Erin Cullaro Response to Notary Complaint

8/6/2019 Erin Cullaro Response to Notary Complaint

1/8

STATE OF FLORIDA

CHARL]E CRISTGOVERNOR

@ffftt of tbt @obcrnorTHE CAPITOL1ALLry0o0l

www.flgor'.conl850-488-71'16850-487-0801 fax

June 14,2010

Ms. Erin Cullaro2822 Safe Harbor DriveTampa, Florida 33618

Dear Ms. Cullaro:A second complaint alleging notary misconduct has been filed against you, a copyof which is enclosed.Using the form provided, you must r.r*rr@ rn.allegationscontainedinthiscomplaintwithintwensffithisletter.Failure to respond within the required time period may result in a reprimand, the

suspension of your notary commission or other disciplinary action. We appreciate yourprompt response.

Coordinatorof the Governor, Notary Section

Enclosurescc: Lisa Epstein, Complainant

Notary EducationExecutive Office


2/8

STATE OF FLORIDA

CHARLIE CRISTGOVERNOR

Ms. Lisa EPstein607 Gazetta WaYWest Palm Beach, Florida 33413

@ttftt of tbt @obtrnotTHE CAPITOL

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-OOO 1www'flgov'com850-488-7 146850-487-0801 fax

July 21 ,2010

ron Coordinatorfxecutive Office of the Governor, Notary Section

Dear Ms. EPstein'

our office received a response from Ms. Erin cullaro, the notary p-ublic whomyou reported to our;fi;;.' A "oiv of Ms. Cullaro's response is enclosed for you review'lfyouwishtoofferfurthercommentorprovideadditionalinformationbeforeouroffice makes a finat decision in this ."r", pt""ie reply in writing within twenty (20) daysshould you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at(850) 922-6400 or FL GOV NOTARY@eoq'state fl us'

Enclosures


3/8

RESPoNSEToFLoRIDANoTARYPUBLICCoMPLAINTSComplainants: Theresa Pursino' Lisa Epstein' Thomas lce' and Ronald Gillis

Respondent: ErrnCullaroFlorida Notary Public Complaints have been filed by the above-named

Respondent,ErinCullaro'Subjecttotheclarificationrequestattheendofthisshall constitute Ms. cullaro,s response to the referenced complaints'

Beforeaddressingtheallegations,werespectfullysubmitthatthisisanimproperuseofthecomplaintproceSsaffordedbyyouroffice.NoneoftheComplainantsclaimorevenSuggesttohavebeenaggrievedbyanyallegedimproprietycomplainedof.Rather,theComplainantsarepartofacoordrnated effort to attacl< Ms. cullaro, on this occasion through the use of your office'

The reason why the Complainants have a,,score to settle,,with Ms. Cullaro is that they areeither Defendants in a foreclosure case (Lisa Epstein)' an apparent relative of a defendant in aforeclosure case (Theresa pursino), or an attorney whose practice Involves a significant amount

offoreclosure defense work (Thomas rce).1 The Affidavrts notarized by Ms. cullaro and complained

of inthe ComplaintS are all ,,AffidavitS aS to Reasonable Attorneys FeeS,,,which have been filed in

foreclosurecases, These attorney fee affidavits are filed by banl


4/8

lce,s website (www.icelegal'com) includes three practice areas: Foreclosure Defense'Appeals' and

Bankruptcy. Thus, it would be fair to surmise that Mr. rce generates a significant portionof his revenue

from the defense of forecrosure cases. ls Mr. rce a bona fide comprainant or someonewho is simply

trylng to use this office to achieve legalor financial objectives?

Fromareviewofthevariouscomplaintsfiled,itisfairtomakethefollowingobservations:A.TheComplaintsfiledbyPursino,Epstein,andlcewereallreceivedbyyourofficeonor

about the same daY'B.TheComplaintsfiledbyPursinoandEpsteinarevirtuallyexactcopiesofeachother'ltiscIearthatonepersoncreatedatemplateandthatoneorbothofthemsimplycopiedit.EventheComplaintfiledbyRonaldGillisappearstobeaduplicatefromthecomplatnt

template, albeit with some additional allegations'C.VirtuallythesameformcomplaintswerefiledagainstLisaCullaroonthesameday.

Arethesegenuinecomplaintsorpartofsomethingelse?Theycertainlydonotappeartobebona fide complalnts from persons with proper standing to seek redress for wrongs allegedly done tothem. Rather, the complaints appear to part of a systematic operation intended to cast aspersions atpersons who the comprainants deem to be their adversaries in forecrosure proceedings around the stateof Frorida. we respectfulry submit that vour office shourd crose this matter summarily as it is clear thatthese compraints are not a proper use of the grievance procedure provided by your office' Additionally'allowing these complaints by persons who are not bona fide complainants throw the door wide open

formore of these sorts of third party attacks on notaries in this state'

lnadditiontothegenerallackofstandingoftheComplainants,theComplaintfiledbylcetstroubling for an additlonal reason. lce's Complaint is comprised of an attachment of a Memorandum inopposition to a Motion for Reconsideration/Rehearing of a Motion for Protective order (and hearingtranscript). As is evident from the memorandum, this is a matter that was submitted to the circuit courtsitting in Volusia County, Florida. As of the date of this Response' that case is still pending' lt is patentlyinappropriate for Mr. lce to seek to circumvent the proceedings in Volusia county by submitting thesame matter to be considered by your office The matter ralsed by Mr' lce in the Volusia county courtshould be allowed to be resolved in that forum'

lll. The AlleeationsThe complaints allege that Ms. cullaro failed to properly notarize the Affidavits attachedthereto.Specifically,thePursino,Epstein,andGillisComplaintsallallegethatMs.Cullarofailedtocompty with sections 1L7.05(3)(a), 117.05(4)(h), 117'0s(13)(a)' and 117 107(1) The Pursino' Epstein'and Gillis complaint suggest some sort of impropriety because of the fact that Erin and Lisa cullaro aresisters.in-law. The lce Complaint cites Section 1'1],1'07(1'). Lastly, the Gillis Complaint alleges that,,itappearS,,that M5. Cullaro,,may not be in full possession and control of her notary Seal.,,

il.


5/8

BecausemostoftheallegationsraisedineachoftheComplaintaremerecopiesofeachotherand further, because the compriance with the cited statutes can easily be confirmed

as to all Affldavits'the allegations are addressed herein jointly'

lV. AnalvsisThe Complaints are based on the Affidavits attached

in the Complaints must be evaluated in light of the particularA

Section 117 05(3)(a) provides as follows:AnotarVpublicsealshallbeaffixedtoallnotarizedpaperdocumentsandshallbeoftherubberstamptypeandshallincludethewords..NotaryPublic-StateofFlorida.''Thesealshallalsoincludethenameortr,'"notarypublic,thedateofexpirationofthecommissionofthenotarypublic,andthecommissionnumber.TherubberstampSeaImustbeaffixedtothenotarizedpaperdocumentinphotographicallyreproducibleblackink.Everynotarypublicshallprint,type,orStampbelowhisorhersignatureonapaperdocumenthisorhernameexactlya'scommissioned.Animpression-typesealmaybeused in addition to the rubber,tunlp,.ut, but the rubber stamp seal shall be the officialseal for use on a paper document, and the impression-type seal may not be substitutedtherefor.Section 117 05(4)(h)' provides' in relevant part' as follows:

Whennotarizingasignature,anotarypublicshallcompleteajuratornotarialcertif|cateinsubstantiallythesameformasthosefoundinsubsection(13).Thejuratorcertificateof acknowledgment shall contain the following elements:

(h) The notary's name' typed' printed' or stamped below the signature'

TheappropriatenotarypublicsealisclearlyvisibleonalloftheAffidavitsattachedtotheComplaints.ThesealincludesMs.cullaro'snameexactlyascommissionedAsaresult'Mscullaro'snameisclearlystampedbelowhersignatureincompliancewithbothSectionl0T.05(3)(a)and107.05(4)(h). See also op. Attv. Gen.074-386 (Dec' 23' tgl4)' Therefore', this allegation is unsupportedand lacks merit.

thereto. Accordingly, the allegations madeAffidavits submitted by the Complainants'

B. Section tO7 05(13)(a)Section 107.05(13)(a), provides as follows:The followrng notarial certlficates are sufficient for the purposes indicated, if completedwiththeinformationrequiredbythischapter.Thespecificationofformsunderthissubsection does not preclude the use of other forms'


6/8

The section is then followed by severalexamples of notarialcertificates'ThenotarialcertificatesontheAffidavitsattachedtotheComplaintsaresubstantiallyinthe

form prescribed by the above section. Further, section 107.05(13)(a) provides that otherforms may be

used. The key issue is whether the notariar certificates substantiaily compry andit is clear that those on

the submitted Affidavits do so compry. Therefore, any allegationto the contrary is unsupported and

wtthout merit.C. Sections 107'.107(1)AstotheallegationconcerningSectionl0T.l0T(1),Ms.Cullarousedthename,,ErinCullaro,,in

the certificate praced on the Affidavits. The name is the name under which she wascommissioned' This

is indisputable. Thus, Section 107'107(1) has not been violated'TheComplainantssuggest,however,thatitisthe,,signature,,,aSopposedtothe,,name,,,that

must exactly match the signature on the Notary public commission Application As is explainedbelow'

this suggestion is nonsensicar given: (a) a reading of chapter i-17 in para materlo and(b) the realities of

signatures versus names'Anotarypublicisnotcommissionedbyhisorhersignature.Ratheranotarypublicis

commissioned by his or her name' The section 117'05(1) specifically provides' in relevantpart' that

,,Nopersonshallobtainoruseanotarypubliccommissioninotherthanhisorherlegalname"(Emphasis added)' lt is the name of the notary public that is operative'

Further, it is the name that is included in the notary publrc's seal, whlch is the operativeinstrument that,,commissions,,the notary. rt is axiomatic that "The purpose of the notary

public seal isto authenticate the document to which it is dury affixed . . . and to provide prima facre evidence of thenotary's official character'" Fla' Jur' 2d S 50'

section 117.105(3)(a) requires that the name stamped beneath the Notary Public's signaturemustbe"exactlyascommissioned."(Emphasisadded)Thereisnosimilarrequirementregardingthesignature anywhere in chapter 1-1'7. As a result, there is no legal requirement to be found in chapter1-17 that a Notary Public's signature be"exactly"the same as a signature specimen' on the application orotherwise.

Section 1'17.1"01\1\ it provides that:

Anotarypublicmaynotuseanameorinitialinsigningcertificatesotherthanthatbywhich the notary public is commissioned'ThislanguageCannotbelookedatintheabstracttocreatesomeSortofartificialrequirementthatisneitherfoundintherestofChapterl.l1norconsistentwiththebalanceoftheStatute.Section1.11,107(I)must be read in the context of the entire statute in order to implement the purpose ofchapter 117. Fra. Dept. of State v. Martin, 916 So.2d 763 (Fra. 2005) (statutory provisions relating to thesame subject must be construed together to create harmony and give effect to the legislature's


7/8

intent); ' 986 so'2d 1260' 1265(Fla' 2008) (a

subsection of a statute cannot be read in irotution; instead ,, *ur, be read "withinthe context of the

entire section in order to ascertain regisrative intent for the provision";each statute ''must be read as a

whore with meaning ascribed to every portion and due regard given to the semanticand contextual

interrelationship between its parts")'lnterpretingSectionl.lT.l0T(1)inthemannerapparentlysuggestedbytheDefendantswould

create an untenabre outcome. A review of the Notary pub'c Commission Appricationsubmitted by Ms'

Culraro i'ustrates the point.2 Ms. cutaro,s signature on her application is a seriesof squiggles' lt is

certainry not a ,,name,, by any stretch of the imagination and no person presentedwith that signature

alonewouldbeabletofigureoutthename,orperson,thatwentwithit.Ms.Cullaroisonlyoneofmany who srgn in a manner that their name cannot be recognized by the signature

alone'3

Rather,itisMs.Cullaro,sNotaryPublicSealthatletsthirdpartiesl


8/8

APPENDIX

1.

2.

RE sP oN sE oN BpI!!!{:9J[ ERrl\:9:u+L+5o

Thomaslce,Esquire,sNoticeofAppearanceonBehalfofLisaEpstetn.Daity Business Review article dated July 7, 2010 regarding Thomas Ice'Esq.opinionoftheAttorneyGeneralNo.0T4-386'datedDecember23,1974.Fla. Jur. 2d $ 50, Notarial Seal'Ela. Dept. of State v' Martin,916 So'2d 763 (Fla' 2005)'Fla. Dept. of E,nvtl. Prot. v. ContractPoint Fla. Parks. LLC. 986 So.2d |260(Fla. 2008).LeonCountyv.State.Dept.ofComm.Affairs,666So.2d1003(Fla.1stDCA 1996).

s,72 So.2d 34 (Fla' 1954)'Lamar outdoor Advertisine-Lakeland v. Fla' DOT, 17 So'3d 799 (Ist DCA200e).Smith v. McEwen, 161 So' 68 (Fla' 1935)'

aJ.4.5.6.

7.

8.9.

10.

of Lvons--IngJ

Erin Cullaro Response to Notary Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Erin Cullaro Response to Notary Complaint