-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
1/24
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
2/24
not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction
plaintiffs who make false allegations.3
3. On December 9, 2010, the Supreme Court clarified its position and stated: Along with the
amendments to form 1.996(a), rule 1.110(b) was amended to require verification of
mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. One of the primarypurposes of this amendment was to ensure that the allegations in the complaint are
accurate.4
4. Florida Statutes section 92.525 is the statutory framework for verification of documents and
states that (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or
by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be
accomplished in the following manner: (a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered
before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or (b) By the signing of the
written declaration prescribed in subsection (2).5
5. Florida Statutes section 92.525(2) states that as a requirement, a written declaration as defined
under section 92.525(1) of the Florida Statutes, means the following statement: Under
penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts
stated in it are true, followed by the signature of the personmaking the declaration, except
when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words to
the best of my knowledge and belief may be added. The written declaration shall be
printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and
above the signature of the person making the declaration.6
6. Florida Statutes section 92.525(3) states that [a] person who knowingly makes a false
declaration under subsection (2) is guilty of the crime of perjury by false writtendeclaration, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
or s. 775.084.7
7. An opinion by the Florida Attorney General dated June 13, 1995 states that a verification may
be made on information or belief, if authorized by law, and will be sufficient to subject
the affiant to penalties of perjury.8
3 In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, No. SC09-1579, (Feb. 11, 2010). (emphasis added)
4 In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure-Form (Final Judgment of Foreclosure), Case No.SC09-1579. (emphasis added)
5 Fla. Stat. 92.525(1). (emphasis added)
6 Fla. Stat. 92.525(2). (emphasis added)
7 Fla. Stat. 92.525(3). (emphasis added)
8 Op.Atty.Gen. 95-40, June 13, 1995. (emphasis added)
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
3/24
8. Florida Statutes section 92.525(4)(b) states that [t]he term document means any writing
including, without limitation, any form, application, claim, notice, tax return, inventory,
affidavit, pleading, or paper.9
9. Florida Statutes section 92.525(4)(c) states that [t]he requirement that a document be
verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that theperson must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the
document are true, or words of that import or effect.10
10. A Judge may dismiss the action with or without prejudice if the court determines a
fraud on the court has occurred. The requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be
demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some
unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to
impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly
hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.11
11. "There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a
scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for
the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent
acts)."12
12. The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud
statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication
made in furtherance of the scheme.13
13. When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should consider the proper mix of factors
and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competingpolicies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.14
9 Fla. Stat. 92.525(4)(b). (emphasis added)
10 Fla. Stat. 92.525(4)(c). (emphasis added)
11 Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989). (emphasis added)
12 Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954)("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of aletter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud,31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).
13 United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identicalto mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses,(2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wirecommunications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wirefraud requires proof of (1) a scheme todefraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further thescheme.").
14 Id. at 1117-18. (emphasis added)
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
4/24
14. Because dismissal sounds the death knell of the lawsuit, courts must reserve such
strong medicine for instances where the defaulting party's misconduct is correspondingly
egregious.15
15. The trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial
discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, orwhere a party refuses to comply with court orders.16
DEPOSITION OF WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.EMPLOYEE AND LEGAL PROCESS SPECIALIST
ALDEN BERNER, CO-WORKER AND TEAM MEMBER OF WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.
EMPLOYEE AND LEGAL PROCESS SPECIALIST DEBORAH BLANEY, AKA DEBRA BLANEY
16. A deposition of Alden Berner, a Legal Process Specialist for Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,
filed and admitted in three cases involving Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as plaintiff with Case
Numbers 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB, and 2010-CA-016671-MB, was
taken December 7, 2010 where Carlton Fields, P.A., through its employee and attorney
Michael K. Winston, Esq., Florida Bar Number 51403 with its business address being
City Place Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200, West Palm Beach, Florida
33401-6149 appeared as counsel and attorney for plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
17. In said deposition dated December 7, 2010, Alden Berner testified that himself, Debra
Blaney, and Craig Zecher reviewed all mortgage foreclosure cases filed in the State of
Florida on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.17
Q. What type of training did you get as far as that goes for the -- when you
first became the legal process specialist and dealt with the land
transactions?
A. My training that I received when I originally started with land transactions, I
received training on reviewing plat maps, legal descriptions, titles, and the
various investor requirements for those loans that I reviewed.18
[ ... ]
15 Id. at 1118 (emphasis added)
16 Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). (emphasis added)
17 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 12 - 17.
18 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 12.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
5/24
Q. Who is your supervisor?
A. Mark Kline.
Q. Is he still your supervisor?
A. Yes.
MR. WINSTON: That's K L I N E.
BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
Q. And is he also located in the same office as you are, on Stage Coach Circle?
A. Yes 19
[ ... ]
Q. Okay. How was it determined that you would review a given mortgage
foreclosure, was it by geographical area, was it by name?
A. It was just we handled Florida -- the entire state of Florida.
Q. "We," being who?
A. Myself and my team, my co-workers.
Q. Okay. So there was yourself and --
A. Two other co-workers.
Q. Who?
A. Deborah Blaney.
Q. Can you spell her last name?
A. B L A N E Y. And Craig, C R A I G, Zecher, Z E C H E R.
Q. And yourself?
19Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 13.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
6/24
A. And myself, yes.20
[ ... ]
Q. Okay. Did you have any states that you were responsible for -- did the
three of you have any states that you were responsible for other than
Florida?
A. No.
Q. And were the three of you reviewing all of the foreclosure complaints
within the state of Florida?
A. Yes.21
18. In said deposition dated December 7, 2010, Alden Berner testified that it is standard
and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. not to look at either a note or
mortgage when verifying a foreclosure Complaint.22
Q. Do you ever get a look at the actual loan document itself, the note or the
mortgage?
MR. [MICHAEL K. WINSTON]: Object to form.
THE WITNESS [ALDEN BERNER]: No.
Q. How about do you get a look at any documents that actually transfer or
assign ownership of any note or mortgage?
A. No, I do not look at them, but I don't need to look at them because I know what
our processes are that refer those loans to our attorneys. And I rely that our
attorneys do their job and put the information in those complaints accurately
20Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 15-16.
21Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 17.
22 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 31 - 49.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
7/24
and correctly based on the information that was provided to them in our referral
process.23
19. In said deposition dated December 7, 2010, Alden Berner testified that it is standard
and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to base their verification solely on
information from a computer screen without any confirmation as to the source of saidinformation.
Q. Do you personally play any role in determining who is or isn't the proper
person or entity for the name to foreclose in?
A. No.
Q. As far as that information is concerned you're relying upon the information you
get from the Investor Matrix?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's computer information that's generated where?
A. I don't know where it is generated, I do know that it is generated by a
department of Wells Fargo who maintains the information that is in that Matrix,
and that Matrix is updated weekly.
Q. Who prepares that Matrix?
A. I don't know who prepares the Matrix.
Q. How does the information get into that Matrix?
A. I am not exactly sure how that information gets in the Matrix.24
[...]
Q. Correct. Okay. Now, how do you know that distinction, the owner versus the
name to foreclose in?
A. I look at our system, per our system it gives us codes, which we need to then
plug those codes into the Investor Matrix; that Investor Matrix is what we relyon to give us that information.
23 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 36.
24 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 34 - 35.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
8/24
Q. All right. Then how do you verify that information, if at all?
MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
THE WITNESS: Again, I take the information from the loan, the codes from
the loan, and I plug those codes into our Investor Matrix; and our InvestorMatrix gives me what the correct -- who the owner and the correct name to
foreclose in, and that's what I rely on.
Q. Okay. So, when you're reviewing the information as far as who the proper name
is for the entity to own the loan and to bring the lawsuit in you're relying on the
information that's in that computer system, the Investor Matrix?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you ever get a look at the actual loan document itself, the note or the
mortgage?
MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
Q. How about do you get a look at any documents that actually transfer or assign
ownership of any note or mortgage?
A. No, I do not look at them, but I don't need to look at them because I know whatour processes are that refer those loans to our attorneys. And I rely that our
attorneys do their job and put the information in those complaints accurately
and correctly based on the information that was provided to them in our referral
process.25
20. In said deposition dated December 7, 2010, Alden Berner testified that it is standard
and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to never independently verify the
ownership of the subject notes, mortgages, assignment or otherwise by looking at any
actual note, mortgage, assignment or other documentation of ownership in the instant
case.
Q. Now, as I understand it you testified that you didn't personally look at the
information that would have been contained in the note and mortgage, is that
correct?
25 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 35 - 36.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
9/24
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a reason to look at that information, or is there a reason you didn't
need to look at it?
A. I believe that I did not have a reason to look at that information based on ourreferral process.
Q. What would that referral process be?
A. That referral process would be that the original -- once the loan is in default,
and the thirty day notice of default letters have been sent out, that our
foreclosure department refers these loans to our counsel, and they provide our
counsel with that information, being the note and mortgage - the original note
and mortgage.
Q. And is it the attorneys job to input that information from the note and mortgageinto the complaint?
A. Yes.26
21. In said deposition dated December 7, 2010, Alden Berner testified that it is standard
and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to never look at the Complaint as
it is filed in Court nor any of its attachments, per se.
Q. Okay. And I take it you never get a look at a copy of the mortgage that's
attached, or referenced in the complaint, am I correct?
A. No I do not get a look at that again. That's part of our referral process, the
original is sent to our attorneys; and I rely that they accurately input that
information into the complaint, and there is no need that they send it back to us,
when we originally sent it to them.
Q. Now, once you verify the information per your computer programs, the
Investor Matrix and the other information, is that where you either approve or
reject?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And if you accept it have I got that right there, the choices you have,
either accept or reject?
26 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 80-81.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
10/24
A. Accept, reject, approve or disapprove.27
22. In said deposition dated December 7, 2010, Alden Berner testified that it is standard
and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to never verify that all conditions
precedent to the filing of foreclosure actions have been performed or have occurred.
Q. Okay. If you accept and approve the information that you have reviewed on the
computer screen -- if you click "accept" or "approve," then what happens?
A. We get the verification to sign.
Q. The verification that was attached to the complaints in the cases?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. What do you mean you get?
A. Meaning it's now available for us to sign. If we reject it then it's not going to
give us the verification to sign.
Q. When you say it's available for you to sign, does that come up on a computer
screen?
A. It's in the same attorney portal.28
[...]
Q. A couple of these documents make reference to [ ] paragraphs [ ] that state, "all
conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed or have
occurred." What does that mean to you?
A. It's legal terminology, but my belief is that that means that all of the things that
had to happen prior to the foreclosure referral have taken place.
Q. Did you do anything as far as investigating to confirm any of that information?
A. No, I didn't need to. Our system is automated to where everything has been
done prior to this coming before me.
Q. Okay. And, so, is this information that again was supplied by counsel that
prepared the form?
27 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 50.
28 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 51.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
11/24
MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
THE WITNESS: Yes.29
DOCUMENTS IN CASE DOCKET/RECORD
23. On or about December 21, 2010, Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., through its
attorneys, Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and more specifically, attorney Nalini Singh, Esq.,
Florida Bar Number 43700, which lists is business address as 1800 N.W. 49th Street,
Suite 120, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309, as an employee and agent of Marshall C.
Watson, P.A., and in representation of Wells Fargo Bank N.A., filed a Complaint against
Defendants Carlos Ramos and Ilsa Ramos of Seminole County, Florida seeking
foreclosure of a certain mortgage recorded in the Official Records Book 04865, Page
0543, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida and a related note.
24. Even though the Summons required responses to Marshall C. Watson, P.A., said
Complaint, filed was signed by attorney Nalini Singh, Esq. on behalf of the Law Officesof Marshall C. Watson, P.A. in representation of Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
25. Said Complaint states in paragraph #3 that [m]ortgagee shown on the Mortgage attached
as an exhibit is the original Mortgagee. Plaintiff is now entitled to enforce Mortgage and
Mortgage Note pursuant to Florida Statutes 673.3011.
26. Said Complaint states in paragraph #6 that [a]ll conditions precedent to the filing of this
action has been performed or occurred.
27. Nalini Singh, Esq., as an attorney for the Law Offices of Marshall Watson, P.A., and on
behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., together with the Summons and Complaint, filed a
separate page titled Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b) Verification signed by a one Debra Blaney
as Legal Process Specialist and stating that [u]nder penalty of perjury, I declare that I
have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
28. Said document titled Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b) Verification is signed by Debra Blaney as
Legal Process Specialist but does not state who is her employer, whether it is Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. or its attorneys, the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
29. The Mortgage attached to the Complaint and referenced in the Complaint, showing tohave been recorded in the Official Records Book 04865, Page 0543 of the Public Records
of Seminole County, Florida patently show, on its first page, that the lender and
mortgagee is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. not Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
29 Dep. of Alden Berner, Dec. 7, 2010, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB,and 2010-CA-016671-MB (Palm Beach County) pp. 66-67.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
12/24
30. The Note attached to the Complaint and referenced in the Complaint patently shows,
on its first page, that the lender is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. not Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.
31. The Note attached to the Complaint and referenced in the Complaint patently shows,
on its last page, that the lender is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., endorsed the noteen blanc; it is patently clear that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. did not endorse said note
because it was not the Lender nor the Mortgagee in the related aforementioned
Mortgage.
32. Defendants through their undersigned Counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff
for Perjury February 21, 2010 stating in paragraph #2 that [t]he documents attached to the
Complaint clearly contradict and show that the allegations made in the Complaint are
false and without merit.
33. Defendants through their undersigned Counsel filed the instant Motion for Sanctions Against
Plaintiff for Perjury February 21, 2010 stating in paragraph #4 that [a]t a minimum, the
person signing such document must have read the Complaint with its attached exhibits,
namely the Mortgage and Note.
34. Defendants through their undersigned Counsel filed the instant Motion for Sanctions Against
Plaintiff for Perjury February 21, 2010 stating in paragraph #5 that [c]learly, Plaintiff has
not been forthcoming or offered such statements without regards to the Candor owed to
the Court thereunder and its actions have caused Defendants to incur legal fees and
expenses that are unnecessary and unjustified but for its actions in bad faith and without
candor.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL C.WATSON,P.A.
AND STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
35. On or about March 24, 2011, the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. entered into
an agreement with the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General, Department of
Legal Affairs to resolve an investigation into the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Part II of the Consumer
Protection Statute, Chapter 501, AG Case #L10-3-1147, styled IN THE MATTER OF :
INVESTIGATION OF LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL C. WATSON, P.A., AND
MARSHALL C. WATSON, INDIVIDUALLY.
36. Said Agreement entered into by and between the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.,
Marshall C. Watson, individually, and State of Florida Office of the Attorney General dated
March 24, 2011 is entitled: ASSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.30
30 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
13/24
37. Page #2 of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance states in the second paragraph that Law
Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Marshall C. Watson, individually are working with State
of Florida Office of the Attorney General to establish best practices in foreclosure actions.31
38. Among the several allegations and consumer complaints which triggered the
investigation into the foreclosure practices of Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.,detailed in section I, 1.1 of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, those relevant to the
instant case are: a. foreclosure actions [ ] filed before the legal standing of the Plaintiff
has been determined, and e. affidavits [ ] filed which were executed by persons without
knowledge of the allegations contained in the affidavits.32
39. As of March 24, 2011, the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Marshall C.
Watson, individually agreed and assured, in section II of the Assurance of Voluntary
Compliance to implement the following policies and procedures and to ensure such best
practices:
a. As a condition precedent to initiating a foreclosure case in a circuit court in Florida,
each foreclosure case file of the Respondent [(Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson,
P.A.)] will contain the following: (1) the original note, or a lost note affidavit; (2) the
original mortgage or a copy of the recorded mortgage; and (3) documentation
establishing the loan and mortgage are in default; if (1) through (3) do not reflect the
Plaintiff to be named in the foreclosure complaint as the party entitled to foreclose the
note and mortgage, there must also be contained in the law firms file documentation
reflecting that the Plaintiff is a holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the
note who has the rights of a holder pursuant to Section 673.3011 of the Florida
Statutes.
b. [OMITTED]
c. For cases that have already been filed and active, but in which no final judgment
has been issued by the court on the effective date of this Assurance [(March 24,
2011)], the Respondents [(Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] will ensure
that prior to seeking entry of a final judgment the foreclosure court file contains
the following: (i) the original note, or a lost note affidavit; (ii) the original mortgage or
a copy of the recorded mortgage; (iii) documentation establishing the loan and
mortgage are in default; and (iv) documentation reflecting that the named Plaintiff
is entitled to enforce the mortgage. A verified complaint will only be required to
be filed for complaints and amended complaints that were filed after June 3, 2010.
31 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
32 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
14/24
d. For cases currently in litigation on the effective date of this Assurance, without a
final judgment having been issued by the court, the Respondents [(Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] shall review said filings for compliance with Section
2.1(c) of this agreement and will file either amended affidavits, replacement
affidavits or notices of withdrawal of any affidavits executed by persons who
Respondents [(Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] learn did not haveactual knowledge of the allegations contained in the affidavits. Respondents shall
not proceed with the litigation until there is compliance with the terms and
conditions of this provision.33
40. Section II, 2.2 of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance requires [r]espondents and
their representatives, agents, employees, successors, assigns or any other person who acts
under, by, through, or on behalf of Respondents [(Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson,
P.A.)], directly or indirectly, or through any corporate or other device, shall continue to
comply with the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Florida
Statutes.34
41. Section II, 2.3 of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance establishes that [i]t is further
agreed by the parties that Respondents [(Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] shall
be responsible for making the substantive terms and conditions of this agreement known
to the officers, employees agents, representatives, or any other persons that are
substantially affected by this Assurance and are involved in Respondents [(Law Offices
of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] businesses, projects and activities. The obligation imposed
by this paragraph is continuing in nature and shall apply to new officers, employees,
agents, representatives or any other persons who become engaged in Respondents [(Law
Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] business activities, including any future business
activities in which MARSHALL C. WATSON engages.35
42. Section II, 2.4 of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance establishes that [i]t is further
agreed by the parties that Respondents [(Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.)] shall
not affect any change in the form of doing business, or the organizational entity of any of
the existing business entities, or create any new business entities, as a method of avoiding
the terms and conditions set forth in this Assurance.36
CARLTON FIELDS,P.A.INVOLVEMENT AND PERPETUATION
33
Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
34 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
35 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
36 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices Marshall C. Watson and State of FloridaOffice of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
15/24
OF MARSHALL C.WATSON,P.A.S CONDEMNED ACTIONS
43. A notice of appearance was filed in the Courts docket July 27, 2011 listing Carlton
Fields, P.A. as co-counsel in the instant case.
44. In an e-mail communication from Jason Perkins, Esq. dated July 28, 2011, with emailaddress [email protected], confirms that Carlton Fields, P.A., and its
employee, attorney Jason Perkins, Esq. with Florida Bar Number 610852, which lists its
business address, of its Orlando office, as CNL Center at City Commons, 450 S. Orange
Avenue, Suite 500, Orlando, Florida 32801-3336, represents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in
the instant matter.
45. Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and its employee, attorney Nalini Singh, Esq., Florida Bar Number
43700, which lists its business address as 1800 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 120, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida 33309 is still the original counsel, and now remains co-counsel with Carlton Fields,
P.A., and its employee, attorney Jason Perkins, Esq., Florida Bar Number 610852, which lists
its business address, of its Orlando office, as CNL Center at City Commons, 450 S. Orange
Avenue, Suite 500, Orlando, Florida 32801-3336.
46. An e-mail communication from Renee Kemper, paralegal to Jason Perkins, Esq. of
Carlton Fields, P.A. to Nalini Singh, Esq. of Marshall Watson, P.A. dated August 16,
2011 , in which Mrs. Kemper is forwarding a Notice of Filing of the 2004 merger of Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. in support of Plaintiffs
opposition to sanctions for perjury, confirms Marshall C. Watson, P.A.s continued
control and involvement in the instant matter, notwithstanding the fact that it remains
co-counsel in the instant matter.
47. All filings in the matter by Jason Perkins, Esq. of Carlton Fields, P.A. have also been
copied as a matter of legal process to Nalini Singh, Esq. of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
48. The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., through its employee attorney Nalini
Singh, Esq., or otherwise, have made no further filings or arguments directly to the
Court in the instant matter.
49. Nonetheless, by virtue of the March 24, 2011 Agreement, titled Assurance of Voluntary
Compliance, by and between the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., the State of
Florida Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, and attorney
Marshall C. Watson, P.A., individually, the actions of Carlton Fields, P.A. remain theresponsibility of the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
50. Despite the Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Perjury being filed February 21,
2010 stating in paragraph #2 that [t]he documents attached to the Complaint clearly
contradict and show that the allegations made in the Complaint are false and without
merit, and despite an email from the undersigned attorney to Jason Perkins, Esq. dated
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
16/24
August 12, 2010 where Defendants make Plaintiff aware of their concerns and allegations
in the Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Perjury, Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and
Carlton Fields, P.A. failed to abide by the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance or correct
a known fraud upon the Court.
51. Therefore, their actions callously, egregiously, willfully, and without remorse,perpetuate a fraud upon the Court, through it, upon the citizens of Seminole County and
all those under the jurisdiction of the 18th Judicial Circuit of Florida.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT AT THE AUGUST 30,2011
HEARING OF DEFENDANTSMOTION FORSANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FORPERJURY
52. The Mortgage attached to the Complaint and referenced in the Complaint, showing to
have been recorded in the Official Records Book 04865, Page 0543 of the Public Records
of Seminole County, Florida patently shows, on its first page, that the lender and
mortgagee is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. not Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
53. The Note attached to the Complaint and referenced in the Complaint patently shows,
on its first page, that the lender is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. not Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.
54. The Note attached to and referenced in the Complaint patently shows, on its last page,
that the lender is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., endorsed the note en blanc; it is
patently clear that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. did not endorse said note because it was not
the Lender nor the Mortgagee in the related aforementioned Mortgage.
55. Plaintiff argued that Defendants Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff for Perjury was
unfounded where Plaintiff is the original mortgagee by way of a merger that took place May 8,
2004, where the original mortgagee Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. merged into Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
56. Defendants argued and maintained that the fact that the merger occurred a year after
the mortgage was entered into between the original mortgagee and that Plaintiff was the
surviving entity in the merger proves that Plaintiff is not the original Mortgagee. At the
time the mortgage was executed the original mortgagee was an independent entity from
Plaintiff with a different federal employers identification number (FEIN/Tax Id) and
therefore autonomous and separate from Plaintiff.
57. Defendants argued and maintained that the Complaint makes no mention of a merger,
or an assignment of the note and mortgage, therefore depriving Defendants from raising
potential defenses in that respect.
58. Defendants argued and maintained that Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. through their
Counsels Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and Carlton Fields, P.A. should have corrected its
Complaint to provide information of the merger so as to establish how and when plaintiff
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
17/24
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. can foreclose when the original mortgagee is Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Inc. and that the Complaint makes no mention of the said merger.
59. Moreover, Defendants argued that the information of the merger is irrelevant since it
has nothing to do with the verification statement which makes reference to the
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations made in the Complaint; that it should beclear to the Court that the contradictions are patent and no inferences need be drawn to
see that the Complaint is not truthful or correct.
60. It is clear and irrefutable, that, having had the opportunity and the duty to correct the
Complaint and withdraw the false statement of verification, especially when they were
present when Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. confessed to its perjury, a fraud has been
committed upon the Court and still continues despite all the requirements of the
Supreme Court of Florida and the agreement reached with the State Attorney Generals
office to halt an investigation into the foreclosure practices of these law firms and their
client, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
61. This Court, during the hearing of the instant Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for
Perjury, agreed with Defendants counsel that the allegations made in the Complaint and
the Verification was a mistake.
62. This Court, in its discretion, denied that sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff stating that
the mistakes of Plaintiff and its counsel did not rise to the sanctions being sought by
Defendants or what the Supreme Court intended.
ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
Florida Statutes section 92.525 and AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1.110(B).
63. In reaction to this wave of abuses, the Supreme Court of Florida amended Fla. R. Civ. Pro.
1.110(b) to require that, on all actions for foreclosure of a mortgage on residential real
property, the complaint shall be verified. The Plaintiff, through its attorneys made no
efforts whatsoever to verify the allegations in the complaint even though the instant
action is an action for foreclosure of a mortgage on residential real property.
64. The Supreme Court went on to clarify that one of the primary purposes of this amendment
was to ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate. However, the Supreme
Court also envisioned that some attorneys and their clients may still ignore the rules andfurther noted that this amendment is also made to give trial courts greater authority to
sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations. Such is the instant case.
65. Since a verification is required, Florida Statutes section 92.525 established the principles of
said verification statement where Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the
foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true, followed by the signature of the
person making the declaration, except when a verification on information or belief is permitted
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
18/24
by law, in which case the words to the best of my knowledge and belief may be added.
Plaintiff made no effort whatsoever to verify the allegations in the complaint even though
it states under penalty of perjury that those allegations had been verified and they are all
accurate and true.
66. Florida Statutes section 92.525 required that the written declaration shall be printed or typedat the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the
person making the declaration. The written declaration of verification was not printed or
typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified; in fact, it makes
no reference as to what document is being verified.
67. This intentionally false and fraudulent statement of verification has been made despite
Plaintiffs counsels knowledge that under Florida Statutes section 92.525(3) states that [a]
person who knowingly makes a false declaration under subsection (2) is guilty of the crime of
perjury by false written declaration, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Thus far, despite the investigations by the Attorney
General and the depositions, clearly showing the perjury committed by Plaintiff, no such
individuals appear to have been prosecuted for their crimes upon this Court and the
citizens affected by them.
FRAUD ON THE COURT
68. It is blatantly obvious that a fraud upon the Court has occurred as established in, at least,
three other cases, where the verification system ploy by Plaintiff and their counsel is
systematic and schematically designed to falsely satisfy the requirements of the Supreme
Court amendments to Rule 1.110(b).
a. Alden Berner deposition of December 7, 2010 clearly delineates the
unacceptable protocol used to falsely verify the Complaint and that Debra
Blaney participated in such process; to wit, that himself, Debra Blaney,
Craig Zecher, and no other individuals reviewed all mortgage foreclosure
cases filed in the State of Florida on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.;
b. that it is standard and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
not to look at either a note or mortgage when verifying a foreclosure
Complaint; that it is standard and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. to base their verification solely on information from a
computer screen without any confirmation as to the source of said
information;
c. that it is standard and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to
never independently verify the ownership of the subject notes, mortgages,
assignment or otherwise by looking at any actual note, mortgage,
assignment or other documentation of ownership in the instant case;
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
19/24
d. that it is standard and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to
never look at the Complaint as it is filed in Court nor any of its
attachments, per se;
e. that it is standard and systematic procedure for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to
never verify that all conditions precedent to the filing of foreclosure actionshave been performed or have occurred.
VIOLATIONS OF THE MARCH 24,2011 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LAW OFFICES OF
MARSHALL C.WATSON,P.A. AND STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -
ASSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.
69. This case was filed December 21, 2010 and the March 24, 2011 agreement by and between
the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., Marshall C. Watson, individually, and State of
Florida Office of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2011 entitled Assurance of Voluntary
Compliance required that in the instant case, currently in litigation prior to March 24, 2011,
where a final judgment has not been issued by the court, the Law Offices of Marshall C.
Watson, P.A. review its filings for compliance with Section 2.1(c) of the agreement and file
either amended affidavits, replacement affidavits or notices of withdrawal of any affidavits
executed by persons who the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. learn did not have
actual knowledge of the allegations contained in the affidavits.
70. Alden Berner deposition of December 7, 2010 clearly shows that the Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A. clearly knew that all of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases filed
prior to March 24, 2011 and the instant case had been subject to false verifications and
fraudulent statements of verifications made under penalty of perjury by the only three
(3) employees and legal process specialists doing said verifications for all foreclosureactions for entire State of Florida; to wit, Alden Berner, Debra Blaney and Craig Zecher.
71. The emails referenced and incorporated herein by reference as exhibits, together with
the filings in opposition to Defendants Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Perjury
clearly show that the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and its co-counsel,
Carlton Fields, P.A. proceed with the litigation without complying with the terms and
conditions of provisions of Section II of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance.
72. In essence, as argued by the undersigned Counsel before the Court in the hearing of
Defendants Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Perjury last August 30, 2011, Plaintiff
has been on notice of the defects in the Complaint since said motion for sanctions was
filed; Plaintiff has been on notice of the defects in the Complaint through e-mail
communications with the undersigned counsel, which are incorporated as exhibits by
reference; and Plaintiff has made no effort to correct is perjurious and abusive behavior.
73. What is even more unconscionable and unacceptable - even though there was an
investigation into Plaintiffs counsel, Law Offices of Marshal C. Watson, P.A., for unfair and
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
20/24
fraudulent trade practices and where, as a result of said investigation, the Law Offices of
Marshal C. Watson, P.A. agreed and assured to withdraw its perjurious statements and
Complaints, and where Plaintiffs co-counsel, Carlton Fields, P.A. through its employee,
attorney Michael K. Winston, Esq., conducted and was present in representation of
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. when Alden Berner, legal process specialist for Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. testified under oath as to the protocol and scheme to defraudand falsely represent its verification of the Complaint as required by the Supreme Court
of Florida amendment to Rule 1.110(b), Jason Perkins, Esq., employee attorney for
Carlton Fields, P.A. failed and refused to withdraw and correct said false statements and
stated in its email to the undersigned counsel dated August 15, 2011 that he intended to
proceed with litigation and seek other fees and costs.
74. The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. failed to abide by Section II of the Assurance
of Voluntary Compliance where it is clear that the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
is responsible responsible for making the substantive terms and conditions of this
agreement known to the officers, employees agents, representatives, or any other personsthat are substantially affected by this Assurance and are involved in the Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A.s businesses, projects and activities. Said obligations of the
aforementioned paragraph are continuing in nature and applied to co-counsel Carlton
Fields, P.A. as new officers, employees, agents, representatives, who become engaged in
the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.s business activities, including the instant
case.
75. An e-mail communication from Renee Kemper, paralegal to Jason Perkins, Esq. of
Carlton Fields, P.A. to Nalini Singh, Esq. of Marshall Watson, P.A. dated August 16,
2011 , in which Mrs. Kemper is forwarding a Notice of Filing of the 2004 merger of Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. in support of Plaintiffs
opposition to sanctions for perjury, confirms Marshall C. Watson, P.A.s continued
control and involvement in the instant matter, notwithstanding the fact that it remains
co-counsel in the instant matter.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.S INVOLVEMENT AND PERPETUATION OF THE KNOWN FRAUDULENT
VERIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINT AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT
76.Carlton Fields, P.A., through its employee and attorney Michael K. Winston, Esq., Florida
Bar Number 51403 with its business address being City Place Tower, 525 Okeechobee
Boulevard, Suite 1200, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6149 appeared as counsel andattorney for plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. with regards to the deposition of Alden Berner, a
Legal Process Specialist for Wells Fargo Bank N.A. in three cases involving Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. as plaintiff with Case Numbers 2010-CA-018991-MB, 2010-CA-023143-MB, and
2010-CA-016671-MB. Therefore, it is clear that Carlton Fields, P.A. was aware of the
fraudulent practices of its client, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as far back as
December 7, 2010.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
21/24
77. A notice of appearance was filed in the Courts docket July 27, 2011 listing Carlton Fields,
P.A. as co-counsel in the instant case.
78. An e-mail communication from Jason Perkins, Esq. dated July 28, 2011, with email address
[email protected], confirms that Carlton Fields, P.A., and its employee, attorney
Jason Perkins, Esq. with Florida Bar Number 610852, which lists its business address, of itsOrlando office, as CNL Center at City Commons, 450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 500, Orlando,
Florida 32801-3336, represents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
79. All email communications from Jason Perkins, Esq., employee and attorney of Carlton
Fields, P.A. with the undersigned counsel and their statements made before this Court at the
August 30, 2011 hearing of Defendants Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Perjury
underline the fact that Carlton Fields, P.A. has, like its co-counsel, the Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A., no intention of rectifying a known fraud upon this Court;
instead that Carlton Fields, P.A. continues to perpetuate the forbidden actions in the
Law Offices of Marshal C. Watson, P.A.s Assurance of Voluntary Compliance; and
refuses to abide by the requirements of said Assurances made by the Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
80. It is clear and irrefutable, that, having had the opportunity and the duty to correct the
Complaint and withdraw the false statement of verification, especially when they were
present when Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. confessed to its perjury, a fraud has been
committed upon the Court and still continues despite all the requirements of the
Supreme Court of Florida and the agreement reached with the State Attorney Generals
office to halt an investigation into the foreclosure practices of these law firms and their
client, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
WHEREFORE, since this Court already agreed that the allegations made in the Complaint
and the Verification were a mistake, and the evidence attached, referred to and filed herein with
this Motion, simultaneously or as a separate document, especially, the damaging sworn
testimony of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to Carlton Fields, P.A., which has already been procured
for three (3) other Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. cases and a Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation
case in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, the Defendants Carlos
and Ilsa Ramos, through their undersigned attorney, most respectfully pray this Court reconsiders
their Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Perjury and reverses its decision denying said
motion for perjury against Plaintiff, and further:
(1) conclude that the required verification ordered by the Supreme Court of
Florida in its amendment of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(b), was
not made;
(2) conclude that a false statement filed under penalties of perjury by Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. through its attorneys the Law Offices of Marshall C.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
22/24
Watson, P.A. and Carlton Fields, P.A. was willingly filed to influence the
Court into believing that Plaintiff can foreclose on Defendants;
(3) conclude that, as the Supreme Court of Florida noted in its amendment of
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(b), the primary purposes of this
amendment are to provide incentive for the plaintiff to ensure that theallegations in the complaint are accurate and to give trial courts greater
authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations such as that made
under perjury where Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., through its attorneys
the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and Carlton Fields, P.A. callously
state that such verification actually took place, when, in fact, never happened;
(4) conclude that Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., through its counsel, Law
Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. failed to file the required verification
ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida in its amendment of Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure 1.110(b) pursuant to the format expounded in Florida Statute
section 92.525(2) requiring that the written declaration shall be printed or
typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and
above the signature of the person making the declaration;
(5) conclude that those individuals making said perjurious statements,
specifically, Alden Berner, Deborah Blaney - aka Debra Blaney, Craig Zecher ,
be referred to the State Attorney General and investigated pursuant to Florida
Statutes section 92.525(3) which states that [a] person who knowingly makes
a false declaration under subsection (2) is guilty of the crime of perjury by
false written declaration, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided
in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084;
(6) conclude that the aforementioned acts by the parties involved, including two
major law firms, constitute a fraud on the Court where Carlos and Ilsa Ramos
have demonstrated, clearly and convincingly that Wells Fargo Bank N.A., the
Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and Carlton Fields, P.A. have
sentiently set in motion this unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere
with the judicial systems ability to impartially adjudicate this mater by
improperly influencing this Court and unfairly hampering the presentation of
Carlos and Ilsa Ramos presentation of their defenses;
(7) conclude that the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. have breached their
Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the State Attorney Generals office
where it has failed to correct, rectify and withdraw the perjurious statements
and where it has failed to ensure that Carlton Fields, P.A. continues to do so as
co-counsel in cases in which the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. was
originally involved;
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
23/24
(1) conclude that, pursuant to the legal precedent discussed herein this Motion,
Wells Fargo Bank N.A., the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and
Carlton Fields, P.A.s actions are so egregious so as to warrant that this case be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(2) that reassured by the legal precedent herein discussed, together with all theundeniable proof and argument provided herein, this Court, having been
appraised of a fraud upon it being committed, DISMISS THIS ACTION
WITH PREJUDICE;
(3) that as expounded in Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1992), this Court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound
judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud
on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders, where, in
the instant case, both situations warranting a DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE have occurred, this Court DISMISSED THIS ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE;
(4) order an investigation into all similar cases filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
in the State of Florida to ensure the integrity of our judicial system and all
those foreclosures which may have already been adjudicated under such false
and perjurious pretenses;
(5) order an investigation into the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. for its
ongoing fraudulent misrepresentations and lack of candor on this Court;
(6) order an investigation into Carlton Fields, P.A. for its fraudulentmisrepresentations and lack of candor on this Court and for perpetuating a
known fraud vis-a-vis their being appraised of such fraud by way of the
December 7, 2010 deposition of Alden Berner in which Carlton Fields, P.A.
actively participated;
(7) refer and advise the State Attorney General to investigate the Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and Carlton Fields, P.A. for their breach of the
Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement between the Law Offices
Marshall C. Watson and State of Florida Office of the Attorney General dated
March 24, 2011.
(8) refer and advise the Federal Authorities to open a wire/mail fraud
investigation for each and every instance in which any such aforementioned
perjurious statements were mailed, be it as it may, through e-mail, facsimile
(telecopy), or US Mail, in each and every case that may be affected by the
actions of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson,
P.A. and Carlton Fields, P.A.
-
8/4/2019 Wells Fargo -Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Def Motion for Sanction
24/24
(1) refer and advise the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Bar to open
ethical investigations into all attorneys involved in the instant case and all
other such relevant cases where it may be pertinent, together with any and all
other remedies this Court may deem just and proper to maintain the integrity
of the judicial system of the State of Florida.
CERRUD LAW, PLLC
______________________________
EURIBIADES CERRUD II, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0523569
324 Wilshire Boulevard
Casselberry, Florida 32707
Telephone No.: (407) 758-6100
Facsimile No.: (407) 386-6570
Attorney for Defendants
Carlos Ramos and Ilsa Ramos
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying Defendants Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for
Perjury has been furnished by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, to Nalini Singh, Esq., Law Offices of
Marshall C. Watson, P.A., 1800 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 120, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309; Jason
Perkins, Esq., Carlton Fields P.A., 450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 500, Orlando, Florida
32801-3336 this 13th day of September 2011.
CERRUD LAW, PLLC
______________________________
EURIBIADES CERRUD II, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0523569324 Wilshire Boulevard
Casselberry, Florida 32707
Telephone No.: (407) 758-6100
Facsimile No.: (407) 386-6570
Attorney for Defendants
Carlos Ramos and Ilsa Ramos