People are asking what is next after Cottrell depo.

LINK – GMAC, You Ain’t the Only One – Full Deposition of Beth Cottrell Chase Home Finance – Robo-Signer Extraordinaire


LINK – Two Original “WET INK” Notes Discovered in Same Foreclosure Case – Beth Cottrell JPMorgan Chase Team – 18,000 Documents a Month!

Well, here you go…

This motion was filed and is set for hearing on October 19th 2010 in Palm Beach County Florida…

The bank “lawyered up” and hired well-respected firm Gray Robinson to represent them.

Come one, come all to view the outcome of this historic case…

Only time will tell…

So, without further ado, excerpts from the motion…






50 2008 CA 016857XXXX MB


4closureFraud dot org

In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, CHASE submitted an Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing.  This key part of CHASE’s case sought to lay the  evidentiary foundation for the amounts allegedly to CHASE from  the KORENS.  The affidavit was signed by Beth Cottrell(“COTTRELL”), an “Assistant Secretary” of CHASE.  The KORENS deposed COTTRELL to examine the veracity of the affidavit.  Upon deposition, COTTRELL’s answers regarding the preparation and submission of the affidavit brought to light troubling practices, and, in some instances, outright fraud and deceit.  The KORENS move to dismiss this case with prejudice as a sanction to CHASES’s for submitting this fraudulent affidavit to the Court.

COTTRELL Made Innumerable False Statements on The Affidavit

Q. Well, just I’ll ask you in regards to the entire affidavit.  This was an introductory paragraph I believe referring to the entire affidavit.   It stated you deposed on personal knowledge.  As to everything in the affidavit, did you have personal knowledge?

A. My own personal knowledge, no.

Affidavit: “There is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”

Q. And did you do anything to verify that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case?

A. No.

Affidavit: “Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.”

Q. Also in paragraph 1 you stated “That plaintiff is entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.”  Again, did you have personal knowledge of that?

A. No knowledge.

The Filing and Submission of Such a Fraudulent Affidavit is Grounds for Dismissal With Prejudice

Filing and submitting to the Court such a blatantly fraudulent affidavit is grounds for the sanction of dismissal with prejudice.   Trial courts have “the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court.” Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Defendants  submit  that all of the applicable standards  for dismissing a case for fraud have been met in this case. First, this would be “a most blatant showing of fraud.”  Plaintiff’s affidavit refers to the affiant having personal knowledge four times.  Yet COTTRELL admitted, without reservation, that she did not have personal knowledge of the matters in the affidavit.

Second, clear and convincing evidence abounds that the substance and submission of the affidavit were fraudulent.  COTTRELL’s own words from her deposition prove without any doubt that she testified to things in the affidavit which simply were not true.

Third, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s law firm have undoubtedly set in motion this process of trying to influence the finder of fact.  This is not the first time that fraudulent affidavits filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. have been brought to this Court’s attention.

Furthermore, the Court cannot assume that this is an isolated incident whereby Plaintiff accidentally failed to live up to its own words in an affidavit.  Rather, COTTRELL testified that her office signs over 18,000 documents a week between 8 people. COTTRELL further testified that “My review [of documents] is more or less signing the document unless it’s questionable.” Accordingly, the Court can be assured that the subject affidavit is not the only document filed by Plaintiff or its counsel that is without any verification or truth behind the facts asserted.

Finally, the fraudulent affidavit goes directly to damages and the amount purportedly owed by Defendants.  As such, dismissal is a proper sanction.  Therefore, the fraudulent affidavit in this case meets all the relevant tests that Florida courts have applied to determine if dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate remedy.
4closureFraud dot org
WHEREFORE, Defendants  ask the  Court to dismiss  this action with prejudice as a sanction  for submitting a blatantly fraudulent affidavit.  Defendants  ask for any additional sanctions the Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs for having to uncover Plaintiff’s conduct.

Be sure to check out the full motion below…

And remember, this hearing is scheduled for October 19th 2010 in Palm Beach County Florida…



Beth Cottrell, Chase Home Finance