View
209
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: Plaintiff, Division:-vs.-
Defendants.
MOTION FOR SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND FOR REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT OF JUDGMENT
The Defendants in the above case requests that the Court issue an order in this
action acknowledging that the Judgment has been satisfied pursuant to Fl R. CP RULE
1.540. (b) (5) based on one of the reasons set forth below; that the court further stay the
Plaintiffs unauthorized counsel from taking any further steps to execute the judgment
fraudulently obtained, pursuant to Fl R CP 1.550 (b), because Defendants have just
learned that as of December 20, 2011, the Plaintiff, Guy informed the Defendant that he
was in possession of the premises commonly known as the OFG Palmetto Property, and
collected rents from
L;’[
] , FA., was paid in full, the amount paid to its attorneys, Shapiro and Fishman, were
paid in full, and the case should have been dismissed at that time; and thereafter, the
attorneys, Akerman Senterfitt unlawfully continued without any authority from
Washington Mutual Bank, FA or, its successor (by operation of law), JP Morgan Bank, to
proceed and obtain a judgment against the Defendants utilizing a fraudulent affidavit, a
forged promissory note, and misrepresented to the Florida’s Third District Court of
Page 1
Appeals, that Washington Mutual Bank, FA still had the right to recover on the forged
note because it had been lost, then found in the possession of Plaintiff, Washington
Mutual Bank, FA. Because the case should have been dismissed at that time, because
Akerman Senterfitt argued to the Court of Appeals that Washington Mutual Bank, FA is
the ONLY entity entitled to recover on the note; and Washington Mutual Bank, FA (now
JP Morgan Chase; because Shapiro and Fishman, the only authorized attorneys for
Washington Mutual Bank, FA and all court costs were paid in full by Defendants’
mortgage payment, and because Akerman Senterfitt simply associated in, and did not
substitute in as counsel, did not obtain the consent of Washington Mutual Bank, FA to
continue the case in its name; because Akerman Senterfitt should not have continued the
case in its name; Washington Mutual Bank, FA and Chase all concede that the judgment
is paid in full, and do not want any more money; and Akerman Senterfitt cannot enhance
the expenses owed to the Plaintiff by merely tacking on unnecessary or unauthorized
expenses, the court should order the judgment amended, and satisfied. See Section 701.04
et. Seq. and Knack Holdings, LLC v. Stuart Kalb Trustee, 3D08-1466, 3rd DCA, (2009).
As creative and flexible as we may wish to allow contracting, private parties to be in their
agreements, those parties do not have the right to use judgments as another form of
mortgage; only the court that issued a judgment may approve what sums are included in,
and enforceable under, such an instrument. In this case, as in the case cited, the Plaintiffs
admit that no one other than Washington Mutual Bank, FA is entitled to collect on the
note, and thus the court cannot authorize the inclusion of RFC Homecomings or their
lawyers, Akerman Senterfitt, and their unauthorized continuation of the action as a part of
the judgment debt.
Page 2
ARGUMENT
Attached are receipts and other documentation that shows the Judgment solely in favor of
Washington Mutual Bank, FA., received payment in full and the above claim has been
satisfied in full as of April 19, 2005, and, as Defendants have contended all along, the
sale occurred on March 25, 2005. According to the records provided directly from
Washington Mutual Bank, FA, the records and logs are clear that the loan was sold
PRIOR to suit being instituted against the Defendants by Plaintiffs. There simply is, and
was never any standing to file this action.
Defendants have provided proof to the courts, and argued that the Plaintiffs counsel,
Akerman Senterfitt, committed fraud throughout the entire case, and provided the court
with over 150 pages of clear and convincing proof in its motion to set aside judgment on
the basis of fraud, that is referred to and incorporated herein, as though set forth in full,
that the following occurred.
1. That according to the affidavit prepared and filed by Kimberly A. Leary (who is
currently under investigation by the State Bar for committing fraud in this case), on
March 25, 2005, prior to the action being filed by Shapiro and Fishman, the loan which
was the subject of this action was sold to RFC Homecomings. The effect of this fact is
that Washington Mutual Bank, FA had no standing to file suit.
2. The loan was sold, and servicing was transferred to Litton Loan Servicing for
RFC Homecomings, NOT Washington Mutual Bank, FA. Akerman Senterfitt, Leary and
Heller, even lied about this fact during the hearing on her motion to deprive the
Page 3
Defendants of their insurance proceeds after the home was severely damaged by the
hurricane and give them to Litton Loan Servicing. She had the audacity to put in her
motion the bald face lie that Litton Loan Servicing was servicing the loan for Washington
Mutual Bank, FA. She was almost successful, but the court did put the funds into the
court’s account, and we had to make motions to release the funds to pay the contractors.
2. That the complaint alleges the note was lost, but simultaneously attaches a
“certified copy” of a note that did not exist. This impossibility is a fraud on the court and
currently under investigation by the Florida Bar and the Florida Attorney General’s
office.
3. That in order for Plaintiffs counsel to commit fraud on the court and obtain a
summary judgment, Plaintiffs counsel filed a forged promissory note that does not match
the purported certified copy of the note that was originally filed by Shapiro Fishman.
4. That the motion for summary judgment filed by Akerman Senterfitt falsely
alleged that Washington Mutual Bank, FA was entitled to, and sought and obtained a
judgment against the Defendants solely in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, FA.
5. That the Plaintiffs lawyer Akerman Senterfitt Attorney, Nancy M. Wallace’s
Answer Brief, filed on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank in the Eskanoses’ Appeal of
the Summary Judgment in this matter. Ms. Wallace stated:
“Because the original note was lost on the date the complaint was filed, Washington Mutual could not deliver it to RFC and, thus, could not legally transfer it to RFC. Washington Mutual held the original note, even though it could not be located. RFC could not have filed the foreclosure action because the delivery of the original note had not occurred.
The note never was delivered to RFC. When Washington Mutual located the original note in storage, it filed it with the circuit court so an effective transfer of the note to RFC did not occur. No entity other than Washington Mutual ever held the note. As the only entity entitled to
Page 4
enforce it, Washington Mutual had standing to bring this action.” (See: Answer Brief of Washington Mutual Bank, Inc., Ami Eskanos, et al, Appellants, vs. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Appellee, 3rd DCA Case No. 3D09-3392, Pg. 14)
6. That, on April 19, 2005, Washington Mutual Bank, FA was paid in full, and
deducted money from the last mortgage payment made to them by the Defendants to pay
off its lawyers, Shapiro and Fishman for their filing foreclosure papers, paid the court
costs, and closed their file, showing the balance paid in full.
7. That the CHASE bank fraud investigators reported on December 20, 2010, POST
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, POST APPEAL, POST HEARING ON DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR RELIEF BASED ON FRAUD, that instead of closing the case and
dismissing the action as Shapiro and Fishman were obligated to, they transferred their
files to Akerman Senterfitt, who without ANY authorization from Washington Mutual
Bank, FA, unlawfully and without consent of anyone from Washington Mutual Bank,
FA, continued the action in Washington Mutual Banks name. Akerman Senterfitt forged
the promissory note, claiming that it still belongs to Washington Mutual Bank, FA, who
admits without question, that they are paid in full, admit that as of March 25, 2010, sold
the note to RFC Homecomings; admit that they have no interest whatsoever in the note;
admit that they have been paid in full, including their attorneys fees and court costs, and
do not employ, nor have they ever employed, Akerman Senterfitt; are NOT paying their
legal fees or costs, nor have they paid their legal fees and costs; have NO retainer
agreement with Akerman Senterfitt, nor do they have any arrangement to pay their fees
or costs, either orally or written.
8. That the address Akerman Senterfitt, Leary and Heller, listed for Washington
Mutual Bank, FA, on the summary judgment is listed as 4828 Loop Central Drive, in
Page 5
Houston Texas, is actually Litton Loan Servicing Address and no one there is authorized,
expressly or impliedly, to accept and endorse any payment made by the Defendants on
the judgment, on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, the sole judgment creditor.
Further, Defendants have propounded the attached discovery to Washington Mutual
Bank, FA seeking the name, Washington Mutual Bank, FA’s address, telephone number,
position, and proof of employment by Washington Mutual Bank, FA to whom payment
could be made to satisfy the fraudulent judgment.
9. Defendants are seeking a stay of enforcement of any judgment of foreclosure until
such time as Akerman Senterfitt can provide the defendants with proof of the following
facts:
a. A retainer agreement entitling them to represent the Washington Mutual
Bank, FA, and collect the attorney’s fees sought in this case;
b. A name, telephone number, proof of employment at Washington Mutual
Bank, (including, but not limited to, (paycheck, business card, written or other
authorization by an officer of Washington Mutual Bank, FA to sign releases on behalf of
Washington Mutual Bank, FA), or any kind of admissible proof that they are an
authorized employee of Washington Mutual Bank, FA who is authorized to accept
payment on this judgment; provide a sworn acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment
and notarized documentation releasing any liens.
c. All documents, including but not limited to, any lease, real estate title, or
any written proof that Washington Mutual Bank, FA is licensed to do business, or is
doing business at 4828 Loop Central Drive, Houston, TX 77081-2166.
Page 6
d. All documents, including but not limited to, any written authorization by
Washington Mutual Bank, FA is entitled to execute or endorse any payment made on this
judgment, whether it be by the Defendants, or, if the foreclosure were allowed to proceed,
proof that Litton Loan Servicing is authorized to endorse payment made to it by the clerk
of the court on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank, FA.
e. The address and name of bank where any account is held by Washington
Mutual Bank, FA, and a copy of the signature card, proving and authorizing the person
accepting payment on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank, FA to be entitled to deposit
those sums, including the bank account number, address of the bank, and telephone
number of the bank.
f. Full, complete and HONEST, responses, under oath, to the post judgment
discovery propounded by the Defendants on December 20th and 21st.
10. The Defendants are seeking this vital information because the Plaintiff,
Washington Mutual Bank, FA was dissolved on September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual
Bank was acquired by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, and by operation of
law all assets in the possession of Washington Mutual Bank, FA were transferred to JP
Morgan Chase. The Plaintiffs lawyers have lied to the Court of Appeals when they told
the Court of Appeals that Washington Mutual Bank, FA held the forged note and were
entitled to collect on it. Washington Mutual Bank, FA does not exist; the address given
for Washington Mutual Bank, FA is not Washington Mutual Bank, FA’s address. They
do not do business there; there is no one there legally permitted to execute a release of the
liens filed by Shapiro and Fishman; there is no one at that address legally authorized to
accept payment on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank, FA. There is no one at
Page 7
Washington Mutual Bank, FA, now JP Morgan Chase, who can accept payment on behalf
of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, because they were paid in full in April of 2005,
including all attorneys’ fees and court costs.
11. That Akerman Senterfitts real client, RFC Homecomings is not, nor has it ever
been, a party to this action because if a motion is made by Akerman Senterfitt to assign
the forged note; assign this action; or makes any request to this court transfer the assets to
RFC Homecomings; Akerman and Senterfitt would be admitting that the pleadings it
filed with the court; the representations it made to the court; and the affidavits it prepared
on behalf of its client, Litton Loan Servicing, Debra Lyman, was either a bald face lie,
defrauding this court, or they simply had no standing to pursue the action.
12. The courts to date have had more than ample opportunity to undo the fraud
perpetrated by the Plaintiffs in this case, and have refused to do so. Now, the court has
granted a summary judgment to an entity that does not exist, has failed to set aside that
judgment for fraud, and no employee of Washington Mutual Bank, FA exists to either
receive the funds (either by payment of the Defendants, or satisfaction via an unlawful
sale of the Defendants home), deposit them into an Washington Mutual Bank, FA,
account, and clear the title of the Defendants. Furthermore, Washington Mutual Bank,
FA’s (now Chase) own fraud division has attempted without success to contact the
Plaintiffs lawyers in order to discharge them and demand dismissal of the complaint, or
obtain a satisfactory explanation why Akerman Senterfitt is using a forged promissory
note and fraudulent affidavits to pursue a foreclosure action in their name, when they are
paid in full.
Page 8
13. Filed herewith, and incorporated herein, is the Defendants motion to disqualify
Akerman Senterfitt from continuing to represent Washington Mutual Bank, FA.
14. Defendants respectfully request the court stay any further attempts to execute on
this fraudulently obtained judgment until such time as the Court obtains proof that:
a. Defendants obtain sworn proof via pending discovery requests, that the
law firm, Akerman Senterfitt was NEVER retained by Washington Mutual Bank, FA and
thus never entitled to ask for fees in this action;
b. Was never authorized by Washington Mutual Bank, FA to continue the
lawsuit under Washington Mutual Bank, FA’s name after Washington Mutual Bank, FA
was paid in full;
c. The court accepts the fact that the promissory note it filed by Akerman
Senterfitt, Leary and Heller with the court was a forgery;
d. Defendants can prove Akerman Senterfitt lied on the Summary Judgment
when it stated that its purported client, Washington Mutual Bank, FA, has an employee at
4828 Loop Central Drive, Houston, TX 77081-2166 who is authorized to accept payment
on the judgment, either from the Defendants or from the clerk of the court as a result of
the unlawful sale of the Defendants home;
e. The action be stayed until the completion of the investigation of Kimberly
Leary by the Florida Bar for defrauding the court, filing false and misleading arguments
and pleadings in this action; and for filing a forged promissory note.
e. That the action be stayed until JP Morgan Chase is able to obtain a
voluntary dismissal of this action from the law firm of Akerman Senterfitt. JP Morgan
Page 9
Chase calls to Akerman Senterfitt during the course of their investigation have gone
unreturned.
14. Defendants would suffer irreparable harm if the Plaintiffs unauthorized lawyers
are entitled to continue with their enforcement of this illegally obtained judgment.
15. Defendants refer to, and incorporate herein, its motion to set aside the Judgment
for fraud, and the Reply attached thereto. Attached to the reply is an affidavit which
contains almost 150 pages of clear and convincing evidence that throughout these
proceedings, Akerman Senterfitt, Leary and Heller have committed fraud on this court,
and the Court of Appeals, and gotten away with it at every stage.
This motion is seeking relief pursuant to Fl R CP 1.550 (b) Stay. The court before which
an execution or other process based on a final judgment is returnable may stay such
execution or other process and suspend proceedings thereon for good cause on motion
and notice to all adverse parties.
16. What Akerman Senterfitt, Leary and Heller did NOT disclose to the court, is a
credit to the Defendants of $373,907.18 in the Lyman Affidavit.
Akerman Senterfitt have told the Court of Appeals that the only entity entitled to
this judgment is Washington Mutual Bank, FA. They lied to the court, and now, must
acknowledge that as a result of their misleading the court, they must accept the
consequence of crediting $373,907.18 in principal. That would mean that there was no
money owed Washington Mutual Bank, FA, as alleged. Attached are receipts and other
documentation that shows the Judgment solely in favor of Washington Mutual Bank,
FA., received payment in full and the above claim has been satisfied in full as of April
19, 2005. No further money is owed thereafter, as Akerman Senterfitt, Heller and Leary
Page 10
were not authorized to begin, let alone, continue the action, as alleged by the Defendants
from the outset. The Defendants have already involuntarily paid the legal fees for Shapiro
and Fishman’s and the court costs incurred at that time. The case should have been
dismissed. Rogue attorneys without a retainer agreement and without authority to
continue the case are simply not entitled to recover any fees or costs.
Wherefore, Defendants, for the foregoing reasons, respectfully request that this
Court vacate the Court’s previous Order of Final Summary Judgment granted to Plaintiff
on October 29, 2009; and
That the Court reconsider its denial of Defendants’ Combined Motion to Strike
and Motion to Dismiss, and grant the Defendants’ Combined Motion to Strike and
Dismiss, with a specific finding that the Plaintiff’s Claims were substantially frivolous,
knowingly advanced by Plaintiff’s Counsel Kimberly A. Leary, William Heller, and the
law firm of Akerman Senterfitt, without any basis in fact or law, but rather were pursued
solely for malicious and vexatious purposes; and
That the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against all of the Defendants, with
prejudice, and without provision to amend its Complaint; and
That the Court Grant the Defendants judgment for their costs and attorney’s fees
incurred in defending this matter, including the costs and attorney’s fees for the
Defendants’ Appeal of the Court’s previous Orders; and
That the Plaintiff’s Counsel, the law firm of Akerman & Senterfitt, and attorneys
Kimberly A. Leary and William A. Heller, et al, jointly, be sanctioned by this Court
pursuant to Florida Revised Statute 57.105 for their extreme, intentional and
Page 11
malicious fraud on the Court and upon the Eskanoses in their knowing continuation
of wholly frivolous claims against the Defendants; and
For any such other relief as to the Court may deem proper.
Or, in the alternative, find that the judgment was paid in full on April 19, 2005,
and no money was due and owing Washington Mutual Bank, FA at that time. That all
legal fees and costs were paid in full at that time, and the action should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 2010 by:
Danny E. Eskanos, Attorney at lawAttorney for above named Defendants
Attorney’s Address:783 Wildflower DrivePalm Harbor, 34683Phone (727) 812-7457, Fax (727) 812-7457 (with previous notice please)Florida Attorney Registration # 0239940
Page 12
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of DECEMBER, 2010, a true and correct copy of the attached MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTMOTION FOR SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT was DELIVERED VIA EMAIL TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL and addressed to the following recipients:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Kimberly A. Leary Katherine E. GiddingsWilliam Heller Akerman SenterfittAkerman Senterfitt Highpoint Center, 12th Floor350 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1600 106 East College AvenueFt. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tallassee, FL 32301
Danny Eskanos
Page 13
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, Case No.: 05-06570 CA 15 Plaintiff, Division:-vs.-
AMI B. ESKANOS; ET AL.
Defendants.
ORDER FOR SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants have satisfied the judgment in
full in the above referenced case.
___________________________________________ _______________________ Date Judge
Page 14
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, Case No.: 05-06570 CA 15 Plaintiff, Division:-vs.-
AMI B. ESKANOS; ET AL.
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS BARRY B. ESKANOS’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
I, Barry B. Eskanos, Declare as follows:
1. Attached hereto, and incorporated herein, are internal computerized loan
statements from Washington Mutual Bank, FA, which state that the loan was sold on
March 25, 2005, and pursuant to the terms of that agreement, was paid in full on or about
April 19, 2005.
2. Thereafter, Washington Mutual Bank, FA paid their attorneys Shapiro and
Fishman their full legal fees and court costs out of the balance of a mortgage payment
made by the Defendants to Washington Mutual Bank, FA in or about April of 2005.
3. The remaining portion of the mortgage overpayment was returned by Washington
Mutual Bank, FA, who had been paid in full, to the Defendants via Litton Loan
Servicing, but, because it was uncollected, was escheated to the State of Florida in the
amount of $1,065.76.
Page 15
.
4. All relevant loans and assets belonging to Washington Mutual Bank, FA were
transferred by operation of law to JP Morgan Chase, on September 25, 2008, who also
disavows any claim, right or title to the money purportedly owed by the Defendants in
this matter and their records show payment is in full.
5. Attached hereto, and incorporated herein are the internal computer records
showing that the attorney’s fees and court costs were paid in full.
6. In addition to the records provided by Washington Mutual Bank, FA, even the
successor bank employees all unequivocally state that the loan is paid in full.
JP MORGAN CHASE EMPLOYEES
1. PAM CORRELL – FRAUD INVESTIGATOR FOR JP MORGAN CHASE
On December 16, 2010, I had an extensive discussion with Pam Correll, (866)
605-9253, who is the one of the fraud investigators for JP Morgan Chase, in regards to
the current status of the investigation of our fraud complaint. Who stated unequivocally
JP Morgan Chase had no interest in recovering any money from the Defendants and do
not want to pursue the foreclosure against Defendants and show they are paid in full,
including the attorney’s fees for Shapiro and Fishman. Nothing is owed further from the
Defendants. We have scheduled her deposition for January 31, 2011.
2. NORMA E. ARTILES – FRAUD INVESTIGATOR FOR JP MORGAN
CHASE
On December 16, 2010, I had an extensive discussion with Norma E. Artiles,
(866) 605-9253, who is the one of the fraud investigators for JP Morgan Chase, in
regards to the current status of the investigation of our fraud complaint. Who stated
Page 16
unequivocally JP Morgan Chase had no interest in recovering any money from the
Defendants and did not want to pursue the foreclosure against Defendants. Nothing is
owed further from the Defendants. We have scheduled her deposition for January 31,
2011.
3. DONALD S. ZARELLA - JP MORGAN CHASE HANDLING OCC FDIC
COMPLAINT
On November 23, 2010, I had an extensive discussion with Donald P. Zarrella,
(866) 605-9253, who is the one of the fraud investigators for JP Morgan Chase, in
regards to the current status of the investigation of our fraud complaint. Who stated
unequivocally JP Morgan Chase had no interest in recovering any money from the
Defendants and did not want to pursue the foreclosure against Defendants. Nothing is
owed further from the Defendants. We have scheduled his deposition for January 31,
2011.
4. CAROL SALZER, THE FRAUD OPERATIONS ANALYST FOR JP
MORGAN CHASE.
Chase Quality Assurance, 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd, Building 300,
Jacksonville, FL 32256, 888-289-6037. Washington Mutual Bank, FA and its successor,
nothing is owed further from the Defendants. JP Morgan Chase, the successor to
Washington Mutual Bank, FA via the bulk transfer of all assets to JP Morgan Chase.
Nothing is owed to JP Morgan Chase. The loan is paid in full and their file is closed. We
have scheduled her deposition for January 31, 2011.
5. KOURTNEE L. GIBSON – CHASE BACK OFFICE TEAM
Page 17
On October 7, 2010, I had an extensive discussion with Kourtnee Gibson, (614)
422-4450, who is the one of the back office investigators for JP Morgan Chase, in regards
to the current status of the investigation of our fraud complaint. Who stated
unequivocally JP Morgan Chase had no interest in recovering any money from the
Defendants and JP Morgan Chase on their behalf or Washington Mutual Bank, FA, did
not want to pursue the foreclosure against Defendants. She said she was referring my
correspondence to the legal team for investigation. Nothing is owed further from the
Defendants. Their records reflect that the loan was paid in full back in April of 2005,
including all attorneys’ fees and court costs. JP Morgan Chase is not seeking any further
funds on behalf of themselves or Washington Mutual Bank, FA, the dissolved company.
We have scheduled her deposition for January 31, 2011.
6. Pursuant to claims made by Plaintiffs to the Court of Appeals, and even
sometimes to the lower court, Washington Mutual Bank, FA claims to be the sole entity
entitled to judgment, but they were already paid in full prior to Akerman Senterfitt
becoming involved. Defendants, throughout this proceeding, have been adamant about
these facts, and now Akerman Senterfitt, Leary and Heller, have painted themselves into
a corner that no lie or fraud can allow them to escape. The fraudulently obtained
judgment is solely in the name of Washington Mutual Bank, FA; a dissolved entity.
There never was standing to institute this suit. There is no one who is legally authorized
to execute any agreement, accept payment or to whom the judgment can be satisfied
without fraudulently endorsing payment. Finally, there are no bank accounts, no place to
store documents, and certainly no place to maintain possession of a promissory note
Page 18
I, Barry B. Eskanos, have read the foregoing, and affirm under penalty of perjury
under the Laws of the State of Florida that it is true and correct, except as to those
matters that are based on my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
them to be true. Executed this _______ Day of December, 2010 in Miami Beach,
Florida.
_______________________________Barry B. Eskanos
State of Florida )) ss.
County of Dade )
On this _______ day of December _______, 2010, before me appeared the Affiant, Barry B. Eskanos, who is personally known to me or proved his identity by sufficient means, and affirmed under penalty of perjury that the statements made herein are, to the best of his information and belief, true and correct.
Witness my Hand and Official Seal:
__________________________________Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ___________________
Notary Address: ______________________________________________
Page 19
Recommended