Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
(g), herein files cross claims of fraud against the plaintiffs. Since filing the
original complaint, the plaintiffs have committed at least three counts of fraud with
house by the plaintiff attorney David J Stern over 2 years after filing the
complaint, (2) a recent contradictory answer to interrogatories concerning
finding the lost note, and most recently (3) a return of service affidavit.
I: Statement of Facts
Case History
enforce a lost note. Paragraph (3) alleges; (See “Plaintiff’s Complaint Exhibit ‘A’).
not the plaintiff. MERS is listed as the mortgagee acting under Delaware state law.
been executed, was not attached. There is nothing in the original complaint
2
and attachments to show or prove that the plaintiff has standing to foreclose
execution date is October 19, 2007. This affidavit admits and reveals that the
Plaintiff has never recovered the original note. (See Exhibit “B” paragraph 4).
7. The plaintiffs move for summary judgment 1 year and 7 months after
filing the complaint in spite of the fact there is still nothing in the record to
executing an Assignment of Mortgage dated August 09, 2009 - almost two and
one half years after filing the foreclosure complaint. The plaintiff attempts to
“backdate” the assignment two and one half years prior. (See Exhibit “C”).
plaintiff’s attorney, David J Stern in plantation FL., over 2 years AFTER filing
the foreclosure complaint. It was then notarized in South Carolina by Lisa Ryhne,
3
11. David Stern is now under investigation by the Attorney General.
Ex-paralegals, plural, for Mr. Stern have given sworn depositions to the
National Association, as, Trustee for The Structured Asset Securities Corporation
13. The effective date of this alleged David J. Stern prepared MERS
2007. The note is still alleged to be lost at the execution, filing, and effective date
of this so-called assignment. The effective date predates the notary’s commission.
15. On July 6, 2010 the plaintiffs attempts a third summary judgment hearing.
produces, “out of his bag”, what he claims to be the original promissory note
after having been lost for over three (3) years. This lost note suddenly produced
also names EquiFirst corp. as the payee, not the plaintiff. (See Note Exhibit “D”).
17. On October 22, 2010 the case is finally set for trial by Judge Garrison. The
18. On October 28, 2010 Michael K. Winston, Bar # 051403, files a notice of
4
19. On November 03, 2010, after successfully knocking the case from the trial
concerning finding the long lost note. The answer alleges that the original note was
given to the plaintiff’s attorney specifically on April 20, 2007. (See “Exhibit “E”).
20. On November 24, 2010, this new lawyer filed a return of service affidavit
Count 1
21. On 09/28/2009, while the note was still lost, the plaintiff attempts a second
almost 2 and 1/2 years after filing the foreclosure complaint. The plaintiff attempts
to “backdate” the assignment two and one half years prior. (See Exhibit “C”).
plaintiff’s attorney, David J Stern in plantation FL., over 2 years AFTER filing
the foreclosure complaint. It was then notarized in South Carolina by known robo-
signers Yolanda Williams and Lisa Ryhne. (See “Exhibit “C” heading ).
23. The assignment on its face raises a serious issue of fact, whether the
Plaintiff had standing to file a foreclosure complaint 2 years and 4 months before
5
executing an assignment. See WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE v. SALOMON,
months after filing the complaint. This case has a backdated assignment executed a
Count 2
Answer to Interrogatories – Lost Note
\
Judgment has an execution date of October 19, 2007. The plaintiffs own
affidavit filed by a bank Vice President admits and reveals that the
Plaintiff has never recovered the original note. (Exhibit “B” paragraph. 4).
6
27. On July 6, 2010 the plaintiffs attempts a third summary judgment hearing.
produces, “out of his bag”, what he claims to be the original promissory note
after having been lost for over three (3) years. This unendorsed long, long lost
28. On November 03, 2010, alleged newly retained Mr. Winston, Bar #
051403 files Answer to Interrogatories concerning finding the long lost note. The
answer alleges that the original note was given to the plaintiff’s attorney specifically
on April 20, 2007 This would have put the original note in the attorney’s hands 6
months prior to filing the affidavit claiming it to be lost. (See “Exhibit “E”).
29. This Answer to Interrogatories concerning finding the long lost has as a
expires on 04/13/2011.
30. The defendant wishes to depose this affiant. Among other things, find
out when US Bank National hired him. Who held his position prior? Where is
7
his office located? And most importantly, why does this Bank’s Default
the banks “Default Loan Specialist” recently is fraudulent and that the affidavit
Count 3
Return of Service Affidavit
30. On October 22, 2010 this case is finally set for trial by Judge Garrison. The
31. On October 28, 2010 Michael K. Winston, bar# 051403, files a notice of
appearance as co-counsel. He succeeds in knocking the case from the trial docket. He
alleges to have been retained by the plaintiff and not David J. Stern.
8
32. On December 2, 2010, Michael K. Winston, Bar# 051403, co-counsel with
David Stern’s lead affidavit signing paralegal – (up to 1000 a day), Cheryl Samons.
recorded bond for process serving contains her signature. This certified copy of
Susan R. Upthegroove’s signature doesn’t even come close to the signature in their
two months before the time of the alleged return of service signing are attached.
These two signatures of Susan R. Upthegroove is also very much different than
the one alleged on the return of service affidavit. (See Exhibit “I”).
37. The defendant challenges whether the plaintiff retained Mr. Winston’s
services or did David J. Stern hire him simply to knock the case from the trial
9
affidavit. The defendant asks for proof that Mr. Winston has standing to appear on
38 As it stands, the case file record contains genuine issues of fact. The
forgery.
III: CONCLUSION
38. This David J. Stern case is a classic example of how the foreclosure
mills have resorted to fraudulent lost note claims, filing false affidavits, creating in
house back dated mortgage assignments to give the illusion of legal transfers, and
10
note-pooled certificate. The certificate is then sold to a trustee that
governs the pool. The note passes through 3 or 4 owners before the
IV: RELIEF
39. The defendant seeks the following relief and any other such relief that
concerning finding the lost note based on the previous filed Affidavit in
appear as co-counsel.
11
e) A finding of forgery of the return of service affidavit.
monetary penalties and/or fines that the court deems to be necessary, just,
and/or proper.
V: LIST OF EXHIBITS
40. The list of exhibits is derived from the documents filed by the plaintiff and
a) Exhibit “A” - The plaintiff’s original complaint with the mortgage sought to
Judgment with notary execution date of October 19, 2007 but filed Nov. 20, 2008.
by plaintiff’s attorney David J. Stern in-house and executed on August 09, 2009.
12
f) Exhibit “F” – Plaintiff’s Return of Service filed by Michael Winston on
e) Exhibit “G” – Copy of David J. Stern lead affidavit signing paralegal, (up to
court recorded bond for process serving containing her signature dated January 09, 1996.
recorded mortgage deed, containing two of her signature dated February 09, 2007, just
Certificate of Service
I Declare that the contents in these cross claims are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge. I further declare that a true and correct copy of these Cross
David J. Stern, 900 South Pine Island Road Suite 400, Plantation, FL 33324-3920
(954) 233-8000.
13
_______________________________
Sharon Metzgar
301 Henthorne Drive
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Ph: (561) 281-9543
14