Conflict Of Interest | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "conflict of interest"

Controversy Over State Use Of Outside Legal Counsel Expands To LPS Robo-Signing Lawsuit

Controversy Over State Use Of Outside Legal Counsel Expands To LPS Robo-Signing Lawsuit


What is wrong with people these days???

They should have known better going up against AG Masto!


Nevada News Bureau-

CARSON CITY – When state Sen. Greg Brower asked the Attorney General’s office earlier this month about the $6 million in outside legal costs incurred so far in defending the state in a freeway construction dispute, he said his motives were purely fiscal in nature.

“We just don’t have money to waste,” said Brower, R-Reno. “At least this particular situation seems to suggest that maybe we are. Maybe there are good answers to all of these questions I raised in my letter but there is only one way to find out and that is to ask them.”

State Sen. Greg Brower, R-Reno. / Nevada News Bureau file photo.

But the use of outside counsel is being questioned in another case where Brower’s law firm, Snell & Wilmer, is representing a company being sued by Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who is also using the services of a private law firm.

[NEVADA NEWS BUREAU]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

The Sanders Report on the GAO Audit on Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve

The Sanders Report on the GAO Audit on Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve


The Sanders Report on the GAO Audit on Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Washington, DC
October 19, 2011

[ipaper docId=69476603 access_key=key-26etn7unk59fdnkzkrp7 height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

GAO Finds Serious Conflicts at the Fed: Jamie Dimon was on the board of the NY Fed while his bank received loans from the Fed Reserve.

GAO Finds Serious Conflicts at the Fed: Jamie Dimon was on the board of the NY Fed while his bank received loans from the Fed Reserve.


Excerpt via Senator Sanders-

The report by the non-partisan research arm of Congress did not name but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest, including:

  • Stephen Friedman In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, chairman of the New York Fed, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed’s rules prohibited. He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public. After Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed, according to the GAO.
  • Jeffrey Immelt The Federal Reserve Bank of New York consulted with General Electric on the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program while Immelt, GE’s CEO, served as a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  • Jamie Dimon The CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed’s emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns.At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

While Fighting To Block SEC Investigation Of Goldman Sachs, Rep. Darrell Issa Bought Goldman Sachs Bonds

While Fighting To Block SEC Investigation Of Goldman Sachs, Rep. Darrell Issa Bought Goldman Sachs Bonds


According to documents filed recently with the House Clerk, Issa went on a buying spree of high yield Goldman Sachs bonds at the same time he was running defense for the investment bank in Congress.

ThinkProgress-

Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) raised hell last year to stop the federal government from investigating Goldman Sachs regarding allegations that the company defrauded investors. In April 2010, shortly after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a civil suit against Goldman Sachs, Issa sent a letter to SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro demanding to know if there was “any sort of prearrangement, coordination, direction from, or advance notice” between the SEC and the Obama administration or congressional Democrats over the timing of the lawsuit.

Continue reading [THINKPROGRESS]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (5)

INESCAPABLE CONFLICT | ALTA CEO Pfotenhauer Now Chairman of MERS

INESCAPABLE CONFLICT | ALTA CEO Pfotenhauer Now Chairman of MERS


ALTA CEO Now Chairman of MERS

ALTA CEO Kurt Pfotenhauer was recently named Chairman of Board for the controversial MERS registry system, according to ALTA’s Justin Ailes.  Click above to learn what this means.

via NAILTA.org

.

.

.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

In foreclosure? Can’t be found? More Twisted, Conflicts of Interest.

In foreclosure? Can’t be found? More Twisted, Conflicts of Interest.


As if it hasn’t been a conflict when MERS is the nominee for the plaintiff but is also named or is the mortgagee for the defendant…what a total state of confusion.

Oh wait there’s more, and who signs and notarizes these documents entered as evidence in most cases?

TBO.com

TAMPA – When a lender fails to find a homeowner to notify them of a foreclosure lawsuit, a judge often appoints a guardian ad item. That attorney is supposed to represent the property owner’s interests.

But guess who typically picks the guardian? The lender’s attorney.


© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Full Deposition Transcript of ROY DIAZ Shareholder of Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. Law Firm

Full Deposition Transcript of ROY DIAZ Shareholder of Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. Law Firm


Excerpts:

Q. So through that corporate authority as
Exhibit 4 to this deposition, MERS assented to the terms
Of this assignment of mortgage?

A. Through me.

Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of
This assignment of mortgage.

A. The one in this case, yes.

Q. And no one else.

A. Correct

Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS
acting solely as a nominee for America’s Wholesale
Lender; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for
America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. By reviewing documentation.

Q. What documentation?

A. I don’t specifically recall what I reviewed
In this case to see that, to determine that, but I would
have reviewed either the mortgage or I would have
reviewed other documentation that would have established
that to me.

Q. So in this case you don’t remember a single
Document that you looked at that would establish the
Nominee status of MERS for America’s Wholesale Lenders;
Is that correct?

A. I don’t

Q. Did someone at America’s Wholesale Lender
Tell you that MERS was acting as the nominee?

A. No.

Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were
Acting as Nominee for America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. NO.

Q. Was America’s Wholesale Lender in existence
On May 19, 2010?

A. don’t now.

Q. Did you check that before signing this
assignment of mortgage?

A. No.

<SNIP>

Q. Now, you’ve said you review the MERS
Website and you’ve seen documents like this, like
Composite Exhibit 6. Any reason why you wouldn’t review
the documents contained in Exhibit 6 before executing the
assignment of mortgage?

A. It’s not necessary.

Q. Why not?

A. Because it’s not. Because I decided it’s
not.

Q. You as vice president of MERS?

A. In every possible capacity as it relates to
This case.

Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage
after being retained as counsel for the plaintiff?

A. After my law firm was retained?

Q. (Nods head.)

A. Is that the question?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be
Used as evidence in your case, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. It’s a sure.

Q. Is that a yes o a no?

A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a
No?

Q. Okay. So…

A. It’s a yes.

Q. It’s a yes.

And were you aware when you signed the
assignment of mortgage that MERS was a defendant in this
Case?

[ipaper docId=53916343 access_key=key-1rk8dl6pcjqgja1oy0ki height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Baum’s practices come under intense scrutiny

Baum’s practices come under intense scrutiny


BuffaloNews

An investigation by the state attorney general into Steven J. Baum PC is shining a new spotlight on the practices of the prominent Amherst foreclosure law firm, at a time when judges and lawyers downstate are accusing it of filing shoddy court documents.

Once little known outside Western New York, Baum has gained notoriety statewide and nationally, as the firm’s work in the foreclosure crisis placed it in the midst of the controversy over improper legal paperwork and so-called “robo-signing.”

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Conflict of Interest? Federal Judges’ ties to Bank of America…Remember the UTAH CASE???

Conflict of Interest? Federal Judges’ ties to Bank of America…Remember the UTAH CASE???


If youl recall my post Notice of Appeal Filed – Stay of Court Order to Vacate Injunction Stopping Bank of America Foreclosures in Utah Requested

I stated There is something not right here and I think the outcome might surprise us!

WELL HERE IT IS.

Reported by: Kelli O’Hara
Last Update: 1:29 am

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (ABC 4 News) – “They’re foreclosing illegally here in Utah,” those were the words of St. George Attorney John Christian Barlow spoken in early June. Barlow at the time had appeared before a Federal Judge arguing that the Banking Giant, Bank of America, was foreclosing illegally in the State of Utah. The Southern Utah Attorney believed that because B.O.A was not a registered business or corporation in the state, they lacked authority to do business here.

Barlow had succeeded in getting a 5th Circuit Court Judge to agree with him; as a result the judge imposed an injunction on all Bank of America foreclosures. Weeks later, the case went before a Federal Judge where B.O.A. argued that they were regulated by Federal Laws not State. Federal Judge Clark Waddoups heard case, and threw out the injunction therefore Bank of America’s foreclosure company: ReConTrust was allowed to foreclose once again.

After the decision, ABC4 got a tip about the case and started digging. Our tipster said that the Judge may have a conflict of interest in hearing the B.O.A. cases. Why? Because the Judge Waddoups old law firm represents Bank of America.

We checked into Waddoups background and the Federal Judge did work for Parr,Brown, Gee & Loveless for nearly 30 years. And Waddoups, as of 2008, drew a pension from the law firm. We placed a call to the firm, but they wouldn’t comment if the former firm Partner had ever handled B.O.A cases.

Continue reading …ABC4

RELATED ARTICLE BELOW:

_____________________________________

What does DJSP, Enterprises Newly Appointed Counsel have in common with PBC Judge Meenu Sasser?

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bac home loans, bank of america, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Recontrust, stopforeclosurefraud.comComments (2)

GMAC, Steven Baum Law Firm Face FORECLOSURE FIGHT in NY COURT

GMAC, Steven Baum Law Firm Face FORECLOSURE FIGHT in NY COURT


DING DING DING…Let the fight begin!

GMAC faces New York foreclosure brawl

By RICHARD WILNER
Last Updated: 1:36 AM, July 6, 2010
Posted: 1:31 AM, July 6, 2010

A Bronx homeowner is scheduled for a courtroom battle royale later this month — facing off in Manhattan bankruptcy court against the largest foreclosure mill in the state to see if the firm’s client, GMAC Mortgage, has the right to toss her from her Pelham Gardens home.

Also at issue is whether the law firm, Steven J. Baum PC, may have a conflict of interest problem.

The lawyer for the homeowner, David Shaev, claims in recently filed court papers that a Baum lawyer allegedly represented GMAC without disclosing she worked for Baum.

The thorny issue is of growing interest to New York judges — who last year faced more than 50,350 foreclosure actions, according to RealtyTrac, many of which were brought by banks that have sold or securitized the loans. Such actions make proving which entity owns the loan difficult.

<caption><strong>DAVID  SHAEV</strong><br>Fighting foreclosure.</caption>

DAVID SHAEV Fighting foreclosure.

That issue is key — banks that can’t prove they own a loan can’t legally foreclose. At times, lenders and law firms have been chastised for taking short cuts to gloss over the ownership issue.

Complicating matters is that most delinquent homeowners battle foreclosure actions without a lawyer and get steamrolled.

But that may be changing.

On June 3, Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper denied a bank’s attempt to move against a homeowner because it couldn’t prove it owned a mortgage.

Five days later, Brooklyn state court Judge Wayne P. Saitta, citing a bank’s “egregious” misrepresentation, awarded a homeowner $10,000 in sanctions when the bank tried to evict knowing it didn’t own the mortgage.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, GMAC, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Steven J BaumComments (0)

Glenn Beck on The Goldman Sachs Connection

Glenn Beck on The Goldman Sachs Connection


So what does this ‘FRAUD” mean and the AIG bailout they received?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERBmoV_WQU8]

 

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, FED FRAUD, federal reserve board, goldman sachs, hank paulson, john paulson, naked short sellingComments (0)

Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Weapon- Motion to Disqualify Counsel!

Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Weapon- Motion to Disqualify Counsel!


From Matt Weidner Blog

Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Weapon- Motion to Disqualify Counsel!

March 29th, 2010 ·

As more and more depositions are being taken of robo signers and other witnesses who appear in foreclosure cases by signing documents, a troubling issue has emerged….conflict of interest by the foreclosure mills that are staying up day and night to push their garbage foreclosure cases through.

There are only two or three documents that must be filed by the Plaintiff in order to be granted foreclosure. These documents must be trustworthy if a court is to rely upon them to grant foreclosure and deprive a homeowner of possession of the home.  What we’ve found through deposition and discovery is that attorneys who work in the foreclosure mills are signing the key documents that allow their firms to prevail in their cases. This is a staggering violation of the rules of professional ethics, but this practice is apparently quite widespread with groups of attorneys in the mills routinely signing documents, especially assignments of mortgages, allegedly on behalf of MERS in particular.  Any document signed by an attorney working for the Plaintiff is ethically improper, but very serious conflict of interest questions are raised when an assignment transfers the first mortgage to the Plaintiff while at the same time, there is any sort of second mortgage and certainly when the Plaintiff lists MERS as a Defendant.

An Absolute Conflict of Interest Anytime A Second Mortgage Exists

MERS is listed as the “mortgagee” or “nominee” on virtually every mortgage that is currently subject to foreclosure.  As we know from depositions, whenever the Plaintiff’s law firm needs to show evidence that the named plaintiff has the right to foreclose a mortgage, either an attorney in the office creates this false assignment or they send instructions to a document mill where the false assignment is signed by a robo signer.  Title attorneys and attorneys with a real estate background dispute the validity of any assignment from MERS (see Kessler v. Landmark) because MERS simply does not have the authority to issue assignments.  Setting this argument aside for just a moment however, the problem with any party acting on instructions from the Plaintiff’s firm is that this party is an agent of the Plaintiff law firm…I cannot conceive of any litigation where it would be permissible for a law firm to instruct his client, “Here’s the evidence I need”, and that client would produce the “evidence” according to instruction and return to the attorney who submits this “evidence” to the court. And yet this happens in virtually every foreclosure across the country….but wait, I got sidetracked down one ethical minefield, when I started in another direction.

When MERS executes one questionable assignment of mortgage (all MERS assignments are questionable) for the first mortgage and there is also a second mortgage that must be foreclosed, Plaintiff’s firms are often not bothering to serve the holder of the second mortgage…all they’re bothering to do is get “service” for that second mortgage on MERS…problematic in any case, but especially problematic when the agent for MERs on either the first or the second mortgage are either an attorney working for the Plaintiff or an agent of the attorney.  What follows here is a discussion of some of the ethical issues posed by such practices, and then posted here is a Motion to Disqualify Counsel which Foreclosure Fraud Fighter Mark Stopa has recently been using with great results…bottom line is the Motion to Disqualify must be heard before any substantive issues are addressed, and the foreclosure mills never want these Motions to Disqualify to be heard by a judge…..if judges started hearing these arguments on a regular basis they may never get around to granting foreclosure…and now, directly from the Florida Bar Journal:

Under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct,  an attorney generally must not act as advocate at a trial in which the  attorney is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the  client. 1 The purpose of the  rule is to prevent evils that arise when a lawyer dons the hat of both  advocate and witness for his own client, as such dual role can  prejudice the opposing side or create a conflict of interest. 2
“At  a trial,” as used in the rule, does not encompass pre-trial or   post-trial proceedings, and thus, does not preclude the attorney from  conducting a pre-trial deposition, even if it were likely that the  attorney would be called as a witness at a trial. 3 Generally, where an attorney is a necessary  witness for a client, the trial of the case should be left to other  counsel; the dual capacity of counsel
and witness in the trial of a  cause should be avoided if possible. 4 If, from the outset, an attorney knows or can  reasonably anticipate that his or her testimony will be essential to  the prosecution of his or her client’s case, the attorney should  decline the representation altogether. 5 To avoid jeopardizing a client’s cause of action,  the better practice is for counsel who must decline or withdraw from  representation to arrange to have other counsel conduct the trial when  it is apparent that either he or a member of his firm will be required  to testify on behalf of his client. 6

The  mere possibility that the attorney would or might be a necessary   witness is insufficient. 7  Furthermore, unsubstantiated claims that plaintiff’s attorney is a  material witness will not disqualify the attorney from representing  his client. 8 Likewise, a  defendant’s motion for disqualification of a plaintiff’s attorney will  not be granted on the ground that the attorney “should be” a witness  for the plaintiffs where the plaintiffs testify that they prefer to  have their attorney act as their counsel rather than have him testify  in their behalf, and where it appears that any information the attorney possess is not crucial and could be presented through the   testimony of others. 9The  rule requiring a lawyer to withdraw when he expects to be a necessary   witness in a case is not designed to permit a lawyer to call opposing   counsel as a witness and thereby disqualify him as counsel. 10 Indeed, the District Court of Appeal  views with some skepticism motions to disqualify an attorney on the  grounds that the attorney will be a material witness in the case,  since such motions are sometimes filed for tactical or harassing   reasons, rather than the proper reason. 11 Opposing counsel should not be permitted to force  disassociation between counsel and client just by calling counsel as  an adverse witness, and a lawyer need not withdraw from a case where   the mere possibility exists that he or she might be called to testify  by the adversary party, as this would create the situation in which  the adversary could disassociate the client’s chosen  counsel. 12

However, although disqualification of an attorney  is an extraordinary remedy to be resorted to only sparingly, 13 when it is shown that the attorney will  be an indispensable witness or when the attorney becomes a “central   figure” in the case, disqualification is appropriate. Thus,  disqualification of an attorney from representation of defendants at  the trial was warranted in a defamation action where the attorney was  likely to be the featured witness at the trial, adducing evidence as  to plaintiff’s activities. 14  Likewise, an attorney was properly disqualified from representing the  personal
representative in a will contest, where the attorney had  prepared and witnessed the contested will, and, therefore, would be a  witness on matters of substance at the trial. 15 Also, both an attorney and the attorney’s firm   should have been disqualified from representation, where an attorney  brought an action against a partnership for his wife in a  slip-and-fall case and for himself on a claim for loss of consortium,  and the attorney’s partner had represented the partnership and still  served as its resident agent for service of process, because the  attorney could well be called to testify, resulting in a violation of  a rule of professional conduct, and the firm, through its  representation, may have had access to privileged information of the  partnership. 16

¨ Observation: A  litigant’s action in causing the disqualification of its opponent’s  trial counsel enjoyed absolute immunity from a later claim of tortious  interference with a business relationship, where the litigant   certified to the trial court an intent to call opposing counsel as a  witness at trial, thereby causing opposing counsel to be disqualified,  but later failed to subpoena and call counsel as a witness at trial,  and when a judgment was entered against the litigant, disqualified  counsel brought an action against the litigant for tortious  interference with a business relationship. 17

FOOTNOTE 1. Rules  Regulating the Florida Bar, Rule 4-3.7(a).

Annotation References

Attorney as witness for client in civil  proceedings—modern state cases, 35
A.L.R. 4th 810.

Trial Strategy References

Attorney Malpractice in Real Estate Transactions,  27 Am. Jur. Proof of
Facts 3d 353.

Existence of attorney–client Relationship, 48 Am.  Jur. Proof of Facts 2d
525.

FOOTNOTE 2. Scott v.  State, 717 So. 2d 908, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S175 (Fla.
1998), reh’g  denied, (June 15, 1998).

FOOTNOTE 3. Columbo v.  Puig, 745 So. 2d 1106, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2705
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d  Dist. 1999).

FOOTNOTE 4. Dudley v.  Wilson, 152 Fla. 752, 13 So. 2d 145 (1943).

FOOTNOTE 5. Hubbard v.  Hubbard, 233 So. 2d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th
Dist. 1970) (decided  under predecessor law governing the Bar).

FOOTNOTE 6. Beavers v.  Conner, 258 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d
Dist. 1972), appeal  after remand, 289 So. 2d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist.
1974)  (decided under predecessor law governing the Bar).

FOOTNOTE 7. Srour v.  Srour, 733 So. 2d 593, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1329 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App.  5th Dist. 1999).

Singer Island Ltd., Inc. v. Budget Const. Co.,  Inc., 714 So. 2d 651, 23
Fla. L. Weekly D1773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th  Dist. 1998).

A franchiser’s attorney was not required to be  disqualified for conflict
of interest based on the attorney’s previous  representation of a franchisee,
where the attorney previously had  written two letters and had sat in on
meetings with the franchisee in  connection with the franchisee’s claim that
its assignor was in breach  of its noncompetition agreement and, when the
franchisee brought an  action against the franchiser alleging a breach of the
franchise  agreement, contended that the attorney should be disqualified,
even  though there was no evidence that the attorney’s testimony would be
necessary or that his testimony would be averse to the franchiser’s  position.

Swensen’s Ice Cream Co. v. Voto, Inc., 652 So. 2d  961, 20 Fla. L. Weekly
D811 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist.  1995).

FOOTNOTE 8. Pascucci v.  Pascucci, 679 So. 2d 1311, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2142
(Fla. Dist. Ct.  App. 4th Dist. 1996).

FOOTNOTE 9. Cazares v.  Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 429 So.
2d 348 (Fla. Dist.  Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1983), petition for review denied,
438 So. 2d 831  (Fla. 1983) and related reference, 444 So. 2d 442 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App.  5th Dist. 1983).

FOOTNOTE 10. Allstate Ins.  Co. v. English, 588 So. 2d 294, 16 Fla. L.
Weekly D2774 (Fla. Dist.  Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1991).

Arcara v. Philip M. Warren, P.A., 574 So. 2d 325,  16 Fla. L. Weekly 530
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991).

Ray v. Stuckey, 491 So. 2d 1211, 11 Fla. L.  Weekly 1569 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1st Dist. 1986).

FOOTNOTE 11. Singer Island  Ltd., Inc. v. Budget Const. Co., Inc., 714 So.
2d 651, 23 Fla. L.  Weekly D1773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1998).

FOOTNOTE 12. Allstate Ins.  Co. v. English, 588 So. 2d 294, 16 Fla. L.
Weekly D2774 (Fla. Dist.  Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1991).

FOOTNOTE 13. § 329.

FOOTNOTE 14. Fleitman v.  McPherson, 691 So. 2d 37, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D884
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App.  1st Dist. 1997), related reference, 704 So. 2d 587, 22
Fla. L. Weekly  D2091 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997).

FOOTNOTE 15. Larkin v.  Pirthauer, 700 So. 2d 182, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2387
(Fla. Dist. Ct.  App. 4th Dist. 1997).

FOOTNOTE 16. Springtree  Country Club Plaza, Ltd. v. Blaut, 642 So. 2d 27,
19 Fla. L. Weekly  D1704 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1994).

FOOTNOTE 17. Levin,  Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v.
U.S. Fire  Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S347 (Fla. 1994).

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, matt weidner blog, MERSComments (0)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives