Akerman Senterfitt Joins the Smith, Hiatt & Diaz Case v ABBY G. LOPEZ | Fraudclosure Case Involving Leaked Email Heats Up, Akerman Tries to Close the Courtroom

And it goes a little something like this…

A few weeks ago we put up some documents that were accidentally leaked from an LPS email.

The conversation evolves like this:

“Yikes! The name of the foreclosing party (HSBC as Trustee for Deutsche Bank Alt-A 2007-BAR1) matches the name on the affidavit of amount owed BUT that name doesn’t match what is in our system. It’s pretty far into the legal foreclosure process. What should we do now?”

“Hey, no problemo! We have two options; 1) change the name now and possibly be hit with higher homeowner association fees or 2) quit claim deed the home over to the right name after the sale, but that will cost documentary stamp taxes. The doc stamp taxes will probably be less costly than the HOA fees. Please advise.”

“Go with the quit claim deed (QCD). After the foreclosure sale to the trust, just deed the home over to Bank of America! Problem solved.”

Then there was a Motion to Purge Lender Processing Services’ (LPS) Accidentally Leaked Internal Email…

And shortly after that, the Palm Beach Post took up the story…

A suburban West Palm Beach foreclosure case has even bank employees confused, with internal emails that question whether the wrong entity is repossessing the house – but that then decide to move forward anyway.

Bank attorneys now want to purge the court file with the messages, which were filed mistakenly. The emails also mention trying to avoid mounting community association fees.

What happened next will amaze you.

We posted the hearing date on 4closureFraud.org as an action alert to round up some court watchers to witness the hearing.

Well, about 15-20 observers showed up, some with these awesome “Foreclosure Court Watcher” shirts on and the attorney for Akerman did not like it one bit.

Before the Judge even entered the courtroom, the Akerman attorney aggressively tried to convince the bailiff to clear the courtroom. Yes, you got that right. The Akerman attorney wanted to close the courtroom to the public because he did not want his “client’s” dirty laundry exposed more than it already was.

The bailiff refused to do his bidding and told him to take it up with the judge. After a few minutes of back and forth, the Akerman attorney convinced the bailiff to go back and ask the judge to order all of us out of the courtroom.

When the bailiff returned, he told the Akerman attorney that the judge was busy and he said he would have to wait until he entered the courtroom to address his concerns. Shortly thereafter the Judge entered the room.

This is when it got interesting. For what seemed like 20 minutes, the Akerman attorney tried to convince the judge to kick us all out of the courtroom. It was joyful to watch as the judge kept saying “You want me to close this public courtroom?” while getting angrier by the minute. At a final moment of desperation, it almost appeared that the Akerman attorney was going to throw a temper tantrum by kicking his feet on the ground and waving his arms in the air if he did not get his way.

Ultimately, the Akerman attorney refused to proceed with the hearing with all of us observers in the courtroom and requested to continue the hearing (as suggested by the judge) until they could file the proper motion to attempt to close the courtroom and purge the record. The request was granted and the hearing came to an end. Wait til you hear the transcript…

Anywho, that brings us to today. We just received Akerman’s motion to close the courtroom to the public, which is posted below for your reading pleasure…

Some excerpts from the motion…

Piaintiff has filed a Motion to Purge from the court record, and to prevent further use and disclosure of, an attorney-client privileged communication that was inadvertently attached to an affidavit of indebtedness filed with the court.

On or about October 10, 201 1 , Plaintiff filed the afflrdavit of Kimberly Sue Daley in support of its motion for sunmary judgment in a document entitled “Payment History and Amended Affidavit of Indebtedness Supporting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice withdrawing Previous Affidavit of Indebtedness” (the AoI). The AoI referenced and attached as an exhibit a BANA business record showing, among other things, the date of default under the subject loan and amounts due thereunder’

The AOI inadvertently and unintentionally also included an electronic intercom communication by and between BANA emproyee Nicholas Leonhard and “BAc Affidavits” (the Intercom Exchange). The Intercom Exchange was not referenced or described in the AoI’

The hearing on the Motion to Purge was originally scheuduled to Determine May 24, 2ol2, As the Motion to Purge inevitably required discussion of the attomey-client privileged Intercom Exchange, including possibly the meaning and purpose of that privileged communication, Plaintiff made an ore tenus motion that the hearing be held in camera and closed from pubiic view. The court advised that it would not conduct a confidenttal, in camera hearing without a separate motion and hearing on the propriety of an in camera hearing’ The court gave Plaintiff the option of proceeding with an open hearing or fi1ing a motion requesting a confidential, in camera hearing. Accordingly, the undersigned requested that the hearing on the Motion to purge be continued so that he could request such relief via the instant motion’ ll.Due to the privileged nature of the inadvertently disclosed,attomey-client priveged communication sought to be purged from the record, plaintiff hereby requests that this Court allow the Motion to Purge to proceed by a confidential, in camera hearing.

Full motion below…

We will notice everyone on the hearing to close the hearing once we have the date!

Oh, and BTW, we have a big surprise for you all on this one so stay tuned!

And I thought the Florida Bar said foreclosure lawyers must report fraud to court…

I also wonder if anyone notified the homeowners association that the “Plaintiff” is trying to cheat them out of their money. Guess I’ll give em a call and find out…




Akerman Motion to Close the Court

LPS Internal Emails Pg 1 – Foreclosed in Wrong Party Name

LPS Internal Emails Pg 2 – Foreclosed in Wrong Party Name

Lopez Affidavit

18 Responses to “Akerman Senterfitt Joins the Smith, Hiatt & Diaz Case v ABBY G. LOPEZ | Fraudclosure Case Involving Leaked Email Heats Up, Akerman Tries to Close the Courtroom”
  1. woodknotgo says:

    Motion for In Camera Inspection was ignored by my Plaintiff-
    just more fuel for the Motion To Compel Discovery-with Sanctions.
    Waiting is the long & difficult part……………the Twilight Zone.

  2. Paulina J. says:

    Thank you! I’ve been watching this for the whole time youve been putting it up here. Its about time something happens now! Whos the lawyers for LPS and what kinds of fines are they facing for there rolls in this? Will this be the one that gets them?

    hope this doesn’t post twice, but i tried all ready once and it wouldn’t go through.

  3. To Tell The Truth says:

    A thought just occurred to me…why shouldn’t the fraudclosure watchers file a similar motion right away also to disallow the motion to close the doors…or some similar motion to ensure they can go in next time? Just a thought…

    • incognito123 says:

      You were not the first to think of that, it is OUR courtroom and we have a RIGHT to view the proceedings.

  4. To Tell The Truth says:

    It is amazing that this attorney is acknowledging fraudulent documents by his actions…and allowed to do so…guess the bank can afford to pay him for more delays…hope the judge is not intimidated the next go round…good that he stood his ground this time…

  5. dRp says:

    You catch someone with their pants down and they claim they were just urinating, it’s still indecent exposure!

  6. J. Alonzo says:

    This is how we are all slowly getting use to this. We are exepting this kind of fraud upon us. Just like we execpt the TSA and the NDAA and the Patriot Act. The Sheeple are all worries about Obama or Romney. When they are botht the same thing. Sheeple!

  7. zurenarrh says:

    Fuck yeah! This rules! You guys rock! Can’t wait for the surprise!

  8. John Anderson says:

    I am wondering why this obvious fraud is tolerated by this judge?
    I guess “Maximum Protection” applies to the banks, not to the homeowner.

  9. lies is all they tell says:

    you mean this is floridah #1 in corruption in the country. wow blatant and in your face fraud. hmmmm

  10. Bobbi Swann says:

    This is Palm Beach County people….land of pocket-filling, greed and corruption of the court system…nothing new here!

  11. An admission against interest by a party is always a mistake. An attorney client communication is confidential even if it constitutes an admission against interest. However this privilege is waived when the attorney publishes the admission in the docket of the case. Furthermore a request to defraud the court with a fabricated, post hoc document is a crime and not subject to the attorney client privilege.

  12. Heather says:

    yeah well akemann were/are the attorneys on my case. Did anyone say fraudulent documentation anyone?

    • brian tracy says:

      Sounds like they will lose their license over this one ,, they are “required” to report fraud on the court.

  13. Rusty says:

    Is this in Federal Court? If not, why not? It seems that they are crossing State Lines.

  14. Pamela Edwards says:

    No documentation should ever be purged unless it has to do with a child.These Attorneys are just shameless and trifeling.If thier clients had not done anything wrong then why wouldn’t it be a public courtroom where any tax payer can watch the posturing that takes place.

Leave a Reply