers.ht 2
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
34/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
35/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
36/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
37/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
38/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
39/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
40/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
41/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
42/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
43/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
44/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
45/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
46/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
47/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
48/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
49/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
50/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
51/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
52/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
53/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
54/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
55/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
56/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
57/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
58/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
59/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
60/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
61/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
62/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
63/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
64/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
65/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
66/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
67/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
68/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
69/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
70/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
71/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
72/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
73/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
74/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
75/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
76/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
77/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
78/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
79/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
80/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
81/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
82/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
83/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
84/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
85/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
86/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
87/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
88/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
89/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
90/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
91/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
92/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
93/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
94/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
95/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
96/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
97/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
98/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
99/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
100/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
101/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
102/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
103/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
104/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
105/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
106/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
107/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
108/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
109/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
110/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
111/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
112/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
113/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
114/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
115/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
116/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
117/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
118/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
119/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
120/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
121/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
122/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
123/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
124/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
125/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
126/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
127/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
128/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
129/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
130/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
131/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
132/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
133/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
134/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
135/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
136/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
137/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
138/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
139/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
140/141
-
8/7/2019 Robo-signing & Foreclosure Fraud in Florida ...
141/141