Affidavit in Disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA

8/7/2019 Affidavit in Disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA

1/6


2/6

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

BANKUNITED,

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

purportedplaintiff(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 OFSTANDINGOF 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

instrumentand/ornote identifying BankUnited.


3/6

2

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 ofbankrupt 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 ofbankrupt 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/ormortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did

not identify BankUnited as a lender.


4/6

3

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 obligatedto

make anypaymentto BankUnited.

18. Plaintiff BankUniteds 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 allegedpromissory 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 nostanding.

24. BankUnited failed to state any cause of action.

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

hearingin this disposed action.

26. Pedro Luis Licourt is not any knownparty 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/ormortgage had been transferred to

BankUnited.


5/6

4

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 hearingupon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott nor

any 02/14/2011 hearing.

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

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

33. In this disposed action, the purported Defendants motion to dismiss/motion to enjoin was

moot and irrational.

34. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was neverproperly servedeither bypersonal 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 allegedservice by publication was void.

37. Floridas 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.


6/6

Affidavit in Disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA

Documents

Transcript of Affidavit in Disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA