Anda di halaman 1dari 6

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.

_________________________________________________________________________/

AFFIDAVIT AND/OR DECLARATORY STATEMENT IN DISPOSED ACTION

AS TO LACK OF STANDING OF “BANKUNITED” & ITS FRAUD ON THE COURT

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF COLLIER

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, who

upon first being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

1. Case # 09-6016-CA was disposed on 08/12/2010 in favor of Jennifer Franklin-Prescott.

2. On 08/12/2010, this Court disposed of COUNTS I, II, and III.

3. “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”.

4. In its facially frivolous and insufficient “complaint for mortgage foreclosure”, “plaintiff”

“BankUnited” wrongfully sued Jennifer Franklin-Prescott in the record absence of any

instrument and/or note identifying “BankUnited”.

1
5. “BankUnited, FSB” was not any “plaintiff” in this disposed action.

6. The electronic docket in this disposed action had erroneously listed “BankUnited, FSB” as a

“plaintiff” in this disposed action.

7. In this disposed action, “Plaintiff” “BankUnited” had deceptively alleged “that all conditions

precedent to the institution of this action have occurred…” (see complaint, ¶ 2, p. 2 of 8,

“General Allegations”).

8. The “subject mortgage referenced” in the wrongful complaint identified “BankUnited, FSB”

rather than the “plaintiff”, i.e., “BankUnited”.

9. The “logo” of bankrupt and lawfully seized “BankUnited, FSB” included a palm tree and

“BANKUNITED”.

10. “Plaintiff BankUnited” had falsely alleged that “The plaintiff [is] named in the attached

complaint [“BankUnited”] is the creditor to whom the debt is owed … The undersigned

attorney represents the interest of the plaintiff.” See “Notice Required by the Debt Collection

Practices Act …” attached to disposed complaint.

11. “Plaintiff BankUnited” was not any “creditor” in the disposed wrongful action.

12. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott did not owe any debt to “plaintiff BankUnited” pursuant to the

evidence on file in this disposed wrongful action.

13. Undersigned “Camner Lipsitz, PA”, and/or founder of bankrupt and defunct “BankUnited,

FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., “represented the interest of the plaintiff [BankUnited]”.

14. “BankUnited” had fraudulently alleged in the Complaint (¶ 16, Count II) that “plaintiff”

[“BankUnited”] owns and holds the note and mortgage.”

15. The purported note and/or mortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did

not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”.

2
16. The purported note/mortgage identified “BankUnited, FSB” as a “lender”.

17. No admissible evidence of any obligation to pay money to “BankUnited” existed on the

record of this disposed wrongful action, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was not obligated to

make any payment to “BankUnited”.

18. “Plaintiff BankUnited’s” purported “01/12/2011 Affidavits as to amounts due and attorneys

fees” were fraudulent and not founded on any note and/or mortgage identifying

“BankUnited” as a “lender”.

19. An affidavit that is not executed in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 92, Florida

Statutes, is not competent evidence in a civil case.

20. The alleged promissory note was never properly executed.

21. “BankUnited” has had no right to enforce the falsely pretended mortgage/note.

22. “BankUnited” never satisfied the required conditions precedent.

23. “BankUnited” had no standing.

24. “BankUnited” failed to state any cause of action.

25. “BankUnited” could not have possibly been entitled to any summary disposition and/or

hearing in this disposed action.

26. “Pedro Luis Licourt” is not any known party to the disposed action, Case # 09-6016-CA

27. The purported “Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against

Pedro Luis Licourt” was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action.

28. Said action was disposed, because here no note and/or mortgage had been “transferred”” to

“BankUnited”.

3
29. The record and/or docket of this disposed action conclusively evidenced the “genuine issues

of material fact”, which prohibited any summary disposition after the 08/12/2011

disposition.

30. The “02/08/2011 “Amended Mtoin for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against

Pedro Luis Lizourt” was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action.

31. There was no service of notice of 02/14/2011 hearing upon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott nor

any “02/14/2011 hearing”.

32. There was no service of notice of 02/22/2011 hearing upon Franklin-Prescott, and the

“amended hearing on 02/14/2010” did not take place.

33. In this disposed action, the purported “Defendant’s motion to dismiss/motion to enjoin” was

moot and irrational.

34. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was never properly served either by personal service of process or

by any other service of process in strict compliance with Chapters 48 and 49, Florida

Statutes.

35. “BankUnited” failed to conduct a diligent search in strict compliance with the Florida

statutes governing service of process.

36. The record established that the falsely alleged service by publication was void.

37. Florida’s Statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed to assure that

defendants have the opportunity to protect their rights.

38. Any judgment against a defendant based upon improper service by publication would have

lacked authority of law.