Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
}
R D,
}
Plaintiff, }
v. }
CIVIL CASE
}
Andrew Doran (in his personal and in his } NO. 16-2014-CA-008522-XXXX-MA
Official Capacity as Notary); }
David L. Senesac (In his personal Capacity); } JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
}
Linda Cozine (In her personal Capacity); }
Defendants }
}
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, RD, (“Plaintiff”, or “Mr. D”), an elderly, disabled adult, and files
his Fourth Amended Complaint. The Defendants named herein, conspired to and have acted
beyond their positions, in order to give an illusion, contrary to fact. As a direct and proximate
cause of Defendants’ actions/inactions, the Plaintiff has been harmed, injured, and suffered
damages.
I. THE PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff, Mr. D, at all times relevant, has owned and resided at Unit 9218, 196 Madonna Ct.,
Ellijay, GA 30540.
2.
Defendant Andrew Doran (in his personal and official capacity as a notary) (“Doran”), at all
times relevant, has been a Notary Public Commissioned in the State of Florida. From
investigation, it appears that Doran resided at 4823 Bankhead Court, Jacksonville, FL 32207.
Mr. Doran has previously been served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint.
3.
Defendant David L. Senesac (in his personal capacity) (“Senesac”), at all times relevant, resided
at 1363 Marsh Grass Court, Jacksonville, FL 32218-8646. The United States District Court
ruled that Senesac has waived any objections to service of process [Doc.23, p.ids.311-313].
4.
Defendant Linda Cozine (in her personal capacity) (“Cozine”), at all times relevant, resided at
7710 Del Road, Jacksonville, FL 32244. Cozine has previously been served with a copy of the
5.
The Defendants1 were the agents, employees, representatives, partners, officers, principals, and/or
joint venturers of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged,
were acting within the scope, course, and purpose of such agency, employment or position and
6.
Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to F.S.A. §47.011, venue is proper in that the events that gave rise
to the complaint took place in Jacksonville, Florida, in Duval County; and all Defendants at the
7.
1
Whenever appearing in this complaint, each and every reference to Defendants or to any of them
is intended to be and shall be a reference to all defendants hereto, and to each of them unless said
reference is specifically qualified.
2
This Court has jurisdiction because the circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction not vested in
the county courts, and jurisdiction of appeals when provided by general law. (Art. V, § 5(b), Fla.
Const.) Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enterprises, Inc., 641 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla. 1994).
8.
The most convenient forum for all parties involved is in the state of Florida, and the State of Florida
has an interest in enforcing the laws of the State of Florida. Plaintiff contends that this Court is a
Court of competent jurisdiction to rule on the matters herein. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in
this Court.
9.
This action is brought due to falsification of documents recorded into the public record, notary
10.
On approximately February 21, 2013, defendant Andrew Doran (“Doran”), was a qualified notary
public for Duval County, Florida and was authorized to exercise the office of notary public within
11.
allegedly executed by defendant David L. Senesac (“Senesac”) as Vice President and Defendant
12.
Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document because the
document does not show how Doran verified the identity of the parties who executed the document.
3
13.
Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document because the
document does not show that it was “sworn” before him. The document merely states “Signed,
14.
Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document as the document
15.
Exhibit B is/was deficient and Doran negligent when he notarized the document, because nowhere
does the document reference the document showing authority for Senesac and Cozine to sign as
16.
Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document as there is
nothing that indicates how Senesac and Cozine, who are Florida residents would have the authority
to sign for an entity whose address is 1111 Polaris Parkway Columbus, OH 43240 for property
located in Gilmer County, Georgia, as “Attorney-In-Fact” for the FDIC located presumably in
Washington, D.C., while the law firm requesting such recordation is located at 15000 Surveyor
17.
Due to the negligence of Doran as a notary and the forgery of the positions of Senesac and Cozine,
Exhibit B has been entered into the public record and has caused a lien upon Plaintiff’s real
property.
18.
4
Plaintiff had personally paid $500,000.00 while building the home that said lien has been placed
19.
This action has nothing to do with Georgia property, except for the fact that Exhibit B placed a
20.
The document has been “filed into the official record” and “contains a materially false, fictitious
21.
Defendants unlawfully caused to be filed, “false documents or records against real or personal
property,” “with the intent to defraud or harass” the Plaintiff, and the instrument, Exhibit B,
22.
Defendants knew or should have known that the making of and/or execution of Exhibit B was an
illegal act, pursuant to F.S.A. §817.54, which holds: “Any person who, with intent to defraud,
obtains any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument evidencing a debt from
any person or obtains the signature of any person to any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note
pretenses, or obtains the signature of any person to a mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note,
or other instrument evidencing a debt, the false making whereof would be punishable as forgery...”
23.
Defendants knew or should have known that the creation and execution of the Exhibit B, due to
5
the nature of the document, and the fact that the document was signed with fictional titles of the
signors, and attested by Doran, would be received as legal proof of a debt, would be filed/recorded
into a public record, and that their actions were made without concern for the consequences, and
with intent to defraud or injure the Plaintiff, they violated F.S.A. §831.01.
24.
Senesac and Cozine knew or should have known that a falsification of their positions as Vice
Presidents violated F.S.A. §831.06 in that the title was meant to indicate that they were “an officer
note, draft or evidence of debt issued by such corporation, with intent to pass the same as true, it
25.
Plaintiff contends that Doran had actual knowledge that he violated F.S.A. §117.05(4) when he
26.
Defendants knew, or should have known that the FDIC does not execute assignments for any loans
received from defunct banks, even though the fictional Exhibit B showed: “This assignment is
made without recourse, representation or warranty, expressed or implied, by the FDIC in its
corporate capacity or as Receiver. This Assignment is intended to further memorialize the transfer
27.
Plaintiff alleges that neither defendant Senesac or defendant Cozine held the position of Vice
President.
6
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NOTARY NEGLIGENCE
(As Against Defendant Doran)
28.
29.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doran, acting in his official capacity as Notary Public for the State
of Florida, negligently, and as his part in a conspiracy, attempted to give Exhibit B legitimacy
30.
“The distinction between ‘may’ and ‘shall’ has often been discussed in Florida cases. The word
‘may’ when given its ordinary meaning denotes a permissive term rather than the mandatory
connotation of the word ‘shall.’” The Florida Bar v. Trazenfeld, 833 So.2d 734, 738 (Fla.2002).
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, 936 So. 2d 715, 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).
31.
Doran was negligent because, pursuant to F.S.A. §117.05(4) “When notarizing a signature, a
notary public shall complete a jurat or notarial certificate .... The jurat or certificate of
acknowledgment shall contain the following elements…” the following shows the elements:
a) Exhibit B does not show the “venue stating the location of the notarization in the
format ‘State of Florida, County of ______’” which shall be shown within the
Notary Public knew or should have known, and resulting in Notary negligence.
§117.05(4)(b), which shall show the “type of notarial act performed, an oath or
7
c) The document shall indicate that the signers of Exhibit B “personally appeared
d) Exhibit B lacks the date the document was executed, which shall appear on the
document.
e) Doran was negligent in that Exhibit B failed to state how the identity of the signers
were verified the Notary Public shall show the “type of identification the notary
(§117.05(5)).
32.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doran was negligent in that the document falsifies the positions of
the entities whose signatures executed the document Exhibit B; the document appears to be
legitimate but was not signed under oath, and only gives the appearance of having been “sworn”.
33.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doran had actual knowledge that the two entities that purportedly
executed the document, did not hold the positions of Vice Presidents; failed to have Senesac and
Cozine “sworn” at the time of signing; Plaintiff alleges that document was notarized in blank; and
As a direct and proximate cause of Doran’s negligent actions/inactions, a lien appears against Mr.
D’s in the official record, causing a cloud upon his title, that he has been unable to date, to have
removed, making his property unmarketable; thereby, Plaintiff has been harmed, injured, and
suffered damages.
35.
36.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to violate and violated F.S.A. §§ 817.535 and 817.54.
37.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Senesac and Cozine knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and with
malicious intent, misrepresented their titles as Vice Presidents when they signed Exhibit B with
the malicious intent, that Exhibit B be filed into the public records. Doran notarized Exhibit B
with the knowledge that Exhibit B would be filed into the public records.
38.
Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Doran (FL) notarized while knowingly, willingly, wantonly,
and with malicious intent to harass, harm, and defraud Plaintiff, and Senesac (FL) and Cozine (FL)
(Washington DC) as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank,
39.
9
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, intending for the document which contained materially false,
fictitious and fraudulent statements to be filed into the official record and thereby effected
Plaintiff’s interest in his property §817.535(a)(2), gives Plaintiff a cause of action without regard
40.
Plaintiff alleges that he incurred financial loss as a result of the instrument being recorded in the
official record in the nature of court costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff was unable to correct the
faulty recording in the official records which caused the lien to remain upon Plaintiff’s real
41.
Plaintiff alleges a violation of F.S.A. §817.54, which holds that “Any person who, with intent to
defraud, obtains any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument evidencing a
debt from any person or obtains the signature of any person to any mortgage, mortgage note,
promissory note or other instrument evidencing a debt by color or aid of fraudulent or false
representation or pretenses, or obtains the signature of any person to a mortgage, mortgage note,
promissory note, or other instrument evidencing a debt, the false making whereof would be
punishable as forgery...”
42.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions/inactions violating F.S.A. §§ 817.535 and
43.
10
44.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated, and conspired to violate F.S.A. §§ 831.01, 831.06.
45.
More specifically, when defendants Senesac and Cozine2 falsified that they were Vice Presidents
and thereby forged their titles/identities, executed, and Doran attested Exhibit B, a public record,
of a public register, and Exhibit B was received as legal proof of the facts contained within the
document, with the intent to either defraud or injure Plaintiff, the Defendants violated §831.01.
46.
Plaintiff further alleges that Senesac and Cozine, having forged their positions as Vice Presidents,
alleged to be evidence of a debt, and Exhibit B having been intended to pass the same as true, “it
47.
Plaintiff alleges that Cozine works for a banking entity, not as a Vice President, but as an
Operations Specialist Senior3 Exhibit C, which after researching the matter, the person in that
position is to “support the Branch Manager and Tellers to ensure customer financial transactions
are completed accurately and efficiently, while complying with all policies, procedures and
48
While Mr. D has found nothing about David L. Senesac, Plaintiff contends that if Senesac did hold
the position of Vice President, that information would have been found; nothing was found about
Senesac, and therefore, Senesac may not even be employed with a Banking institution; discovery
2
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/linda-cozine/71/683/9a9
3
http://houston.jobing.com/jpmorgan-chase-co1/lead-teller-operations-specialist-trainee-
2-17162654
11
will enhance the ability to prove that Senesac is liable to Mr. D for his actions.
49.
Plaintiff contends that Exhibit B could not have been recorded into the public record without being
duly notarized or attested, and thereby, as a direct and proximate cause of all defendant’s
50.
51.
Plaintiff alleges that the three (3) Defendants were part of a conspiracy.
52.
Plaintiff alleges that all three (3) Defendants sought to record fictional documents into the official
record, to harass, intimidate, harm, and injury Plaintiff, which constitutes an unlawful act.
53.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants signed and notarized Exhibit B so that it would be recorded into
54.
Plaintiff was harmed, injured and suffered damages as a direct and proximate cause of Exhibit B.
12
b) find Defendant Doran was negligent as alleged herein, and liable to Plaintiff for the
c) find that Defendants Senesac and Cozine are liable to Plaintiff for their as set forth
/s/ LA. W
L A. W, Esq.
Florida Bar Number:
Law Office of Williams, P.A.
P.O. Box 28447
Jacksonville, FL 32226-8447
Office: 904-576-2581
Fax: 800-408-5818
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have, this 6th day of January 2017, served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Fourth Amended Complaint upon Defendants through their attorney on file by
electronic delivery.
13