Anda di halaman 1dari 16

2/12/2011 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…

Select Year: 2010 Go

The 2010 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX Chapter 673 View Entire


COMMERCIAL UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: NEGOTIABLE Chapter
RELATIONS INSTRUMENTS
673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.—
(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when 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;
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
(c) 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.
(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the
instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081 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. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
History .—s. 2, ch. 92-82; s. 1, ch. 2004-3.

Copyright © 1995-2011 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

BANKUNITED,
non-successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,

purported plaintiff(s),

vs.
DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA

JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,


purported defendants.
___________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ANY HEARING & MAGISTRATE IN DISPOSED CASE


AND OF NON-CONSENT

NOTICE OF FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT’S OBJECTION & NON-CONSENT


1. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott objects to any hearing and/or any magistrate in this disposed
action. Here, no hearing was authorized and/or lawful and the notice a sham.
RECORD DISPOSITION

2. This action had been disposed on 08/12/2010.

ERRONEOUS “NOTICE” IN DISPOSED ACTION

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

Luis Licourt”, who is not any known party.

UNLAWFUL/UNAUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISPOSED ACTION


4. 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 FEBRUARY HEARING APPEARED ON THE DOCKET


5. Here, the 02/12/2011 Docket did not show any hearing and/or hearing date:

NO CONSENT & OBJECTION TO ANY MAGISTRATE (HEARING)


6. 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.

7. The record lack of consent was erroneously entered as “non-contest”:

VAGUE & AMBIGUOUS SHAM “NOTICE”


8. Here, the notice was vague, ambiguous, and unintelligent. A pleading is considered a sham
when it is inherently false and based on plain or conceded facts clearly known to be false
at the time the pleading was made. See Decker v. County of Volusia, 698 So. 2d 650, 651

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

were no witnesses and no notary had acknowledged any authentic note/mortgage.

NON-BINDING “MODIFICATION AGREEMENT”

10. 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.”
11. 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
(08/12/2010) action. Because here the alleged 09/05/2007 “Modification Agreement” was
not signed by each Borrower and/or Walter Prescott, it was not legally binding.
FAILURE TO PROVE TERMS
12. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under UCC § 3-309(a) must prove the terms
of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. See UCC § 3-309(b). Here,
plaintiff failed to prove any terms.
RECORD ABSENCE OF EXECUTION
13. Here, the alleged February 2006 note, mortgage, and/or security instrument did not and could
not have possibly encumbered Franklin-Prescott’s real property, because they were not
properly executed.
NO PROOF ON FILE IN DISPOSED ACTION
14. Here, Franklin-Prescott had denied the authenticity of signatures on the purported note
and/or mortgage alluded to in this disposed case and demanded strict proof thereof, 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”.
15. Here in particular, there were, e.g., no notarial acknowledgment and no signature by
purported “borrower” Walter Prescott.

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:

NO TRANSFER OF ALLEGED INSTRUMENT


20. 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.
AUTOMATICALLY DISSOLVED “LIS PENDENS”
21. Here, the improper and unauthorized lis pendens was automatically dissolved upon the
disposition of foreclosure. See Rule 1.420(f), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010). The validity of a notice
of lis pendens is one year from filing. § 48.23(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).
22. In this disposed action, the purported “plaintiff” sought to re-establish the missing note in
“COUNT I (Reestablishment of Lost Instruments)” of the complaint (see p. 2 of 8). Franklin-

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

PREVIOUS NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY 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

circumstances on such unintelligent, irrelevant, unauthorized, and short notice.

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,

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, fraud victim

CC: Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge),


Albertelli Law
United States District Court
The Florida Bar
New York Times
hhayes@ca.cjis20.org, Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com,
darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com, Collierclerk@collierclerk.com,
Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com, Jill.Lennon@collierclerk.com …

9
2/12/2011 Public Inquiry

Find it here... Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX

Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List

Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER


Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A
Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPO SED Reopened:
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 02/08/2011 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

Docket Type Judge Court Date Court Time


MO TIO N HEAR ING HAYES, HUGH D 12/06/2010 13:30
MO TIO N HEAR ING PER EZ-BENITO A, MAGISTR ATE 09/02/2010 11:30

W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.

Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us


This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail
addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public
re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1
2/12/2011 Public Inquiry

Find it here... Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX

Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List

Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER


Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A
Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPO SED Reopened:
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 02/09/2011 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

2 of 2 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 60

Date Text All Entries


09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED
09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
09/02/2010 R EC EIP T FR O M DC A
AC KNO W LEDGMENT O F NEW C ASE FILED W /DC A 8/18/10 2D10-4158
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL W ITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL FO R W AR D FILING FEE O R O R DER O F INSO LVENC Y W ITTHIN
40 DAYS
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL SHO W C AUSE W ITHIN 15 DAYS
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E
09/02/2010 MO TIO N FO R R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E IN SUPPO R T O F HUGH HAYES R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N

09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N


09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 O R IGINAL SENATE STAFF R EC O R D EVIDENC E IN SUPPO R T O F SANC TIO NS
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUSIDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F AUTO MATIC DISSO LUTIO N O F LIS PENDENS
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/3
2/12/2011
/ / Q
Public Inquiry
09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS
09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A
09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED
NO TIC E O F APP EAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER
10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A
THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS
C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE
12/03/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R
JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O
12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING
12/06/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
& MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T
12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O TT
12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT
12/17/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O
12/20/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
(EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED &
UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT
01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E
01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
02/01/2011 C O PY
(FAX) NO TIC E O F O PPO SITIO N & O PPO SITIO N EVIDENC E/FR AUD EVIDENC E &
UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPO SED AC TIO N/NO TIFIC ATIO N O F C O URT & C LER K ET AL
02/07/2011 NO TIC E
O F FR AUDULENT AFFIDAVITS BY JASO N M TAR O KH ESQ & O F UNLAW FUL/
UNAUTHO R IZED AC T BY ALBER TELLI LAW (UNSIGNED)
02/08/2011 NO TIC E O F HEARING
02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT'S MO TIO N TO DISMISS/MO TIO N TO ENJO IN
02/08/2011 AMENDED NO TIC E O F HEAR ING
02/14/11 @3:30P.M. AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R
ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST PEDR O LUIS LIC O UR T
02/08/2011 AMENDED
MTO IN FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST P EDR O LUIS
LIC O UR T
02/09/2011 DEMAND
O F FO R ENSIC R EVIEW & AUDIT AND NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AND/O R INAC C UR ATE
AC C O UNTING IN DISPO SED AC TIO N

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/3
2/12/2011 Public Inquiry

Find it here... Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX

Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List

Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER


Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A
Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPO SED Reopened:
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 02/09/2011 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

Name Type DOB City, State, Zip


BANKUNITED PLAINTIFF
BANKUNITED FSB PLAINTIFF
PASKEW IC Z, SER ENA KAY ESQ PLAINTIFF'S ATTO R NEY MIAMI, FL 33134
R O SE, ER IN M ESQ PLAINTIFF'S C O -C O UNSEL TAMP A, FL 33623
FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER DEFENDANT
PR ESCO TT, W ALTER DEFENDANT
DO E, JO HN DEFENDANT
DO E, MAR Y DEFENDANT

W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.

Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us


This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail
addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public
re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/1