Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/36945331/Lack-of-Jurisdiction-Notice-to-Circuit-District-Courts
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 05:21:41
Document Index: 286725330

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 673', '§ 673', '§ 673', '§ 673', '§ 57', '§ 48', '§ 48', '§ 48']

Lack of Jurisdiction Notice to Circuit & District Courts | Foreclosure | Mortgage Law
Description: 2.	The enforcement of lost promissory notes, which are negotiable instruments, is governed by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes and not section 71.011, which governs enforcement of lost papers. 3...
2.	The enforcement of lost promissory notes, which are negotiable instruments, is governed by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes and not section 71.011, which governs enforcement of lost papers. 3.	In State Street Bank and Trust Co., Trustee for Holders of Bear Stearns Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1993-12 v. Harley Lord, et al., 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Court held that State Street could not maintain a cause of action to enforce a missing promissory note or to foreclose on the related mortgage in the absence of proof that it or its assignor ever held possession of the promissory note. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002). 4.	In Mason v. Rubin, 727 So.2d 2883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) the court had previously held that the reestablishment of a lost promissory note which is a negotiable instrument is controlled by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) and not section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995). The court explained that section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995) provides for establishing lost documents “except when otherwise provided” — the implication being that section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) otherwise provides. The court also characterized the provisions of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) as “more stringent requirements” than section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995). 5.	The Court explained that pursuant to section 90.953, Florida Statutes, (2002), Florida’s code of evidence, the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure must present the original promissory note because a duplicate of a note is not admissible. Otherwise, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes to pursue enforcement. W. H. Dwoning v. First Na’tl Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955), Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). 6.	In this fraudulent action, there was no evidence as to WHO possessed WHAT purported note WHEN. See also Slizyk v. Smilack, 825 So.2d 428, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTES AND STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 7.	If a party is not in possession of the original note and cannot reestablish it, the party cannot prevail in an action on the note. In Dasma Investments, LLC v. Realty Associates Fund III, L.P., 459 F.Supp.2d 1294 (S.D.Fla.2006) the court explained that in Florida a promissory note is a negotiable instrument and that a party suing on a promissory note, whether just on the note itself or together with a foreclose on a mortgage securing the note, must be in possession of the original of the note or reestablish the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3091. Shelter Dev. Group, Inc. v. Mma of Georgia, Inc., 50 B.R. 588, 590 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Fla.1985). LAWFULLY SEIZED BANKUNITED’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CH. 673, F.S. 8.	A party must comply with section 673.3091, Florida Statues, in order to enforce a lost, destroyed or stolen negotiable instrument. Here, lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB [F.D.I.C. seizure] a.	FAILED to state that the creditors ever received possession of any original promissory note;
in interest to [LAWFULLY SEIZED] BANKUNITED, FSB., purported “plaintiff” vs. JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al. ___________________________________________________________________________/ LACK OF jurisdiction NOTICE TO CIRCUIT & DISTRICT COURTS MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 673, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND SEIZED BANK’S FAILURE TO establish any note & state any cause MEMORANDUM DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
1. The attached Docket showed:
09/02/2010 ORDER BY DCA APPELLANT SHALL WITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL
Here, neither this Court nor the District Court of Appeal had jurisdiction. 2. The enforcement of lost promissory notes, which are negotiable instruments, is governed by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes and not section 71.011, which governs enforcement of lost papers. 3. In State Street Bank and Trust Co., Trustee for Holders of Bear Stearns Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1993-12 v. Harley Lord, et al., 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Court held that State Street could not maintain a cause of action to enforce a missing promissory note or to foreclose on the related mortgage in the
absence of proof that it or its assignor ever held possession of the promissory note. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002). 4. In Mason v. Rubin, 727 So.2d 2883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) the court had previously held that the reestablishment of a lost promissory note which is a negotiable instrument is controlled by section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) and not section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995). The court explained that section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995) provides for establishing lost documents “except when otherwise provided” — the implication being that section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) otherwise provides. The court also characterized the provisions of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993) as “more stringent requirements” than section 71.011, Florida Statutes (1995). 5. The Court explained that pursuant to section 90.953, Florida Statutes, (2002), Florida’s code of evidence, the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure must present the original promissory note because a duplicate of a note is not admissible. Otherwise, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes to pursue enforcement. W. H. Dwoning v. First Na’tl Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955), Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). 6. In this fraudulent action, there was no evidence as to WHO possessed WHAT purported note WHEN. See also Slizyk v. Smilack, 825 So.2d 428, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTES AND STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 7. If a party is not in possession of the original note and cannot reestablish it, the party cannot prevail in an action on the note. In Dasma Investments, LLC v. Realty Associates Fund III, L.P., 459 F.Supp.2d 1294 (S.D.Fla.2006) the court explained that in Florida a promissory note is a negotiable instrument and that a party suing on a promissory note, whether just on 2
the note itself or together with a foreclose on a mortgage securing the note, must be in possession of the original of the note or reestablish the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3091. Shelter Dev. Group, Inc. v. Mma of Georgia, Inc., 50 B.R. 588, 590 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Fla.1985). LAWFULLY SEIZED BANKUNITED’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CH. 673, F.S. 8. A party must comply with section 673.3091, Florida Statues, in order to enforce a lost, destroyed or stolen negotiable instrument. Here, lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB [F.D.I.C. seizure] a. FAILED to state that the creditors ever received possession of any original promissory note; b. FAILED to state a cause of action; c. FAILED to satisfy the conditions precedent to sue, Ch. 673, Florida Statutes; d. COULD NOT possibly have complied with section 673.3091, Florida Statues. RECORD LACK OF promissory note 9. The original document that is generally required to be filed with the court in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding is the promissory note, not the mortgage. The Evidence Code provides the rationale for this conclusion. Section 90.952, Florida Statutes (2002), indicates that original documents are required to prove the contents of a writing. 10. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the definition of section 673.1041(1), and either the original must be produced, or the lost document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002). See Mason v. Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat'l Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 673 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). LAWFULLY SEIZED BANKUNITED HAD NO right to the payment of money 11. Here, no writing on file evidenced any right to the payment of money by lawfully seized bankrupt bank BankUnited, FSB, Ch. 673, Florida Statutes. 3
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT DEMANDED PROTECTION FROM FRAUD 12. Because it is negotiable, the promissory note must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding so that it does not remain in the stream of commerce. Indeed, if the foreclosing party alleges that the note is lost, destroyed or stolen, the trial court is authorized by statute to take the necessary actions to protect the party purportedly required to pay the note against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another party to enforce the instrument. See section 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). 13. A mortgage is the security for the payment of the negotiable promissory note, “and is a mere incident of and ancillary to such note.” 08/12/2010 FINAL DISPOSITION FOR LACK OF “proper plaintiff” LAWFULLY SEIZED BANKUNITED, FSB, HAD NO interest & NO standing 14. Here, the admitted loss, the time and manner of which was unknown, was a. “the result of a transfer or lawful seizure”, [F.D.I.C.], Ch. 673, Florida Statutes; b. precluded any establishment of any agreement and/or breach of contract. BUSTED BANKUNITED FAILED ITS BURDEN 15. Here, the burden was on lawfully seized BankUnited, i.e., the party seeking to enforce the lost “instrument”. See § 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). PROVEN INVALIDITY OF RECORD 16. Furthermore here, the invalidity had been proven in the pleadings, Fla. Stat. § 673.3081 (2008). 17. A court will not enforce an instrument unless the defendant will be adequately protected against future claims on the lost note. Perry v. Fairbanks, 888 So.2d 725, 727, (Fla. 5d DCA 2004).
18. Here, lawfully seized BankUnited FSB, did not have standing to bring and/or maintain any mortgage foreclosure action against Jennifer Franklin Prescott, because it had proven on the record that it did not hold any note and /or mortgage. Here, said admitted and known nonholder of any note had no standing to seek any enforcement of the fictitious note. “LAWFUL SEIZURE”, FDIC, OF BANKUNITED, FSB’S PROPERTY & NOTES 19. The property of bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, was “lawfully seized“, Ch. 673, Florida Statutes. Here in particular, any and all notes and mortgages in the name of failed BankUnited, FSB, were lawfully seized. Here, lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB: a. was not a proper party to bring this facially fraudulent action; b. failed to state a cause of action; c. could never, under any circumstances, be the proper plaintiff to bring any foreclosure action against Jennifer Franklin Prescott. “LAWFUL SEIZURE” OF BUSTED BANKUNITED, FSB 20. The admitted loss of the fictitious promissory note was due to lawful seizure of bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, and/or transfer. Here, lawfully seized BankUnited was not entitled to enforce the fictitious note. SEIZED BANKUNITED FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION PRECEDENT 21. Here, lawfully seized BankUnited could not have possibly satisfied the absolutely required “condition precedent”, Ch. 673, Florida Statutes. FRAUDULENT & FALSE PRETENSES - MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION 22. “BankUnited, FSB”, fraudulently pretended: “9. On February 15, 2006, Franklin Prescott executed and delivered a promissory note to Bankunited …” “Complaint”, p. 3. Here on 02/15/2006, BankUnited had not even legally existed. “16. Plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage.” “Complaint”, p. 5.
“6. Said [fictitious] promissory note and mortgage have been lost or destroyed and are not in the custody or control of BankUnited, and the time and manner of the loss or destruction is unknown.” “Complaint”, p. 3. Here, bankrupt BankUnited did not hold or own any note and mortgage. Here, any and all notes and mortgages had been seized by a U.S Agency. Here, there was fraud on the Court, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540. THIS COURT’S AUTHORITY TO SANCTION SEIZED BANK’S ATTORNEY(S) 23. This court has ample authority to sanction lawyers and lenders asserting improper and facially fraudulent foreclosure claims. Here, Federal Agents had lawfully seized bankrupt BankUnited, FSB. This court’s authority to sanction crooked attorneys is explicit in Florida law and implicit in the courts' inherent power to sanction bad faith litigation. 24. Any party seeking to foreclose a mortgage without a good faith belief in the facts giving rise to the asserted claim may be sanctioned “upon the court's initiative.” § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. 25. This statute affords judges the authority to immediately impose significant penalties for bringing unfounded litigation. See Moakely v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2002), citing United States Savings Bank v. Pittman, 80 Fla. 423, 86 So. 567, 572 (1920) (sanctioning attorney for acting in bad faith in a mortgage foreclosure sale). CONFIRMED CANCELLATION 26. On 09/02/2010, at 11:20 AM, the Clerk inside Hearing Room 4-1, Naples Courthouse, and Bailiff D. Chenoweth confirmed the cancellation of the unauthorized “hearing” before judicial imposter “Tony Perez” and/or Antonio J. Perez-Benitoa. 27. The Court explained that Perez-Benitoa was “under contract with” this Court for “one day per week”. The Court did not disclose “Tony Perez’ credentials. 28. Franklin Prescott contacted the Florida Bar in this matter.
29. Pursuant to the Magistrate’s Office, Debbie, Supervisor, Melanie [09/02/2010, AM], the “09/02/2010 hearing” before judicial imposter “Tony Perez” was cancelled. 30. Here, the law required use of the legal name of any judicial officer. “Tony Perez” is not any legal name. NOTICE OF UNTIMELY “notice” and “entry” 31. On the day of the unauthorized hearing, 09/02/2010, the “notice of hearing” appeared for the first time. On 09/01/2010, said “notice” had not appeared on the Docket.
32. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s cancellation of unauthorized “09/02/2010 hearing” because there was a. b. c. d. e. f. Non-consent by J. Franklin Prescott; No order of referral to any magistrate; No notice of hearing; No setting party of record; No jurisdiction; No standing.
Here, seized and bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had no standing and could not have possibly been any party. 33. Pursuant to the Magistrate’s Office, Supervisor Debbie, Rose, 239-252-8870 a. Jennifer Franklin Prescott faxed her filed and recorded NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT and NOTICE OF OBJECTION to the Magistrate’s Office; b. Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s MOTION TO DISMISS is not to be heard in the record absence of any notice of hearing required under the Rules. See Docket of this disposed Case.
34. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s service of NOTICE OF DISPOSITION AND NON-CONSENT upon the magistrate and/or Antonio J. Perez-Benitoa at: a. Magistrate’s Office, c/o Supervisor Debbie, Rose Naples Courthouse 5th Floor Naples, FL 34112, T: 252-8331, F: 252-8870 and b. Antonio J. Perez-Benitoa, P.A. 900 Sixth Avenue South Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34102 Telephone: 239-430-1884 Fax: 239-30-1885 http://www.tonypblaw.com 35. Jennifer Franklin Prescott, record holder of unencumbered title to the subject property [address: 25 6th ST North, Naples, Florida 34102] does not consent and objected to any referral to any magistrate, hearing officer, and/or “special master”, Rule 1.490, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT’S OBJECTIONS TO ANY magistrate 36. In particular, J. Franklin Prescott objects and did not consent to any magistrate a. findings of fact; b. conclusions of law. MEMORANDUM “A REFERRAL TO A MAGISTRATE REQUIRES THE CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES.” JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THIS MATTER HEARD BY A JUDGE AND DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS MATTER HEARD BY ANY MAGISTRATE. JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO FICTITIOUS referral PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE HEARING. Here, no hearing can possibly commence.
PUBLICLY RECORDED 08/12/2010 FINAL DISPOSITION 37. On 08/12/2010, Def. Judge Hugh D. Hayes disposed of the fraudulent action. NO order of referral 38. Here, there were a. b. c. d. 08/12/2010 Final Disposition; No order of referral; No notice of any hearing; J. Franklin Prescott’s non-consent and objection to any magistrate referral and hearing.
RECORD LACK OF note and mortgage 39. Here, in the recorded absence of any note and/or mortgage, there was a. b. c. d. No agreement; No debt; No lien; No BankUnited interest. LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF ANY hearing 40. Court staff asserted and published: “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. The setting party/attorney is responsible for preparing and filing the Order of Referral pursuant to Rule 1.490, Fl. Civil Rules of Court (also can be found at www.ca.cjis20.org/web/main/magistrates as a reference, no more signed Order of Referrals from the above website will be accepted). You will be required to submit your proposed Order of Referral to the appropriate Judge for each hearing in front 9
of the Magistrate. This will include all hearings for 10, 15 or 30 minutes and Special Set hearings. (This will also include any Summary/Default Judgment hearings requesting more than 5 minutes.)” Here, no notice was served on Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Here, nothing, no matter, and no hearing were noticed in violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. BANKUNITED, FSB’S LACK OF standing 41. Pursuant to § 48.23, Fla. Stat., “1. A notice of lis pendens must contain the following: a. The names of the parties.” Here, the fraudulent notice of lis pendens “contained” “BankUnited, FSB”. However here, said BankUnited was not any note/mortgage holder or party. Here, U.S. agents had seized BankUnited, FSB. 42. Furthermore here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was mischaracterized as a “married woman” and “Walter Prescott” as “her husband”. However here, “Walter Prescott” is not the “husband” of Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Here, the notice of lis pendens did not contain the parties’ names. NO jurisdiction 43. Here, “BankUnited, FSB” was a. Not any party; b. Had no interest; c. Had no standing. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had no standing, and this Court has no jurisdiction. RECORD APPEAL - NO jurisdiction 44. Here after disposition and Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s Notice of Appeal, this Court had no jurisdiction: 10
NOTICE OF RELEASE & DISCHARGE OF FRAUDULENT lis pendens, CH. 48, F.S. 45. The fraudulent notice of lis pendens, purported INSTR 4318185, Collier County Records, has been released and discharged. Here admittedly, no note or mortgage could be established, Ch. 48, 71, F. S. Purported Plaintiff bankrupt BankUnited failed and was seized. In the record absence of any note or mortgage, said seized bank’s fraudulent action and notice were null & void and did not operate as a lis pendens, Ch. 48. 46. Furthermore, a lis pendens is not effectual for any purpose beyond 1 year from the commencement of the action and expires, § 48.23, Florida Statutes. 47. Here, the pleadings conclusively proved that no action could be founded on any lost and/or destroyed note and/or instrument. Therefore, the bankrupt and seized bank’s nonmeritorious action not possibly affect the subject property, and the court controlled and discharged the fraudulent notice of lis pendens, § 48.23, Fla. Stat. The Docket showed the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition by Def. Judge Hugh D. Hayes. 08/12/2010 FINAL DISPOSITION, FLA.R.CIV.P. 1.998 48. Hereby, prevailing Jennifer Franklin Prescott filed the Final Disposition Form pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.998, 25.075, Florida Statutes. The Docket evidenced Judge Hugh D. Hayes’ 08/12/2010 Final Disposition before any hearing. 49. Here, the Docket and official record alterations were a. Arbitrary and capricious; b. Unlawful.
Clerk To Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX The Board Court Departments Traffic Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List Recording Department Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Case Status: DISPO SED Next Court Date: Last Docket Date: 09/02/2010 Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Disposed: 08/12/2010 Reopen Reason: Reopened: Reopen Close: A ppealed: Filed: 07/09/2009
Dockets of 1 page s. Text
07/09/2009 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (FILING) 07/09/2009 C IVIL C O VER SHEET 07/09/2009 C O MPLAINT 07/09/2009 NO TIC E O F LIS PENDENS 07/09/2009 PAID $10.00 PER ISSUANC E O F SUMMO NS $40.00 07/09/2009 R EAL PR O PER TY VALUATIO N SHEET 07/10/2009 SUMMO NS ISSUED JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT/ W ALTER P R ESC O TT/ JO HN DO E/ MAR Y DO E/ PLAC ED IN SO UTH FLO R IDA PR O C ESS SER VER S BIN 09/03/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS MAR Y DO E 10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F LO ST O R IGINAL SUMMO NS JO HN DO E 10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JO HN DO E 12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS W ALTER PR ESC O TT 12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT 02/22/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAR ANC E AS C O -CO UNSEL BY ER IN M R O SE Q UINN O N BEHALF O F PLT 04/06/2010 ALIAS SUMMO NS ISSUED JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/W ALTER PR ESC O TT/P LAC ED IN PR O VEST LLC BIN 05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT 05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS W ALTER PR ESC O TT 06/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK 06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT 06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT 06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N PAR TIES C LAIMING 06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F DILIGENT SEAR C H AS TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT 06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F DILIGENT SEAR C H AS TO JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-P R ESC O TT
06/17/2010 NO TIC E O F AC TIO N TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT & ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N PAR TIES C LAIMING 06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F MAILING MAILED 6/18/10 06/18/2010 C O NFIR MATIO N O F EMAIL R EC EIVED BY GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW 07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F PUBLIC ATIO N NO TIC E O F AC TIO N TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/ANSW ER W ITHIN 30 DAYS O F FIRST PUBLIC ATIO N 6/25/10 07/09/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT 07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E MO TIO N TO DISMISS 07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT /PR O SE 07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO ENJO IN / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT -P RO SE 07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E O F PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D & MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT 07/23/2010 MO TIO N FO R C LAR IFIC ATIO N O F C O UNSEL 07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS 07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO C LAR IFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D FR AUD 08/12/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS PR O SE JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT 08/12/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED 08/12/2010 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (DISPO SITIO N) 08/17/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED 08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED INC IDENT R EPO R T APP AR ENT FALSIFIC ATIO NS NO TIC E 08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED 08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED DO C KET ALTER ATIO NS EVIDENC E 08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT NO N SER VIC E NO TIC E 08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED EMER GENC Y DEMAND TO EXTINGUISH FR AUDULENT AC TIO N 08/18/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL FR O M ALTER ATIO N O F REC O R D NO O R DER ATTAC HED NO FEES ENC LO SED 08/20/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M APP EAL CLEER K TO DC A W /NO TIC E O F AP PEAL NO FEE INC LUDED 08/20/2010 BILLED APP EAL FILING FEE $150.00 08/26/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING 9/2/10 @ 11:30 MO TIO NS TO DISMISS & ENJO IN 08/30/2010 NO TIC E O F R ELEASE O F LIS PENDENS FILED BY DEFENDANT 08/30/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M 08/31/2010 NO TIC E O F R ELEASE & DISC HAR GE O F FRAUDULENT LIS PENDENS BY DEFENENDANT JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT 08/31/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M BY DEFENDANT 09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E 09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E 09/01/2010 DEFENDANT NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE 09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE 09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N O F HEAR ING 9/2/10 FILED BY DEFENDANT 09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F R EC O R DATIO N O F RELEASE O F LIS PENDENS 09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E O F NO TIC E O F DISPO SITIO N AND NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE 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
Documents Similar To Lack of Jurisdiction Notice to Circuit & District Courts