Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
2/13/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
2/13/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
non-successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,
purported plaintiff(s),
vs.
DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
3. On 02/12/2011, the Docket showed a “notice of hearing” which was “amended”. Here, the
notice did not pertain to Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and/or the disposed action but to “Pedro
this disposed action. Any hearing and/or any motion for summary disposition would be
2
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr., 662 So. 2d 388, 390 (Fla.
5th DCA 1995).
RECORD ABSENCE OF NOTE AND CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
9. Here, no genuine properly executed note had existed. Copies of a null and void
note/mortgage and/or hearsay were not admissible under the Code of Evidence. Here, there
3
16. 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
17. In this disposed action, the purported “plaintiff” did not assert any valid note and mortgage
assignment status in the complaint. A security could not possibly follow a non-existent note.
18. 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 Nat’l. Bank, 912 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
19. In this disposed action, the named parties plaintiffs, and/or borrowers were conflicting and
ambiguous:
4
Prescott had filed her answer(s) and motions to dismiss and proven plaintiff’s lack of
standing, which was one of the ultimate affirmative defenses. Here, the record reflected
that plaintiff could not possibly re-establish the note and that no authentic note could possibly
be proven under the Evidence Code.
FRAUD ON THE COURT & RECORD EVDENCE THEREOF
23. 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 …”
24. Prior to the 08/12/2010 disposition, plaintiff had failed to re-establish and could not have
possibly re-established the destroyed and/or lost note/mortgage. Here, the time and manner
of the loss/destruction had been uinknown. See UCC §§ 3-309; 3-305.
02/12/11 DOCKET SHOWED FRAUD EVIDENCE & DEMAND IN DISPOSED ACTION
25. 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
UNAUTHORIZED ATTORNEYS
26. “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
27. This court knows about the fraud on the Court perpetrated by BankUnited & Albertelli Law:
5
In this disposed action, any hearing and/or motion for summary disposition were unauthorized
and improper.
BANKUNITED HAD NO VALID SECURITY INTEREST
28. 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 interest existed.
DEMAND OF LIS PENDENS BOND
29. 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 reestablished and/or enforced. § 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.
30. 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).
31. 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).
32. 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
6
involving a recorded instrument, section 48.23(3) "requires the posting of a bond."). See
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).
CONTESTED SIGNATURE ON PURPORTED NOTE
33. Here, the signature on the purported note was contested and not authentic. There was no
notarial acknowledgment. See evidence on file.
ALL PLEADINGS WERE SIGNED
34. Here, all of Franklin-Prescott’s pleadings were signed (“/s/ Jennifer Franklin-Prescott”).
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION
35. Here, more than one hearing appeared 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
36. A person seeking enforcement of a lost, destroyed or stolen instrument must first prove
entitlement to 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).
37. Here, Franklin-Prescott had denied the purported “plaintiff” has ever had possession of the
alleged note and/or mortgage. Plaintiff could 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 not sue and/or
maintain this disposed action.
7
38. Here, the Plaintiff could not prove the terms of the instrument and the plaintiff bank’s 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 the plaintiff.
UNCLEAN HANDS DEFENSE
39. 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 debt evidence. As such, the plaintiff came to this court with unclean hands.
WHEREFORE Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands
1. An Order determining 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;
2. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” in this disposed action without any authority to
sue, foreclose, and/or demand any payment from Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
3. An Order declaring any hearing unauthorized in this disposed action;
4. An Order declaring the prima facie sham “motion” and “affidavits” unlawful in this
previously disputed and disposed action;
5. An Order declaring the purported note and/or mortgage unenforceable;
6. An Order taking judicial notice of the prima facie unenforceability of the unrecorded, un-
assignable, and unpaid mortgage (unpaid mortgage taxes);
7. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” to be in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.510 in this
disposed and previously controverted action;
8. An Order declaring the purported 2009 “lis pendens” invalid on its face and taking judicial
notice of the nullity of the lis pendens and unenforceable mortgage and/or note;
8
9. An Order declaring said affidavits “hearsay” and lacking any legal and/or factual basis in
the absence of any authentic “note” and/or mortgage;
10. 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;
11. An Order prohibiting Counsel and/or Jason M. Tharokh, Esq., who did not file any notice
from appearing in this disposed action.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, BankUnited foreclosure fraud victim
ATTACHMENTS
Docket, et al.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this NOTICE IN DISPOSED ACTION has been
delivered to BankUnited, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028, Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of
Court, and Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, Courthouse, Naples, FL 34112, USA, on February 12, 2011,
Pacific Time.
Respectfully,
9
2/12/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
2/12/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/3
2/12/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
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),
However, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 expressly prohibits said sham “motion”. Here, the disposed
action 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
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:
2
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”
3
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:
INCORRECT CAPTION
25. Said sham “motion” does not indicate the correct file number of the disposed case:
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.
4
“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.
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.
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.
5
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
NO verified complaint
31. A complaint must be verified. Rule 1.110(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010) (02/11/2010). Here, no
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
1. An Order declaring the purported “plaintiff” without any authority to sue, foreclose, and/or
6
3. An Order declaring the prima facie sham “motion” and “affidavits” unlawful in this
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
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.
ATTACHMENTS
New York Times: Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures (January 10, 2011)
Other
(Messenger Service)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this NOTICE OF OPPOSITION &
DISPOSED ACTION has been delivered to BankUnited, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028,
7
Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of Court, and Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, Courthouse, Naples,
8
Jennifer Franklin-Prescott
01/31/2011
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Hon. Dwight E. Brock
Clerk of Courts
Courthouse
Naples, FL 34112, U.S.A.
Respectfully,
1. Here, “plaintiffs” had asserted unknown loss and/or destruction of the original note and
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
9
10
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”.
“(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 the
instrument 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
4. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “plaintiffs’” fraudulent claims of any
11
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …
HOME PAGE TODAY'S PAPER VIDEO MOST POPULAR TIMES TOPICS Try Times Reader today Log In Register Now Help TimesPeople
Business Day
W ORLD U.S. N.Y . / REGION BUSINESS T ECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEA LT H SPORT S OPINION A RT S ST Y LE T RA V EL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS
Global DealBook Markets Econom y Energy Media Personal Tech Sm all Business Your Money
Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures Log in to see w hat your friends Log In With Facebook
are sharing on nytimes.com.
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Privacy Policy | What’s This?
Published: January 10, 2011
With judges looking ever more critically at home foreclosures, they RECOMMEND What’s Popular Now
are reaching beyond the bankers to heap some of their most TWITTER Obam a’s Prom inent
scorching criticism on the lawyers. Rem arks in Chinese Artist’s
SIGN IN TO E-
Tucson Studio Torn
MAIL
Dow n
Enlarge This Image In numerous opinions, judges have PRINT
accused lawyers of processing shoddy SINGLE PAGE
or even fabricated paperwork in
REPRINTS
foreclosure actions when representing
SHARE
the banks.
Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New Y ork University, agreed with Judge 6. Weather Monitoring Com pany Turns to
Greenhouse Gases
Fairgrieve that the involvement of lawyers in questionable transactions could damage the
7 . Judges Berate Bank Lawy ers in Foreclosures
overall reputation of the legal profession, “which does not fare well in public opinion”
8. Itineraries: Sneeze-Free Zone
throughout history. 9. Film Studio Born of Com ic Books Grabs Holly wood’s
Attention
“When the consequence of a lawyer plying his trade is the loss of someone’s home, and it 1 0. Flex Tim e Flourishes in Accounting Industry
turns out there are documents being given to the courts that have no basis in reality, the
Go to Complete List »
profession gets a very big black eye,” Professor Gillers said.
The issue of vouching for documents will undoubtedly meet resistance by lawyers
elsewhere as it has in New Y ork.
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 1/3
1/12/2011 Foreclosure Judges Berate Lawyers - …
Anne Reynolds Copps, the chairwoman of the real property law section of the New Y ork
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, The New Yorker confidential
ALSO IN OPINION »
documents were signed without sufficient examination or proper notarization. Goldman's mutual friend
Does one word change 'Huckleberry Finn'?
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
ADVERTISEMENTS
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.
Fi n d y ou r dream h om e wi th
Th e N ew Y ork Ti m es Real Estate
The Florida attorney general’s office is conducting a civil investigation of Mr. Stern’s firm
and two others.
Fan Th e N ew Y ork Ti m es on
Facebook
“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
Th e n ew i ssu e of T i s h ere
devastating.
See th e n ews i n th e m aki n g. Watch
“There are groups in society that everybody likes to hate,” Mr. Tew added. “Now Ti m esCast, a dai l y n ews v i deo.
foreclosure lawyers are on the list.”
Such concerns have, in recent months, brought a sharp focus on activities in New Y ork
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 Internet services business foundered. The mortgage was 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.
1 2 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. SIGN IN TO E-
MAIL
Advertise on NYTimes.com
PRINT
REPRINTS
Home Foreclosures in USA
Ads by Google what's this? Buy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
Home Foreclosures in USA CashflowGold.com
Buy foreclosed Property in the USA
Now. Guarnateed High Yield Returns
CashflowGold.com
Foreclosures
Legal Profession
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/11lawyers.ht… 2/3
1/30/2011 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITI…
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com;
Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com; erose@albertellilaw.com; BHTJW@aol.com;
NAPLESNANO@aol.com
Bcc: JRBU@aol.com
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)
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/2
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS
09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A
09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED
NO TIC E O F APP EAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER
10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A
THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS
C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE
12/03/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R
JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O
12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING
12/06/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
& MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T
12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O TT
12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT
12/17/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O
12/20/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
(EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED &
UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT
01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E
01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/2
1/31/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
1/31/2011 Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: JRBU@aol.com; Naplesnano@aol.com
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: postmaster@albertellilaw.com
To: bhtjw@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 3:21 pm
Subject: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/2
1/31/2011 Fwd: Undeliverable: NOTICE OF OPPO…
=
Final-Recipient: rfc822;erose@albertellilaw.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
Attached Message
From: bhtjw @aol.com
To: hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com; Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw .com;
erose@albertellilaw .com; BHTJW@aol.com; NAPLESNANO@aol.com
Subject: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION & OPPOSITION EVIDENCE, FRAUD EVIDENCE ...
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:20:16 -0500
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 2/2
12/4/2010 Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…
Von: postmaster@albertellilaw.com
An: jrbu@aol.com
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)
erose@albertellilaw.com
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/2
12/4/2010 Undeliverable: TO Dwight E. Brock fro…
X-AnalysisOut: [10]
Return-Path: jrbu@aol.com
=
Final-Recipient: rfc822;erose@albertellilaw.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
eMail im Anhang
Von: jrbu@aol.com
An: afivecoat@albertellilaw .com; simone@albertellilaw .com; nreed@albertellilaw .com; tbaron@albertellilaw .com;
jsaw yer@albertellilaw .com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw .com; erose@albertellilaw .com
Thema: TO Dw ight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
Datum: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:27:43 -0500
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: bhtjw@aol.com
An: Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com; darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com;
Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com; hhayes@ca.cjis20.org; BHTJW@aol.com
Verschickt: Fr., 3. Dez. 2010, 12:56
Thema: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
-----Original Message-----
From: bhtjw@aol.com
To: BHTJW@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50 am
Subject: TO Dwight E. Brock from J. Franklin-Prescott, Disposed Case # 09-6016-CA
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 2/2
2/3/2011 Public Inquiry
Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/2
2/3/2011 Public Inquiry
09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS
09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A
09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED
NO TIC E O F APP EAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER
10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A
THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS
C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE
12/03/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R
JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O
12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING
12/06/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
& MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T
12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O TT
12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT
12/17/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O
12/20/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
(EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED &
UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT
01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E
01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
02/01/2011 C O PY
(FAX) NO TIC E O F O PPO SITIO N & O PPO SITIO N EVIDENC E/FR AUD EVIDENC E &
UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPO SED AC TIO N/NO TIFIC ATIO N O F C O URT & C LER K ET AL
W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/2