Ron Wolfe of Florida Default Law Group Motion to Compel, Why You Should Never Cry Wolfe
First, I would like to start out this post with this…
(Press the play button and listen while you read the rest, I always do, I can’t help myself .)
Ice Ice Baby
Because we have, once again, a fine presentation here by Ice Legal…
Check it out…
Ron Wolfe creates an assignment of mortgage to prove his client’s case so his client can foreclose on a Floridian family’s home. The family is defending their home against a predatory financial institution and the predatory law firm it hired to do it’s dirty work.
Did he “Cry Wolfe” one too many times???
JOSEPH J BARBARO
CASE NO 50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS OF RONALD WOLFE
This is a foreclosure action in which Plaintiff, CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR BSARM 2007-2, (“CITIBANK”), seeks to take the real property of the Defendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, in satisfaction of a debt.
A. The assignment of mortgage was executed by Plaintiff counsel’s managing partner, WOLFE.
This case was filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (“FDLG”) on behalf of CITIBANK alleging that CITIBANK is now the holder of a promissory note granted to WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (“WELLS FARGO”) “and/or is entitled to enforce the Mortgage Note and Mortgage.” While CITIBANK originally argued that no assignment of mortgage was necessary to foreclose,1 it later filed an assignment of mortgage which had been executed and recorded after the case was filed (but well before it told this Court that an assignment was not needed).
The Assignment purported to transfer both the mortgage and note from the original lender WELLS FARGO to CITIBANK and was executed by its self-described attorney-in-fact, WOLFE. WOLFE is the managing partner and attorney supervisor of the law firm representing CITIBANK in this action, FDLG, and was at the time that he executed the assignment of mortgage to his firm’s own client.
B. WOLFE also strategized with “independent” witnesses as to how to respond to deposition requests from Defendants and other homeowners.
CITIBANK also filed an affidavit of an alleged expert on the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees requested, Lisa Cullaro (the “Cullaro affidavit”). The affidavit was notarized by her sister-in-law and former FDLG employee, Erin Cullaro, who, according to newspaper reports, is currently under investigation by her own current employer, the Florida Attorney General, in connection with her notarization of such affidavits.
When defense counsel attempted to depose the Cullaros regarding their signatures on the affidavit, FDLG withdrew the affidavit.
Both CITIBANK (through FDLG) and the Cullaros (through their own attorney) filed motions for protective order to avoid the depositions on the grounds that the affidavit had been withdrawn.
Before arriving at this tactic of withdrawing the affidavits in this and other cases in which defense counsel sought the Cullaros’ depositions, the Cullaros conferred with FDLG attorneys—including WOLFE—as to how to avoid the depositions and whether FDLG would shoulder the burden of opposing them. In an email to FDLG (and WOLFE), Lisa Cullaro stated that she had no intention of filing her own motion for protective order and that she understood it would be FDLG which would “aggressively defend” against the depositions:
I have never indicated that I would, nor do I intend to, either: (1) directly handle any discovery matters in any FDLG case with opposing counsel, or (2) file any motion for protective order either on behalf of myself or Erin. To the contrary, and as Ron [WOLFE] and discussed last week, it was my understanding that FDLG wished to aggressively defend the taking of Erin’s deposition as a notary, as well as my request to be paid as an expert witness.
…[I]t was my impression that FDLG was not going to permit this type of patently abusive discovery. To this end, Ron informed me that any fees associated with the defense of such discovery motions would ultimately be paid by the defendant and as such, it was his desire to pursue an aggressive course of action on these types of issues.
Lisa Cullaro went on to specifically address WOLFE in the email, asking him to “make a final decision on this issue so we may present a cohesive front, not only in this case, but with respect to any future matters.”
Notably, shortly after this email conversation between FDLG and these witnesses, FDLG claimed that it represented the Cullaros, but quickly disavowed such representation when it was pointed out that such representation would be a conflict of interest.
C. WOLFE is also an investor, owner, and manager of the title company whose fees are at issue in this litigation.
CITIBANK seeks to recover the fees for a title search conducted by New House Title, L.L.C., a company owned by FDLG or more specifically, by the partners that own FDLG.
RON WOLFE has described himself as an “investor” in New House Title and as the one who ultimately addresses management issues.
D. WOLFE’s job responsibility includes ensuring that FDLG policies and procedures are followed.
As the managing partner of FDLG, WOLFE has the responsibility, among others, to ensure “that the policies and procedures of the firm are—are reviewed, intact and followed.”
Once such practice is the certification by attorneys that documents are mailed by U.S. mail days before they are actually delivered to the United States Postal Service. The following table summarizes only some of the documents filed in this case in which the certificates are false:
We all remember the Cullaros, right?
ANYWAY, BE ABSOLUTELY SURE TO CHECK OUT THE REST OF THE MOTION BELOW!
You will be glad you did…
Unless you are associated with the “banks” or the FDLG…