Consumer complaint received 2018-02-11
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc. (FL)

The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that " extrinsic '' fraud involves conduct which is collateral to the issues tried on a case. '' XXXX v XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) ( XXXX XXXX v XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Extrinsic Fraud is defined as : Prevention of an unsuccessful party from presenting his case, by fraud deception practiced by his adversary ; keeping the opponent away from from the Court ; falsely promising a compromise, ignorance of the adversary about the existence of the suit or the acts of the plaintiff, fraudulent representation of a party without his consent and connivance in his defeat ; and so on. In other words, extrinsic fraud occurs where a defendant has somehow been prevented from participating in a cause. ( quoting XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX ). 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, by and through their legal aid XXXX XXXX, XXXX. filed a foreclosure action. Under Florida Statutes a defendant has " twenty '' days to respond to the complaint by filling a response in the county court. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, my husband and I were served with a copy of the complaint and on XX/XX/XXXX, we timely responded to the complaint. When a defendant files a motion for extension of time the plaintiff would either agree or disagree and request a hearing to set a specific timeline to respond. Instead, the plaintiff filed a motion for judicial default against my husband alleging that he never filed a respond to the court, despite receipt of our motion and despite that the motion clearly is reflected in the court docket. 

The record reveals that we both timely filed motion for extension of time in accordance with the Fla. Statutory time. ( see exhibit " A '' ), yet knowingly and fraudulently the plaintiff requested that the court to enter a judicial default against my husband XXXX XXXX, and the court knowingly entered the default against. The Supreme Court describes such acts as of " Extrinsic fraud '' when fraud and deception by his adversary keeping away the opponent away from the court or the prevention of an unsuccessful party from presenting his case. The problem in this case is that we are being kept away from presenting our case not only by the adversary but also from the court and the matter should be investigated by the Office of the Internal General. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX on behalf of XXXX XXXX, filed another motion for judicial default claiming that we had abandoned our motion for extension of time when we filed a " verified '' motion to vacate the Judicial default. The court never reply to our motion yet we have every right to vacate the default that should have never been entered to begin if the court would have been paying attention. The court has not only participated in the plaintiff extrinsic fraud but also has violated our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EVERY CITIZEN IS ALLOWED TO A TRIAL, AND TO PRESENT THEIR CASE IN A COURT OF LAW. WHEN THE PLAINTIFF OF THE CASE COMMITS OR ENGAGES IN EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND THE COURT PARTICIPATES WITH SUCH FRUAD A DEFENDANT IS DEPRIVE OF THIER CIVIL RIGHTS AND OBVIOUSLY HAS XXXX  DEFENSE. THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE EVIDENCE OF THIS CASE WILL PROVE THAT WE HAVE BEEN PREVENTING FROM PRESENTING OUR CASE AND IT IS UNLAWFUL TO SAY THE LEAST. 

The plaintiff is now alleging that because our motion for extension of time was never heard and we filed a motion to vacate the default that we abandoned the motion and therefore judicial default should be entered against me. Debt collector XXXX XXXX filed a motion for judicial default instead of filling motion requesting hearing for our motion for extension of time as it is the normal course of action or procedure in foreclosure cases. But instead she knowingly filed a motion for Judicial default despite having receipt of our motion and despite that fact that the motion clearly reflects in the court docket, this acts goes right to the heart of " Extrinsic '' fraud. 

foreclosure procedure for XXXX County Civil Courts Plaintiff files complaint, defendant has twenty days, when defendant files for motion for extension of time, the said motion must be heard, then the court rules and provides an specific timeline to respond to the complaint. during this process the plaintiff would normally schedule a hearing as to the motion for extension of time, but instead plaintiff filed for a judicial default knowingly that we had timely filed, this conducts are of " extrinsic " fraud '' where a defendant has been prevented from presenting his case. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we filed a motion to dismiss the action. I have attached copy of court docket for your review, strangely our motion does not reflect on the court docket as if was never filed. ( See copy of court docket printed on XX/XX/XXXX as exhibit " B '' and motion to dismiss action as Exhibit '' C ''. The record reveals that on XX/XX/XXXX, we filed motion to dismiss action, however some force is seeking that we don't expose or present our case and this is 'ILLEGAL '' on its face, we are the United States of America XXXX are we going to allowed for the parties to get away from : Judicial Fraud including a court????? 

At this juncture going to ask that this case be referred to the Office of The internal General. The record reveals not only extrinsic fraud but the court also appears to be participating and the Judge must recuse them selves from this case immediately. 

The record reflect our motion to dismiss lawsuit does not appear anywhere in the court records, yet we did file have an " original stamp " in our copy ready to share with the FBI and the Office of Internal General, which proves that i did filed, motion disappear and the Judge is Ruling on every false motion filed by plaintiff which judicial fraud. 

Want to know why all the parties have conspired to a judicial default? Because plaintiff fled the foreclosure action seeking to enforce a lost note, and the complaint included a false affidavit. The law firm representing XXXX XXXX  fled a false note claiming enforcement. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX filed a prior foreclosure action and attached a copy of the note to the complaint. See copy of the note as exhibit " D ''. Te note contained an endorsement on page 5 and a sheet of paper attached to the back of the note as page 6 that contained an endorsement from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX executed by XXXX XXXX Closing Manager. The document reflects two punch holes on top of the page and also two x marks on top of the document. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX filed the original note. However, page 5 did not reflect an endorsement and neither a page 6 reflecting the previous endorsement attached to the copy of the complaint at the inception of the case. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX filed complaint alleging to have lost the note and this time presents another version of the note. The note does not reflect endorsement on age 5, and this time page 6 resurrected or " magically '' reappeared reflecting no punch holes on top pf the page or the two x marks on top of the page. Clearly the plaintiff filed a false note, it is clear that three different versions of the note have been filed. Pursuant to Fla. Statutes F.S 702.105 ( 5 ), if plaintiff seeks to enforce a lost note, destroyed, or stolen instrument, an affidavit must detail a clear chain of of all endorsements, transfers, or assignments of the promissory note that is subject of the action. Statutory compliance is mandatory. Plaintiff does not comply with F.S 702.105 ( 5 ) and can not have standing to enforce a lost note if one of the required elements is not met. See generally, XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). 

The endorsement reflecting a transfer from XXXX XXXX to XXXX did not comply with any of the conveyancing Florida Statutes. Under Florida Law corporations may convey real property in accordance with requirements of either section 689.02, Florida Statutes ( 2004 ), section 692.01, Floridas statutes ( 2004 ), or section 692.02, Floridas Statutes ( 2004 ), if a deed is executed by the Corporations president, vice-president or Chief executive officer in compliance with section 692.01, no corporate resolution from the board of directors is required to evidence the authority of the person executing the document. Such authority is granted by statute. If the person executing the deed does not held one of these offices, an authorizing resolution must be obtained and should be recorded. Similarly, if a deed is executed in compliance with section 689.01 but signed by someone other then the President, vice-president, or chief executive officer, an authorizing resolution from the board of directors must be obtained. See id. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, Title Note XX/XX/XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ).  See also Real Property Sales Transactions, XXXX ( Fla. Barr XXXX 4th ed. XX/XX/XXXX ) ; XXXX, Uniform Title Standards ( Real Property Probate and Trust Law section of the Fla. Bar ). The record reveals that the endorsement was executed by XXXX XXXX/ Closing/manager and did not held any of the offices such as President, vice-president, or Chief Executive officer, and neither provided a corporate resolution, failing to comply with any of the Fla. Statutory conveyancing statutes, and therefore the allege transfer was ineffective and did not convey title to XXXX much less XXXX XXXX .