Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

2/22/2011 Judicial Automated Calendaring Syste…

ADA Vie w Te x t Vie w Site Map C ontact Us Book m ark !

Se arch
Home Programs Services Resources Media Self Help
Fe bruary 22, 2011
Court Services Online Services Page Options: Print | Favorite s

O nline Se rvice s Web Site Location: Hom e » Court Se rvice s » O nline Se rvice s Your Full Nam e :

» O nline Se rvice s Disclaim e r


Frie nds E-m ail:
» JACS
» C JIS
» Traffic Citation Paym e nt Se nd Page
» TurboC ourt - Florida
C ourtroom Se rvice s

Select County
Lee County | Charlotte County | Collier County

Important Logon Information


» Vie w Tim e Slots
For first time users, click the "Schedule Time Slots" link,
» Sche dule Tim e Slots
enter your bar number for both user ID and password,
select a judge, and then click "Login". Please omit any
leading zeros w hen entering the bar number. The
system w ill give you the opportunity to set a passw ord of your choice. If you
are unable to successfully login, send an email w ith your bar number to
CollierJACS@ca.cjis20.org

Motion Guidelines
Only contact the Judge's office if your case parameters don't allow you to set
the hearing or under special circumstances already listed in the system.

Select Judge
Judge Hayes Senior Judge Foreclosure
Judge Pivacek
SCHEDULING HEARINGS
Magistrate James M.
McGarity, III Collier County Courthouse
Sr. Judge Foreclosure Clerk of Courts 3315 Tamiami Trail E
Naples, FL 34112
Magistrate (239) 252-8119
Foreclosure
Karen Bailey, Administrative Assistant

Nancy Figueroa-Ibanez, Administrative Assistant

Diane Williams, Administrative Assistant

OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

SENIOR JUDGE FORECLOSURE - Summary


Judgments only

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 w ill be heard w ith the Summary/Default
Judgments before Judge Monaco.

For scheduling question please contact Nancy or


Diane at (239) 252-8133 or (239) 252-8785. For any
questions pertaining to the Judges' procedures
contact Karen at (239) 252-8119. All cancellations
will be FAX'ed to (239) 252-8870 attention Karen.
Include the reason for cancelling, our case number
and style w ith date and time of hearing.

Special Set Hearings

If you have a hearing for Summary/Default Judgment


requiring more than 5 minutes, you may request in
writing by email pforeclosures@ca cjis20 org or
www.ca.cjis20.org/web/…/jacs.asp 1/3
2/22/2011 Judicial Automated Calendaring Syste…
writing by email.pforeclosures@ca.cjis20.org or
hforeclosures@ca.cjis20.org. Also, all other motions
over 30 minutes, objections to the Magistrate
(objection must be filed), must be requested in
writing and may be emailed to the above email
addresses. The administrative assistant w ill contact
the attorney's office to schedule these hearings, so
please provide contact information. Include in the
written request cases number and style, amount of
time needed, motion description, and w ho the
attorney is representing (plaintiff or defendant).
These hearings w ill be scheduled by the
administrative assistant only and w ill be heard in
front of Judge Monaco.

Emergency Hearings must be requested in w riting


to Judge Daniel Monaco. Describe the nature of the
emergency and estimate the hearing time needed.
Do not argue your motion in the letter. The
administrative assistant will contact the attorney's
office to schedule these hearings.

Miscellaneous Hearing Notes:

Except for cancellations, there can be no changes,


additions, sw apping, or other alterations of the
motion calendar. Attempts to accommodate such
requests in the past have resulted in unnecessary
confusion and inadequate notice of opposing
counsel.

A party/attorney scheduling a hearing must


concurrently 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. The
Judges' and Magistrates ask that NO courtesy copies
be sent to their offices on foreclosure cases only.

If you CANCEL a hearing, you are required to file a


Notice of Cancellation. If you are cancelling your
hearing ten (10) working days before the hearing
date you can go to JACS and cancel on-line by
follow ing the instructions. If you are cancelling less
than ten (10) w orking days please, immediately
cancel the hearing, by FAX'ing you're a request to
(239) 252-8870 attention Karen. Include the reason

for cancelling, our case number and style w ith date


and time of hearing and w hat party you represent.
You do not need to attach the Notice of Cancellation
(just send the original to the Clerk of Courts). When
cancelling hearings over 30 minutes (Special Set)
you are required to write to the Court for approval
or provide written proof the Issue is Settled.

Once a motion is scheduled through JACS,


subsequent motions may not be "piggybacked"
using the time reserved for the first motion absent
prior approval of the Court. This does not preclude
an independent reservation of another timeslot
during the same hearing period for a different
motion the same case, provided the timeslot is
appropriate in length of time for the motion.

Generally, each attorney/party w ith a stake in the


outcome of a motion scheduled to be heard w ill be
entitled to a proportionate share of the reserved
hearing time.

All Hearings before Judge Monaco will be in


person.

As of January 2010, Telephonic appearance will NOT


be permitted for any foreclosure hearing before the
Senior Judge.

If you need 30 minutes, ask for 30 minutes. Please


don't say, "Can I get in sooner if I only ask for 15
minutes?" The Judge will limit the length of the
hearing to the time requested. If the hearing is not
finished in time, the motion will have to be
rescheduled. When estimating necessary hearing
time, remember to include opposing counsel's time!

EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDERS


www.ca.cjis20.org/web/…/jacs.asp 2/3
2/22/2011 Judicial Automated Calendaring Syste…
EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDERS

Exceptions MUST be filed w ith the Clerk of Courts. If


an exception to the Recommendation of the
Magistrate is filed, please contact the Judge's office
to schedule a hearing. A Motion for Rehearing or
Reconsideration must be submitted in w riting. The
presiding Judge will then decide w hether to refer
back to Magistrate.

TELEPHONE

Telephone hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.


Due to the high volume of phone calls received, you
will at times not reach the assistant in person.
Therefore, w hen calling and receiving voice mail,
please leave your name and a brief message. Your
phone call w ill be returned. It is not necessary to call
back to confirm that your message was received.
Calls of that nature are not returned.

FORECLOSURE SUMMARY/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS set


on this docket are before the Honorable Daniel
Monaco and do not require an Order of Referral in
Collier County.

To check the Foreclosure Judges' docket schedule


click here.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Other People Who Can Help

Administrative Assistant...................Karen Bailey


(239) 252-8119

Administrative Assistant
(scheduling only)...............Nancy Figueroa-Ibanez
(239) 252-8133

Administrative Assistant
(scheduling only).............................Diane Williams
(239) 252-8785

Court Administration ................................................


(239) 252-8800

Online Services: O nline Se rvice s Disclaim e r, JAC S, CJIS, Traffic Citation


Paym e nt, TurboC ourt - Florida
Courtroom Services: Digital C ourt R e porting, W iFi Inte rne t Acce ss, ADA, Court
Inte rpre te r

Adm inistrative O ffice of the Courts • 20th Judicial C ircuit • 1700 Monroe Stre e t • Fort Mye rs, FL 33901 • (239) 533-1700

Te rm s of Use | Privacy Policy | Disclaim e r | Cre dits Copyright © 2006 - , The 20th Judicial C ircuit.

www.ca.cjis20.org/web/…/jacs.asp 3/3
2/22/2011 POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…

Switch to full desktop version


BONITA

POLL COLLIER’S NEW FORECLOSURE HEARING PROCESS FAVORS BANKS, ATTORNEYS SAY
By LAURA LAYDEN
Published Sunday, June 20, 2010

NAPLES — Foreclosure attorneys who represent homeowners say recent changes in the way hearings
are scheduled in Collier County have given banks the upper hand.

They say they’ve had trouble getting hearings and that five-minute hearings on foreclosure cases appear
to now be reserved for banks’ motions for default and summary judgment.

When a bank gets a summary judgment, it has the right to take a house. At that point, a homeowner is
unlikely to get a second chance.

Mark Middlebrook, a senior deputy court administrator in Collier County, said, “We have not changed
anything regarding the scheduling of these hearings. That’s absolutely not true.”

Foreclosure hearings are scheduled through an automated calendaring system online called JACS. Users
in Collier County are warned to read the foreclosure rules carefully “due to recent changes.”

Middlebrook said the changes haven’t been made yet.

Under the rules for booking hearings, it says “only hearings for summary judgment and default may be
scheduled for the five-minute time slots. In parenthesis, it says: “Do not schedule other hearings in these
time slots.”

Foreclosure attorneys who represent homeowners say these rules only appear to apply in Collier and
they’ve never been enforced until recently.

“Somebody is speaking without understanding how the scheduling occurs,” Middlebrook said.

He said five-minute hearings still are available outside of an online calendaring system and that changes
are planned over the coming months that will significantly increase the amount of hearing time available for
foreclosure cases.

With money from a state grant, Collier County plans to increase hearings from one day a week to three by
August. In January, there will be hearings four days a week, Middlebrook said.

Defense attorneys likely haven’t been getting hearings because there’s such a backlog of cases and time
slots fill up so quickly, not because of any rule changes, Middlebrook said. There are about 9,000
unresolved foreclosure cases in the county and that’s why changes are planned in the future, he said.
…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 1/4
2/22/2011 POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…
“There just wasn’t enough time available to accommodate everybody,” Middlebrook said.

Mike Schneider, a Naples foreclosure attorney who represents homeowners, said the rules have changed
in favor of the banks.

He said he was taken off-guard recently when a five-minute hearing he scheduled through the online
calendar was automatically canceled by the court through an e-mail.

When he tried to schedule a 10-minute hearing _ the next shortest time slot available _ for the same client,
there were none available for months. It’s even harder to book 15-minute or 30-minute hearings, he said,
and he doesn’t need that much time.

“I guarantee many people have lost their house because of this,” Schneider said. “How are we supposed
to argue our case?”

Dwight Brock, Collier County’s clerk of courts, said he wasn’t aware of any new rules and his office had
nothing to do with them.

“We have no control over it,” he said.

Those rules are made by judges or magistrates, Brock said.

Schneider said he was trying to stop a foreclosure that never should have been filed. He struggled to get a
hearing.

His client signed a forbearance agreement, in which the lender agreed to temporarily modify the loan
payments and not foreclose. The lender foreclosed anyway, Schneider said.

“They are coming to his house and basically telling him to get out,” he said. “That’s just one of a million
stories.”

Marc Shapiro, one of the most active foreclosure defense attorneys in Naples, said he used to schedule
his motions for five-minute hearings online, but now he can’t.

He can argue a homeowner’s case during a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, but time is limited.
At that point it might be too late.

“You are taking a little bit of a gamble,” Shapiro said.

Judges often frown on requests for emergency hearings. So some attorneys say they generally don’t ask
for them.

In one of Shapiro’s cases, he was trying to get a court order to force a bank to produce documents it had
refused to share and he couldn’t get a hearing a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the bank was proceeding to
foreclose.
…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 2/4
2/22/2011 POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…
Shapiro also saw some of his five-minute hearings suddenly canceled recently. It hadn’t happened like that
before, he said.

For about a month, few hearings were available to defense attorneys on foreclosure cases.

“As of last week they started freeing up more time for us,” said Donald Schold, one of Shapiro’s legal
assistants. “The bank is still the only ones to get the five-minute hearings, which for some reason are
being set before our hearing dates.”

In Collier, foreclosure cases that are contested by homeowners are mostly handled by magistrates. To
have their arguments heard by a magistrate, foreclosure attorneys who represent homeowners must get
an order of referral from a judge.

Banks aren’t required to do the same for hearings on their motions for summary judgment, giving them
another time advantage, attorneys who represent homeowners say.

Where foreclosures might have taken a year or two in the past, now they can happen in less than six
months.

Conrad Willkomm, another foreclosure defense attorney in Naples, said he hasn’t faced any big problems
in scheduling his hearings.

“A lot of the time, I’m letting the banks schedule the hearings, and we’re working around them,” he said.

Even if a bank gets a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, a judge can continue the hearing if
there are motions pending from the defense that haven’t been heard.

“It’s not like you lose the case out from under you,” Willkomm said. “Usually we are in front of the
magistrates for a lot of these cases and the magistrates have been pretty cooperative.”

__ Connect with Laura Layden at www.naplesnews.com/staff/laura_layden.

9 COMMENTS

RELATED STORIES

Bank begins foreclosure proceedings on Marco Rubio's Tallahassee home


Updated Jun 18, 2010 42 Comments

Collier, Lee foreclosures slow, debate begins whether banks are backing off
Published Jun 12, 2010 16 Comments

RELATED LINKS

Web: Check out foreclosuretoursrus.com

…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 3/4
2/22/2011 POLL Collier’s new foreclosure hearing…

Search Florida foreclosure properties on RealtyTrac.com


BONITA

Fatal accident closes U.S. 41 in Bonita Springs


Published 6:18 p.m. 1 Comment

10-year-old girl reports $280 necklace ripped from neck at Bonita Springs Library
Published 1:52 p.m. 13 Comments

STORY SEARCH

Search

Switch to full desktop version

Return to top

Scripps Interactive Newspaper Group


©2011 The E.W. Scripps Co.

…naplesnews.com/…/colliers-new-fore… 4/4
2/22/2011 Naples Attorneys complain – Collier Co…
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 | Posted by Amitesh Kumar

Naples Attorneys complain – Collier County


new foreclosure hearing process only favors
banks
The Attorneys representing home owners in foreclosure cases at Naples are the worried lot – they say
recent changes in the way hearings are scheduled in Collier County give banks undue advantage. They
have had trouble getting hearings and the five minute hearings by magistrates on foreclosure cases,
seem to be reserved now for banks’ motions for default and summary judgment.

What happens when a bank gets a summary judgment? It gets the right to forfeit a house, when the
distressed homeowner is not likely to get a second chance.

The officials of the Court deny these allegations. According to Mark Middlebrook, a senior deputy
court administrator in Collier County, this is absolutely not true and they have not changed anything
regarding the scheduling of these hearings.

In the normal course, Foreclosure hearings are scheduled through an automated calendaring system
online, known as JACS. In Collier County, users are warned to read the foreclosure rules carefully
“due to recent changes”. But Middlebrook refutes that the changes have not been made yet.

The practice at Collier County is foreclosure cases that are contested by homeowners are generally
handled by magistrates. Foreclosure attorneys representing homeowners must get an order of referral
from a judge, to have their arguments heard by the concerned magistrate.

Attorneys on behalf of homeowners, handling foreclosure cases say that Banks are not required to do
the same for hearings on their motions for summary judgment, which gives them unfair time advantage.
With the result, where foreclosures might have taken a year or two in the past, the Attorneys allege
that they can happen now in less than six months.

What the rules are saying? The rules for booking foreclosure hearings say “only hearings for summary
judgment and default may be scheduled for the five-minute time slots”. In other words it says “Do not
schedule other hearings in these time slots”.

Naples foreclosure Attorneys, representing troubled homeowners, caught in the legal proceedings of
foreclosures, say that these rules only appear to apply in Collier County and they have never been
enforced until recently.

So the tussle continues and we will see more of it in the near future.

Share/Bookmark

naplesshortsaleexperts.com/…/naples-… 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.
_________________________________________________________________________/

CANCELLATION OF HEARING UNDER COURT’S POLICIES & PROCEDURES


IN DISPOSED CASE (NOTICE)

EMERGENCY WRITTEN DEMAND TO CANCEL HEARING IN DISPOSED CASE


AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES & PROCEDURES

FROM: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, “BankUnited” fraud victim

CERTIFIED DELIVERIES
The Honorable Daniel R. Monaco
The Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, “Disposition Judge”
Circuit Court Judges, Twentieth Judicial Circuit
Judicial Assistants Karen / Jan
Collier County Government Complex
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112
Phone: 239.774.8118; 239.252.8119;
Fax: 239.252.8870; 239.775.5538; 239.774.9654; 239-252-8020
Email: dmonaco@ca.cjis20.org, jmetcalfe@ca.cjis20.org, hhayes@ca.cjis20.org

RE:
CANCELLATION of unlawful hearing in disposed wrongful foreclosure case 09-6016-CA
“BANKUNITED” v. FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
DISPOSED CASE NO. 09-6016-CA; DISPOSITION JUDGE HAYES, HUGH D.
UNAUTHORIZED “02/22/11 HEARING” [AMENDED TO 02/14/11 & CANCELLED]

08/12/2010 DISPOSITION FOR LACK OF “BANKUNITED’S” STANDING


1. “Disposition Judge” Hayes had disposed of this prima facie frivolous action on 08/12/2010
for record lack of any “BankUnited” standing and interest.
“BANKUNITED” WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY HEARING
2. “BankUnited” has had no right to sue and/or schedule any hearing. Here, Jennifer Franklin-
Prescott did not owe any debt to “plaintiff BankUnited” pursuant to the evidence on file in
this disposed wrongful action. The record and evidence never identified “BankUnited”.
AFTER DISPOSITION THE MOTIONS WERE MOOT
3. After the 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION, the “Motion to Dismiss” was MOOT.
“BANKUNITED” KNEW/CONCEALED THAT IT LACKED ANY STANDING
4. “Plaintiff BankUnited” was not any “creditor” in the disposed wrongful action.
5. Here, undersigned “Camner Lipsitz, PA”, and/or founder of bankrupt and defunct
“BankUnited, FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., “represented the interest of the plaintiff
[BankUnited]”. See facially frivolous and insufficient Complaint. “BankUnited” had
fraudulently alleged in the Complaint (¶ 16, Count II) that “plaintiff” [“BankUnited”] owns
and holds the note and mortgage.”
6. The purported note and/or mortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did
not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”.
“BANKUNITED” AND/OR “ALBERTELLI LAW” DECEIVED THE COURT
7. Here, “BankUnited” and/or “Albertelli Law” perpetrated fraud on the Court, because after
disposition in the record absence of any “BankUnited” note, “BankUnited” falsely
pretended entitlement to the “hearing” of a MOOT “Motion to Dismiss / Enjoin”.
“… it is the responsibility of the lawyers to keep the judge's office informed. Our
office cannot possibly call all the lawyers on a trial docket to check the status of each
case prior to trial. PLEASE let us know when you have settled or otherwise
disposed of your case. Please cancel your trials and hearings.”
“BANKUNITED’S” SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT AND FRAUD
8. Here, “BankUnited” failed to comply with the Rules …
“PLEASE READ THE "GENERAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS" AND
ENSURE THAT YOUR ATTORNEY HAS BOTH READ AND
UNDERSTANDS THE "GENERAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS" AND
THE "STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND CONDUCT."
The Standards of Professional Courtesy and Conduct govern scheduling,
hearings, motion practice, submissions to the Court, etc. and may be found at
www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/ao_2_20.pdf
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES, REQUIREMENTS, AND
STANDARDS MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AND THE
MATTER NOT BEING HEARD”
See Judicial “Office Policies and Procedures”.
ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS SCHEDULING OF UNAUTHORIZED HEARING
9. Arbitrary, ambiguous, and/or unlawful acts undermine the authority of this Court. Here,
violations of this Court’s “OFFICE POLICES AND PROCEDURES” in favor of crooked
bank lawyers threatened the integrity of the Court.
COURT ADMINISTRATION MUST CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED 02/22/11 HEARING
VIOLATIONS OF “OFFICE POLICIES & PROCEDURES” IN DISPOSED CASE
10. All motions other than MSJ and DJ will be CANCELLED by Court Administration. In this
disposed action, “Motions to Dismiss / Enjoin” were scheduled without any authority.

2
“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.”
See “OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE, Senior Judge Foreclosure, Collier County
Clerk of Court.
MANDATORY CANCELLATION FOR LACK OF SERVICE IN DISPOSED ACTION
“A party/attorney scheduling a hearing must concurrently 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.” Id.
11. Here accordingly, “BankUnited” was not entitled to sue nor to any hearing and did not serve
any “timely notice” of hearing on Jennifer Franklin-Prescott as also conclusively evidenced
by the Clerk’s 02/18/2011 Docket.
UNAUTHORIZED ATTORNEY “ANDREW LEE FIVECOAT”, ESQ.
12. “Andrew Lee Fivecoat” had no authority to schedule any hearing in said disposed wrongful
foreclosure action. Here, Fivecoat knew and/or fraudulently concealed that “BankUnited”
had no standing and that the exhibits on file conclusively evidenced that “BankUnited” was
not identified as “lender” and was not any note holder and/or owner.
PRIMA FACIE FRIVOLITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY “BANKUNITED” NOTE
13. Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University, believes that the
involvement of lawyers in questionable transactions could damage the overall reputation of
the legal profession, “which does not fare well in public opinion” throughout history:
“When the consequence of a lawyer plying his trade is the loss of someone’s home,
and it turns out there are documents being given to the courts that have no basis in
reality, the profession gets a very big black eye,” Gillers said.
See New York Times, “Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures”.
FIVECOAT CONCEALED PRIMA FACIE NULLITY OF PURPORTED NOTE
14. Here, Fivecoat knew that the complaint in this disposed action had been “incredible,
outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous”, because no note had been properly executed and
no note and/or instrument “transferred” from bankrupt and lawfully seized “BankUnited,
FSB”, to the “F.D.I.C.”, and/or “BankUnited”. Disgraced founder of defunct “BankUnited,
FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., and/or Camner Lipsitz, PA, had filed the facially frivolous
complaint on 07/09/2009.
A. L. FIVECOAT, ESQ., LACKS AUTHORITY
15. Here, A. L. Fivecoat has lacked any authority to appear. Fivecoat knew/concealed that
bankrupt “BankUnited, FSB” is not any party to this disposed action.

3
MANDATORY CANCELLATION OF HEARING

16. This Court had instructed the parties:


“If you CANCEL a hearing, you are required to file a Notice of Cancellation. If you
are canceling your hearing ten (10) working days before the hearing date you can go
to JACS and cancel on-line by following the instructions. If you are canceling less
than ten (10) working days please, immediately cancel the hearing, by FAX'ing you're
a request to (239) 252-8870 attention Karen. Include the reason for canceling, our
case number and style with date and time of hearing and what party you represent.
You do not need to attach the Notice of Cancellation (just send the original to the
Clerk of Courts).”
“REASONS FOF CANCELLATION”
17. In disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA, the “reasons for cancellation” included, e.g.:
a. Cancellation is mandatory under Court’s “Office Policies & Procedures”;
b. “BankUnited’s” lack of standing;
c. Lack of authority to have 02/22/2011 hearing;
d.
e. “Motion to Dismiss” has been MOOT since 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION;
f. Disposition of the wrongful foreclosure action on 08/12/2010;
g. The unauthorized “Amended hearing” did not take place on 02/14/2011;
h. Dissolution of fraudulent “lis pendens”.

FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE EXPECTED TO APPEAR


18. Pursuant to Franklin-Prescott’s “Notice of Unavailability”, she has been in the Pacific. In
this disposed action, and in the absence of any notice of service on Franklin-Prescott, she
could not possibly and reasonably be expected to appear for the “Amended Hearing”. Here,
the “Amended Hearing” never took place on 02/14/2011.
19. Furthermore, if there would have been any lawful and legitimate hearing, Prescott would not
be permitted to appear by telephone from the Pacific in this disposed wrongful action:
“All Hearings before Judge Monaco will be in person.
As of January 2010, Telephonic appearance will NOT be permitted for any foreclosure
hearing before the Senior Judge.” Id.

ESTOPPEL PREVENTS “BANKUNITED” FROM FURTHER ACTS OF FRAUD


20. Estoppel prevents identical parties from re-litigating issues that have previously been
litigated and which resulted in a final disposition of a court with competent jurisdiction. See
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1977); Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40

4
(Fla. 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 878, 73 S. Ct. 165, 97 L.Ed. 680 (1952). Here,
“BankUnited” never had any standing in the first place and cannot frivolously “re-litigate”
its prima facie lack of standing.
21. In dealing with the identities of the parties, estoppel requires that the “real parties in interest”
be identical. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Cox, 338 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1976).
The well-established rule in Florida has been and continues to be that estoppel may be
asserted when the identical issue has been litigated between the same parties or their privies.
See Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So.2d 843 - 45
(Fla. 1984). Here the file and evidence in this disposed action had conclusively evidenced
that “BankUnited” was not any “real party in interest”
BINDING PRECEDENT: BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM SUPPORTED DISPOSITION
22. 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's standing to 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 ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:
“BANKUNITED” WAS NOT ANY OWNER AND HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE PRESCOTT
23. In the instant case, the purported note was, e.g., not properly executed, not assigned, the
falsely pretended assignment not 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” validly owned and held the 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”
24. 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).
25. 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-
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
26. Here however, alleged ‘plaintiff(s)’, BankUnited & BankUnited, FSB, fraudulently asserted:
“that all conditions to the institutions of this action have occurred, been performed or
excused …”

5
27. 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.
FILE & DOCKET SHOWED FRAUD EVIDENCE & DEMAND IN DISPOSED ACTION

INCORRECT CASE NUMBER


28. “BankUnited” used incorrect “Case No. 11-2009-CA-006016CA”.
MANDATORY RETIREMENT
29. Pursuant to various reports, the Hon. Judge Daniel R. Monaco had exceeded the mandatory
judicial retirement age in 2008. The unjustified threat of the loss of Franklin-Prescott’s house
is a matter that demands the highest applicable standards.
TIMELINE OF FRAUD ON THE COURT IN DISPOSED WRONGFUL ACTION
30. The below timeline illustrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of the alleged “”02/22/2011
hearing”, which had been amended and then cancelled.
02/20/2011 Docket shows unlawful / unauthorized “02/22/2011 hearing” in disposed case
even though 02/22/11 hearing had been amended [02/14/11 hearing cancelled]
02/19/2011 Franklin-Prescott again contacted Hon. Daniel R. Monaco’s Office
02/18/2011 Clerk and Sen. Judge give conflicting information
02/18/2011 Prescott called Hon. Dwight E. Brock’s Office & Foreclosure Judge’s JA
02/18/2011 J. Franklin-Prescott called Office of “Disposition Judge” Hayes
02/18/2011 No hearing appeared on the Clerk’s Docket
02/18/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed her “NOTICE OF APPEAL …”
02/17/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed her “AFFIDAVIT in support of fraud on court …”
02/15/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed “NOTICE OF OBJECTION to any hearing …”

02/08/2011 Alleged “02/08/2011” Docket entries:


02/08/2011 “AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 02/14/11 @3:30P.M., AMENDED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR ATORNEY FEES AGAINST
PEDRO LUIS LICOURT”
02/08/2011 “NOTICE OF HEARING 02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS/MOTION TO ENJOIN”
02/01/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION …”
12/06/2010 CANCELLATION of unauthorized “12/0610 hearing”
09/02/2010 CANCELLATION of unauthorized “09/02/10 hearing”
08/12/2010 DISPOSITION
08/12/2010 Franklin-Prescott again filed “Motion to Dismiss”

6
FRAUD - INVESTIGATIONS BY THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
31. Foreclosure mills like “Albertelli Law” have been under investigation, which evidenced so-
called “robo signing” of fraudulent documents and/or affidavits. See, e.g., Office of the
Florida Attorney General, Dept. of Legal Affairs, AG # L10-3-1145, IN RE: Investigation of
Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A..
“ROBO-SIGNING” OF FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS – NO FILE REVIEW
32. In this disposed wrongful foreclosure action, Ashley Simon, Esq., Florida Bar 64472, stated
under oath that she “had not reviewed the actual file in this [disposed] case.” See prima facie
fraudulent “Affidavit as to reasonable attorneys fees”; 11/10/2010 “Notice of Filing”.
33. Employees of “foreclosure mills” in Florida [e.g. Jeffrey Stephan; Angela Nolan, Cheryl
Samon] admitted under oath that they signed hundreds of affidavits a day to process pending
foreclosures without actually having read or checked the documents. It later came to light
that said employees were not alone, and in 23 states that require a court to approve a
foreclosure, thousands of foreclosures are now potentially under question. Robo-signing and
similar practices are unlawful and egregious.
“FORECLOSURE GATE”
34. The lender, formerly known as GMAC, admitted that employees signed thousands of
foreclosure documents without reading them, a practice dubbed “robo-signing”.
35. In this disposed action, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been defending against, e.g., “robo
signing”, “BankUnited” fraud, and the cover-up by foreclosure mill “Albertelli Law”.
“BANKUNITED’S” FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
36. In this disposed action, “BankUnited” had failed to show they it had the contractual right to
enforce the alleged note, which had never been properly executed. Accordingly, any hearing
under these circumstances would be unlawful and unauthorized. The allegations by
“BankUnited” have been facially frivolous and unsupported. The Exhibits on file did not
identify “BankUnited” as any note holder and/or owner. Here, the alleged note was never
properly executed.

7
ILLEGALITY OF “ROCKET DOCKET”
37. Here after said 08/12/2010 disposition and in the absence of any note and standing,
“BankUnited” was not entitled to “5 minute increments” of a “rocket docket”, because
“BankUnited’s” fraud on the Court is illegal. In this disposed Case, “BankUnited” and/or
Attorney Fivecoat are playing “another round of [illegal] games of paper”.
38. Cases like this have led experts like Katherine Porter, visiting professor of law at Harvard
University, to seriously question the mortgage industry:
“The foreclosures and the whole loss of wealth are going to deepen the
disappointment and distrust in financial institutions to follow the rules of law," Porter
said, "and be fair when dealing with the little guy.”
PUBLICATIONS AS TO DISPOSED WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE ACTION
39. The communications with the Court and Officers are published at, e.g., www.scribd.com,
www.YouTube.com. See www.google.com.

WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands the MANDATORY


CANCELLATION of said 02/22/2011 hearing and removal of Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Esq.
in this disposed wrongful foreclosure case.

Respectfully,

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, fraud victim

ATTACHMENTS
Docket et al.

CC:
Florida Bar
New York Times
June M. Clarkson, Esq., Theresa B. Edwards, Esq.
Mark R. Briesmeister, Financial Investigator
Office of the Florida Attorney General

8
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.

4
2/18/2011 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

6 of 6 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 20

Date Text All Entries


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
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/2
2/18/2011 Public Inquiry
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

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… 2/2
2/18/2011 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

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
2/17/2011 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
2/17/2011
/ / 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
MANDATORY CANCELLATION NOTICE AS FILED ON 02/21/2011

Оценить