echeverria vs bank of america, n.a.; urban settlement services d/b/a urban lending solutions and...

7/21/2019 Echeverria vs Bank of America, N.A.; Urban Settlement Services d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions and Carlisle & Gall…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/echeverria-vs-bank-of-america-na-urban-settlement-services-dba-urban 1/42

No. 14-15375-BB

____________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________________________

ABDIEL ECHEVERRIA and ISABEL SANTAMARIA

Plaintiffs-Appellants

.

BAN! OF AMERICA" N.A." URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES d#$#a

URBAN LENDIN% SOLUTIONS and CARLISLE & %ALLA%HER

CONSULTIN% %ROUP" INC.

Defendants-Appellees

_____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

_________________________________________

APPELLANTS' REPL( BRIEF

_______________________________

Abdiel Echeverria Isabel Santamaria

XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

April 14, 2015 Pro se Plaintiffs-Appellants



Abdiel Echeverria, et al v. Bank of America, N.A., et al

No. 1415!"5##

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

$%rs%ant to Eleventh &irc%it '%le 2(.1, the )ollo*in+ is an alphabetical list

o) the trial %d+e, attorne-s, persons, )irms, partnerships, and corporations *ith an-

no*n interest in the o%tcome o) this appeal/

• Antoon, ohn II, nited States istrict %d+e

• #aer, avid A., nited States 3a+istrate %d+e

• #an o) America, N.A., e)endant Appellee

• &arlisle 6alla+her &ons%ltin+ 6ro%p, Inc., e)endant Appellee

• &arlisle, 7homas 6. 8*ner9Shareholder o) &arlisle 6alla+her &ons%ltin+

6ro%p, Inc.

• &on*a-, Anne &., &hie) nited States istrict %d+e

• &o:, ;evin <., Attorne- )or e)endant Appellee rban Settlement Services

• ice-, Ale: $., Shareholder holdin+ 10= o) more stoc o) &arlisle

6alla+her &ons%ltin+ 6ro%p, Inc.

• %thiers, 7ricia ., Attorne- )or #an o) America, N.A.

i

• Echeverria, Abdiel, $lainti)) Appellant

• En+le, 3e+han ., Attorne- )or e)endant Appellee &arlisle 6alla+her

&ons%ltin+ 6ro%p, Inc.

• >arle-, 'ichard ?., Attorne- )or &arlisle 6alla+her &ons%ltin+ 6ro%p, Inc.

• @olland ;ni+ht ?a* >irm



• ;atten 3%chin 'osenman ??$

• ;ell-, 6re+or- ., nited States 3a+istrate %d+e

• ?evine, osh%a '., Attorne- )or e)endantAppellee #an o) America, N.A.

• ?iebler, ames '., Attorne- )or #an o) America, N.A.

• 3endoa, &arlos E., nited States istrict %d+e• $arrino, 3arc 7., Attorne- )or e)endant Appellee #an o) America, N.A

• $rovenale, 3ichael S., Attorne- )or &arlisle 6alla+her &ons%ltin+ 6ro%p,

Inc.

• Sanders, &harles BC&h%cD, 8*ner and &E8 o) rban Settlement Services

d9b9a rban ?endin+ Sol%tions

• Santamaria, Isabel, $lainti)) Appellant

•Serradet, Sahil-, Attorne- )or e)endants Appellee #an o) America, N.A.

ii

• Soles, 6ar- 'obert, Attorne- )or e)endant Appellee &arlisle 6alla+her

• rban?in &orporation, as parent compan- o) e)endant rban Settlement

Services d9b9a rban ?endin+ Sol%tions

• rban Settlement Services d9b9a9 rban ?endin+ Sol%tions, e)endant

Appellee.



iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pa)*+,

&E'7I>I&A7E 8> IN7E'ES7E

$E'S8NS AN IS&?8S'E S7A7E3EN7 FFFFFFFFFF...i, ii, iii

7A#?E 8> &8N7EN7SFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.FF..iv

7A#?E 8> A7@8'I7IES FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.FFvi

IN7'8&7I8NFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF1

I. A'63EN7FFFFFFF... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FF2

A. 7he AppelleesG Ar+%ment >or 'es %dicata >ails As A 3atter 8) ?a*..

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.2



1. >ra%d Hitiates All %d+mentsFFFFFFFFFFF.........2

2. Appellee #an o) America, N.A., rban Settlement Services

d9b9a rban ?endin+ Sol%tions and &arlisle 6alla+her

&ons%ltin+ 6ro%p, Inc. &onspired In &oncealin+ Necessar-

$artiesFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF....

!. >lorida &o%rts and 8ther &o%rts @ave &onsistentl- e)ied Res

Judicata <hen &ontin%o%s Actions And Alle+ed Hiolations and

Noti)ications 8cc%r. FFFFFFFFFFFFFF..11

iv

Pa)*+,

4. 7he AppelleesG $rivit- e)ense oes Not E:cl%de 7hem >rom

Individ%al 'esponsibilit-.FFFFFFFFF....FF.

FF14

#. e)endants >ail 7o Address 7he 3aterial >acts and ivert

Attention o) the istrict &o%rtFFFFFFFFFFF..

FF..F1



1. 7he istrict &o%rt I+nored $lainti))sG &laims 8) iscover-

Ab%se.FFFFFFFF...FFF...

FFFFFFFFF.1

2. All Appellees Are 'esponsible >or >ra%d%lent &oncealment.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

FF.24

!. All Appellees &ommitted Intentional 3isrepresentations And

&onspired 7o e)ra%d the AppellantsFFF.

FFFFFF.2(

II. &8N&?SI8N FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF2"

III. &E'7I>I&A7E 8> &83$?IAN&E FFFFFFFFFFFFFF...2

IH. &E'7I>I&A7E 8> SE'HI&E FFFFFFFFFF.FFFF............!0

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Boyces E!ecutors v. "rundy B1J!0 2J .S. 210FFFFFFFFFFFF.....5

#apital Bank v. Needle, 5( So.2d 11!4, 11!J B>la. 4th &A 12FFFFF.11



#armine v. Bo$en, (4 A. !2FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..2(

Colon-Millin v. Sears Roebuck De Puerto Rico, Inc. , 455 >.!d !0, !" B1st

&ir. 200( FFFFF...

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..5

De Louis v. Meek, 2 Ia. 55 B)ootnoteFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..

FFF..5

%air v. &ampa Electric #o., 2" So. 2d 514, 515 B>la. 14( B)ootnote FFFF...!

Haeger v. Goodyear ire and Rubber Co., No. &H050204('@X'8S

B. &t. Ari., Nov. J, 2012FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

FFFFF22

Ha!el-"tlas Glass Co. v, Hart#ord-$%&ire Co ." !22 .S. 2!J B144

FFFFF.2

'srael (iscount Bank )td. v. Entin, 951 F.2d 311, !14 B11th &ir.12

FFFF..4

Jackson )a$ *ffice, P.#. v. #happell , !2" S<2d 15 at 2" FFFFFFFFF.5

'ent v. Ricards, ! 3d.&h. !2 B)ootnote

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF5

)evine v. +nited tates, !(2 .S. (10, J0 S.&t. 10!J B1(0 FFFFF.FFF.1

)ibhart v. #opeland 4 S<2d "J!, "4 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF...5

artin v. Automobili )amborhini E!clusive, 'nc.,!0" >.!d at 1!!( n. 2. FF.F.(

http://www.leagle.com/cite/951%20F.2d%20311




Nudd v. Burro$s B1J"5 1 .S. 41( FFFFFFFFFFFFF...FFFF5

vi

Parker v. Parker , 50 So. 2d !JJ, !1 B>la. 200" B)ootnote FFFFFFFF.!

Pearce v. (lney, 20 &onn. 544 B)ootnote

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF5

Riehle v. arolies, 2" .S. 21J, 225 B12 FFFFFFFFFFFFF....2

Road)ay $*&ress, Inc. v. Pi&er , 44" .S. "52, "(4 B1J0 FFFFFF..

FF22

inleton v. "reymar Assocs., JJ2 So.2d 1004, 100J B>la.2004 FFFFF.F.11

S%it+ v. Lo)ry, 1 ohns. BN.K. &h. !20 B)ootnote FFFFFFFFF...

FF..5

outhern (evelopment #o. v. ilva, 125 .S. 24", J S.&t. JJ1, !1 ?.Ed.B1JJ"...2(

Star Direct eleco%, Inc. v. Global Crossing and)idt+, Inc., 2"2

>.'.. !50,

!5 B<..N.K. 2011 FFFFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFF...FFF.21

tar %undin olutions, ))# v. /rondes, 101 So.!d 40!, 40! B>la. 4th &A 2012

FFFFFFFF...FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..11

nited States v. +rock%orton 98 U.S. 61 (1878) (footnote)

………………….….5



.S. ank at/l "ss/n v. artra%, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2014)….11

.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032

……………………………………………26

.S. v. )eel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 …………………………………………..

……..26

0aras v. Pelt , 01 >. S%pp. at 15"FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..(

0ieric+ v. De 1oya, " Ill. !J5B)ootnote FFFFFFFFFFFFF..

FFF5

1ocaras v.#astro, 4(5 >.!d at 4J5FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..FF..(

vii

RULES Pa)*+,

>ed. '. &iv. $. 1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF...

>ed. '. &iv. $. 2(BaFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..FFFFF20, 21

>ed. '. &iv. $. 2(BaB1BA FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFF20

>ed. '. &iv. $. 2(Be FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.20, 21

>ed. '. &iv. $. !2BaB"B#Biii FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..F2

>ed. '. &iv. $. !" FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF...FFF.22

>ed. '. &iv. $. !"Bc FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF...FFF..20, 21



>ed. '. &iv. $. !"BcB1 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..FFFFF21

>ed. '. &iv. $. (0 Bb B)ootnote FFFFFFFFF..FFFFFFFFFFJ

LOCAL RULES

Eleventh &irc%it '%le 2(.1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..F..i

SECONDAR( SOURCES

American %rispr%dence 2d B)ootnoteFFFFFFFFFFFF..FFFFF5

#lacGs ?a* ictionar- FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

>reeman 8n %d+ments FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..FF20

'%les o) $ro)essional &ond%ct FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..FFF.2!

<ells 'es Ad%dicata B)ootnote FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..FF5

viii

INTRODUCTION

In a strained attempt to dil%te their massive )ra%d and concealment and to

escape liabilit- )or the )la+rant harm committed a+ainst the Appellants, the

Appellees9e)endants o))er this co%rt an incorrect vie* o) the )acts o) this case.

7he Appellees once a+ain tr- to escape responsibilit- via res 2udicata and privit-

and contin%e to evade the Con+oin+D acts committed a+ainst the Appellants and

the concealed )acts, evidence and necessar- parties in prior liti+ation.



In s%m, the coconspirators reL%est that this co%rt i+nore the important )acts

*hich incl%de their on+oin+ ille+al behavior and their blatant miscond%ct,

misrepresentations, violations o) discover- r%les and their contin%ed e))orts to

conceal material in)ormation )rom the Appellants o) this c%rrent action. 7he

Appellees e:pect that this appellate co%rt a))irm *itho%t care)%l scr%tin- the

district co%rtGs erroneo%s order dismissin+ the AppellantsG case.

I. AR%UMENT

A. T* A//*00**,' A)2*n Fo R*, 2d6aa Fa60, A, A Ma* O8 La9.

7he S%preme &o%rt has r%les and a))irmed the principle that, M%stice m%st

satis)- the appearance o) %stice.M )evine v. +nited tates, !(2 .S. (10, J0 S.&t.

10!J B1(0.

1

In the present case, Appellants had no choice b%t to amend their state co%rt

complaint, thereb- creatin+ a basis )or )ederal %risdiction and addin+ more

evidence and events that transpired. 7he Appellees m%t%all- evade and tr- to divert

the co%rtGs attention )rom an-thin+ that *o%ld s%bstantiate the AppellantsG c%rrent

claims or the )ra%d the- have committed in the district co%rt and a+ainst the

Appellants. >or the reasons e:plained belo*, res 2udicata does not appl- to the

c%rrent action.



1. Fa2d V66a*, A00 2d)*n,.

7he nited States S%preme &o%rt has stated )or at least ninet- -ears that

onl- Cin the absence o) )ra%d or coll%sionD does a %d+ment )rom a co%rt *ith

%risdiction operate as res %dicata. Riehle v. arolies, 2" .S. 21J, 225 B12.

>ra%d encompasses a broad ran+e o) h%man behavior, incl%din+ an-thin+

calc%lated to deceive. $lainl-, honest- and intellect%al inte+rit- are essential

components o) %dicial character. %dicial character is important in America. No

)ra%d is more odio%s than an attempt to s%bvert the administration o) %stice.

Ha!el-"tlas Glass Co. v, Hart#ord-$%&ire Co. , 322 U.S. 238

(1944).

2

In practice, )ra%d embraces all the m%lti)ario%s means that h%man in+en%it-

can devise )or one person to +ain an advanta+e over another b- )alse s%++estion or

s%ppression o) the tr%th. No )inal, invariable r%le can be laid do*n in de)inin+

)ra%daccordin+ to Blacks )a$ (ictionary, the act o) )ra%d incl%des s%rprise,

tric, c%nnin+, and a ran+e o) %n)air *a-s b- *hich people are cheated. 7he onl-

bo%ndaries are those that limit h%man naver-.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=322&invol=238










<hen a part- challen+es the precl%sive e))ect o) a previo%sl- obtained

%d+ment based %pon the *innerGs )ra%d, co%rts o)ten be+in b- asin+ *hat ind o)

)ra%d the loser alle+es. A common distinction co%rts dra* is bet*een e:trinsic and

intrinsic )ra%d. 7he >lorida S%preme &o%rt de)ines e:trinsic )ra%d as/

O7Phe prevention o) an %ns%ccess)%l part- O)romP presentin+ his case, b-

)ra%d or deception practiced b- his adversar-Q eepin+ the opponent a*a-

)rom co%rtQ )alsel- promisin+ a compromiseQ i+norance o) the

adversar- abo%t the e:istence o) the s%it or the acts o) the plainti))Q )ra%d%lent

representation o) a part- *itho%t his consent and connivance in his de)eatQ

and so on1.

A %d+ment can be made void d%e to )ra%d *hen one o) the parties had concealed

)acts that a))ect the other part-Rs ri+hts. 7he district co%rt i+nored the AppellantsG

claims o) )ra%d Band didnGt even address it committed b- the

Appellees in prior liti+ation and i+nored a e- component in la* b- the .S.

S%preme &o%rt, the hi+hest co%rt in the nation, *hich states that )ra%d *o%ld

vitiate Bor in other *ords destro- the %d+ment or dismissal. >ra%d *as indeed

committed in the proc%rement o) the %d+ments.

M'es %dicata bars a s%bseL%ent action i)/ B1 the prior decision *as

rendered b- a co%rt o) competent %risdictionQ B2 there *as a )inal %d+ment on

1 Parker v. Parker , 50 So. 2d !JJ, !1 B>la. 200" BL%otin+ %air v. &ampa Electric #o., 2" So. 2d 514, 515 B>la.

14(.

!



* *6,Q B! the /a6*, 9** 6d*n6a0 6n $o ,26,Q and B4 the /6o and

/*,*n a2,*, o8 a6on a* * ,a*.M 'srael (iscount Bank )td. v. Entin, 951

F.2d 311, !14 B11th &ir.12. 7hese )actors have not been )%ll- met )or the

p%rpose o) res 2udicata in this c%rrent action.

A case is resolved Con the meritsD *hen it is resolved a2a*0:, on the

basis o) the la* and the 8a,;. @o* can an- prior claim be resolved Con the

meritsD *hen )ra%d tainted prior %d+ments and the co%rt relied on )alsities and

concealment to iss%e a %d+ment in )avor o) Appellee #an o) America In

addition, rban and &arlisle 6alla+her *ere not de)endants in an- prior case b%t

the- sho%ld have been. 7here)ore, the parties are not identical in this c%rrent action.

CIn all these cases! and man- others *hich have been e:amined, relie) has been

+ranted on the +ro%nd that, b- some )ra%d practiced directl- %pon the part- seein+

relie) a+ainst the %d+ment or decree, that part- has been prevented )rom

presentin+ a00 o8 6, a,* to the co%rt4.D

2<hen re)errin+ to a %d+ment, decision or r%lin+ o) a co%rt based %pon the )acts presented in evidence and the la*

applied to that evidence. A %d+e decides a case Mon the meritsM*hen he9she bases the decision on the )%ndamental

iss%es and considers technical and proced%ral de)enses as either inconseL%ential or overcome.

4

3 <ells, 'es Ad%dicata , sec. 4Q Pearce v. *lney, 20 &onn. 544Q 3ierich v. (e 1oya, " Ill. !J5Q /ent v.

Ricards, ! 3d.&h. !2Q mith v. )o$ry, 1 ohns. BN.K. &h. !20Q (e )ouis v. eek, 2 Ia. 55.

44 nited States v. +rock%orton 98 U.S. 61 (1878).







C>ra%d destro-s the validit- o) ever-thin+ into *hich it enters.D Boyces

E!ecutors v. "rundy B1J!0 2J .S. 210. C>ra%d vitiates ever-thin+ it to%ches.D

Nudd v. Burro$s B1J"5 1 .S. 41(.

CNo co%rt in this land *ill allo* a person to eep an advanta+e *hich he has

obtained b- )ra%d. No <2d)*n o a o2" no order o) a minister, can be allo*ed

to stand i) it has been obtained b- )ra%d. >ra%d %nravels ever-thin+. FF..)ra%d

vitiates a00 transactions5, and 68 a=*n 8o a 8a2d20*n /2/o,* o a: o2 a

8a2d20*n ,**" ,2 a6on 6, o6d and o) no )orce or e))ect *hatever,

eL%alit- *ill compel )air dealin+, disre+ardin+ all )orms and s%bter)%+es, and

looin+ onl- to the s%bstance o) thin+s.D Jackson )a$ *ffice, P.#. v. #happell , !2"

S<2d 15 at 2" citin+ )ibhart v. #opeland 4 S<2d "J!, "4.

A part- commits C>ra%d pon the &o%rtD *here clear and convincin+ evidence

demonstrates that/

Ca part- has sentientl- set in motion some %nconscionable scheme calc%lated

to inter)ere *ith the %dicial s-stemGs abilit- impartiall- to ad%dicate a

5 37 A !"# 2d, Se$t%on 8, &tate&, '2raud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed,t+e &rinci&le is o#ten stated, in broad and s)ee&ing language, t+at #raud destroys t+e

validity o# everyt+ing into )+ic+ it enters, and t+at it vitiates t+e %ost sole%n contracts,docu%ents, and even 3udg%ents.4

5



matter b- improperl- in)l%encin+ the trier or 2n8a60: a/*6n) *

/*,*na6on o8 * o//o,6n) /a:', 0a6 or de)ense.D 0aras v. Pelt ,

01 >. S%pp. at 15".

<hile dismissal )or >ra%d pon the &o%rt most commonl- res%lts )rom

)abricated evidence, 11th &irc%it &o%rts have also )o%nd >ra%d pon the &o%rt

*here a part- *ron+)%ll- conceals the identit- o) the real part- in interest in the

case. In 1ocaras v.#astro, the 11th &irc%it %pheld a dismissal )or >ra%d pon the

&o%rt *here the $lainti)) had )iled s%it %nder a )alse name and CproceedOedP *ith

that deception ri+ht %p to trial.D 1ocaras, 4(5 >.!d at 4J5. In artin v. Automobili

)amborhini E!clusive, 'nc., the 11th &irc%it %pheld a dismissal )or >ra%d pon

the &o%rt *here the liti+ants had en+a+ed in s%bstantial miscond%ct *hich

incl%ded/

1 6,0*ad6n) * o2 a$o2 * *a0 /a: 6n 6n**, 6n * a,*>

(

2 en+a+in+ in e:tensive d6,o*: a$2,* o o$,2 **0a6on o) the

no*n )alsities in the complaint or doc%mentsQ

! %sin+ letters threatenin+ classaction liti+ation to e:tort settlement

o))ers *itho%t an- intention o) )ilin+ a case, andQ



4 )ilin+ *ith the co%rt man- doc%ments *here the si+nat%res o) la*-ers

*ere )or+ed. artin v. Automobili )amborhini E!clusive, 'nc.,!0" >.!d at

1!!( n. 2.

@o* co%ld the Appellants9$lainti))s cond%ct a proper trial or cond%ct proper

liti+ation or even deposition o) emplo-ees o) *hich Appellee #an o) America *as

concealin+ their tr%e identit- even d%rin+ discover- <hat challen+es *o%ld the

Appellants have )aced *hen the- ased these socalled #an o) America

emplo-ees *ho the- *ored )or, their tass and their emplo-ment address to onl-

)ind o%t later that the emplo-ees *ere told to lie b- the de)endants <o%ld the-

have revealed their tr%e emplo-er, title, ob description, place o) emplo-ment, etc.

in trial *hen the $lainti))s *ere not prepared 7his is a serio%s matter and i) the

district co%rt )ailed to see the conseL%ences o) these coconspiratorsG criminal

actions, then *e can ass%me that the r%les or the la* are biased in )avor o) hi+h

ranin+ bl%ecollar criminals *ho pervert the co%rse o) %stice.

In prior liti+ation, the $lainti))s9Appellants speci)icall- named emplo-ees

"

*ho Ca))irmativel-D *ored )or #an o) America or #an o) AmericaGs 8))ice o)

the &E8 and $resident and held speci)ic titles s%ch as C&%stomer AdvocateD and



a))irmed emplo-ment at speci)ic #an o) America locations accordin+ to mailin+s

received and misrepresented )acts to the $lainti))s and others.

It is sa)e to sa- that accordin+ to this &irc%itGs case la* speci)ied above,

#ANA( concealed the identit- o) real parties ri+ht %p %ntil %d+ment *as rendered

in their )avor and be-ond. 7he Appellees concealed )rom the co%rt the tr%e

identities o) these emplo-ees and concealed parties o) interest since the inception

o) liti+ation in ecember 2010 %ntil it *as revealed in ecember o) 201!.

7he $lainti))s attaced the proc%rement o) the )ra%d%lent %d+ment" and dismissal

b- separate action BAppellantsG Appendi: Hol. 2, Amended #omplaint oc. 4" and

Appendi: Hol. 4, econd Amended #omplaint, oc. (0 *hich is on the record.

7he $lainti))s also demonstrated on the record that the- o))er clear and convincin+

proo) that the evidence and )actsJ %nderl-in+ the previo%s %d+ment and dismissal

*as indeed )abricated or concealed to their detriment.

6 Even tho%+h #an o) America B#A& *as not the $lainti)), same r%le applies to both $lainti))s and

e)endants in re+ards to >ra%d pon 7he &o%rt.

7 See >'&$ '%le (0 Bb.

8 See Appellants Appendi!, Hol. 1, %dicial Notice, oc. 40Q Hol. !, %dicial Notice, oc. 55Q and %dicial Notice,

oc. 5".

J



&learl-, res %dicataGs )actors have not been met b- the Appellees and the

AppelleesG )ra%d *o%ld void an- prior %d+ment.

;. A//*00** Ban= o8 A*6a" N.A." U$an S*0**n S*6*, d#$#a

U$an L*nd6n) So026on, and Ca06,0* & %a00a)* Con,206n)

%o2/" In. Con,/6*d In Con*a06n) N**,,a: Pa6*,.

<hen seein+ s%mmar- %d+ment, the movant m%st state that he no*s o)

no other compellin+ reason *h- there sho%ld be a trial and that Cno )acts remainD.

7his statement ma- be made in the application notice or s%pportin+ evidence b%t,

in each case, sho%ld be veri)ied b- a statement of truth or declaration. Appellee

#ANA. )iled s%ch a doc%ment in the district co%rt in reL%estin+ s%mmar-

%d+ment. 7here *as de)initel- a dishonest concealment o) s%ppressed )acts and

evidence that impeded the Appellants to properl- liti+ate an- prior action.

Necessar- parties are COpPersons *ho o%+ht to be parties i) complete relie) is to be

accorded bet*een the persons *ho are parties to the action or *ho mi+ht be

ineL%itabl- a))ected b- a %d+ment in the actionD. >ed. '. &iv. $. 1 clearl- states

that a CreL%ired part-D is/

9 &ase No. (/10cv01!!AA#, oc. 5" 5J.



CA person *ho is s%bect to service o) process and *hose oinder *ill not

deprive the co%rt o) s%bectmatter %risdiction m%st be oined as a part- i)/

BA in that personRs absence, the co%rt cannot accord complete relie) amon+

e:istin+ partiesQ or

B# that person claims an interest relatin+ to the s%bect o) the action and is

so sit%ated that disposin+ o) the action in the personRs absence ma-/

Bi as a practical matter impair or impede the personRs abilit- to protect the

interestQ or

Bii leave an e:istin+ part- s%bect to a s%bstantial ris o) inc%rrin+ do%ble,

m%ltiple, or other*ise inconsistent obli+ations beca%se o) the interestD.

Appellants have maintained thro%+ho%t this c%rrent action that Appellee

rban Settlement Services Brban ?endin+ Sol%tions and Appellee &arlisle

6alla+her &ons%ltin+ 6ro%p, Inc. sho%ld have been reL%ired9necessar- parties in

prior claims. nbeno*nst to the Appellants, the AppelleesG emplo-ees *ere

directl- implicated in past liti+ation and these emplo-ers *ere CconcealedD b-

Appellee #ANA and it is no* clear as to *h-. nbeno*nst to the Appellants,

#an o) America BC#ANAD contracted these entities *ho in t%rn trained these

emplo-ees to directl- deceive the Appellants, other +overnmental and )ederal

parties involved and other homeo*ners )or their )inancial +ain.



10

3. F0o6da Co2, and O* Co2, Ha* Con,6,*n0: D*86*d Res

Judicata?*n Con6n2o2, A6on, And A00*)*d V6o0a6on, and

No686a6on, O2.

7o demonstrate that res 2udicata is Cdo%ble standardD and not strictl- or

properl- applied at times, *e shall anal-e repetitive C)oreclos%reD )ilin+s *ithin

the state o) >lorida as an e:ample/ CO7Phe doctrine o) res 2udicata does not

necessaril- bar s%ccessive )oreclos%re s%its, re+ardless o) *hether or not the

mort+a+ee so%+ht to accelerate pa-ments on the note in the )irst s%it.D inleton v.

"reymar Assocs., JJ2 So.2d 1004, 100J B>la.2004. 7his is beca%se COaP ne*

de)a%lt, based on a d688**n a o da* o8 d*8a20 no a00*)*d 6n * d6,6,,*d

a6on" *a*, a n*9 a2,* o8 a6on.D tar %undin olutions, ))# v. /rondes,

101 So.!d 40!, 40! B>la. 4th &A 2012 Bcitin+ inleton, JJ2 So.2d at 1005.

Accordin+l-, * o0d6n) a//06*, **n 9** * /6o a6on 9a, ad<2d6a*d

on * *6,. See inleton, JJ2 So.2d at 100" Bcitin+ #apital Bank v. Needle,

5( So.2d 11!4, 11!J B>la. 4th &A 12Q c). +.. Bank Nat4l Ass4n v. Bartram,

140 So.!d 100", 1014 B>la. 5th &A 2014 Bholdin+ that a s%bseL%ent de)a%lt

creates a ne* ca%se o) action )or stat%te o) limitations p%rposes even *here a prior

case *as dismissed on its merits. Appellee #an o) America, N.A. has o)ten

bene)ited b- this res 2udicata 5do%ble standardD in repetitive cases a+ainst the



11

same parties, seein+ the same relie), same s%bect, same actions and the same

)acts a)ter prior dismissal.

It is %sti)iable )or the co%rts to +ive a pass to criminal bans on res 2udicata

and allo* m%ltiple )oreclos%re actions on the same propert- a+ainst the same

parties *ith the same claims and the same in%ries b- %sin+ Cdi))erent datesD o)

acceleration as an e:c%se )or ne* ca%ses o) action b%t it is not oa- )or the

Appellants in this case to brin+ %p ne* dates, )ra%d claims, proo) o) concealment

and )ra%d %pon the co%rt. I) the same privile+e *ere to appl- to the Appellants in

this action, ne* ca%ses o) action *o%ld also be in e))ect incl%din+ b%t not limited

to )ra%d%lent mailin+s in 201! Bdi))erent dates *hich incl%ded another )ra%d%lent

loan modi)ication paca+e )rom #ANA %sin+ their p%ppet 3A, )ra%d%lent debt

collection e))orts10 and )oreclos%re notices in 201!11 *hich *o%ld then also mae

10 %rin+ prior liti+ation and a)ter, e)endant #an o) America Band possibl- rban and &6&6, *ho

reall- no*s *ho is *ho an-more contin%ed to send )ra%d%lent C8))ice o) the &E8 and $residentD

mailin+s to the $lainti))s and )or other investi+ations cond%cted in 201! and 2014 b- the 8&& and &>$#

)or *hich the $lainti))s and all those implicated relied on these mailin+s not no*in+ the tr%e nat%re o)

s%ch to their detriment. 7he $lainti))s also received CnoticesD *ith misrepresentations in 201! and 2014.

7hese occ%rrences happened A>7E' an- prior action.

11 Appellants Appendi!, Hol. 1, 8ri+inal State &o%rt &omplaint, oc. 2, E:hibit I and Hol. 2, Amended &omplaint,

oc. 4", E:hibits E >.

12



the same r%le applicable in this c%rrent action to avoid res 2udicata. <o%ldnGt

s%bseL%ent re+%lator- complaints )iled b- the Appellants a+ainst Appellee #ANA

*hich res%lted in )%rther misrepresentations b- the Appellees also bar the

application o) res 2udicata here <o%ldnGt these ne* comm%nications that the

Appellants )iled on the record attached to their complaints and as %dicial notices

also create ne* ca%ses o) action not barred b- res 2udicata 8ther than the )act

that )ra%d vitiates %d+ments, *o%ldnGt these other )actors also be applicable to the

case at hand <o%ldnGt repetitive monthl- )alse and inacc%rate reports to credit

b%rea%s b- #an o) America also be ne* Con+oin+D in%ries and violations

7he Appellees not onl- concealed material )acts and evidence in prior liti+ation

b%t also committed s%bseL%ent violations a+ainst the Appellants *ith no re+ard o)

the severe in%ries and dama+e the- had alread- ca%sed and contin%ed to ca%se. I)

)ra%d%lent bans and their minions have been +iven loopholes and opport%nities to

avoid res 2udicata, then *h- are the victims in this case not +iven the same

co%rtes- id the bi+ bad bans *ho destro-ed the econom- *ith )ra%d and +reed

Cp%rchaseD this privile+e I) this is the la* to assist bans and corporations s%ch as

the Appellees to avoid the application o) res 2udicata then it sho%ld also bene)it the

Appellants. ArenGt repetitive )ilin+s )or C)oreclos%resD also *ithin the same n%cle%s

o) operative )acts A+ain, i) the )ra%d%lent bans are a))orded this l%:%r- to avoid



res 2udicata, *h- *o%ld it not appl- to the instant action *hich also incl%ded

evidence o) violations and )ra%d%lent comm%nications that contin%ed to occ%r

1!

It is )%ndamental that no man sho%ld be allo*ed to tae advanta+e o) his

o*n )ra%d as the e)endants9Appellees have in this case and in prior cases.

S%ppose a man sec%res an ad%dication b- )ra%d. <hich principle is to +overn

Shall the resol%tion o) the la* be that the %d+ment m%st stand beca%se it is a thin+

ad%dicated or m%st the ver- decision be declared void, beca%se it is tainted *ith

)ra%d I) the )irst concl%sion is reached, a man ma- tae advanta+e o) his o*n

)ra%d. I) the second, the principle o) res 2udicata m%st admit o) e:ceptions. So )ar,

the district co%rt has allo*ed the Appellees to ointl- tae advanta+e o) their )ra%d.

'e*ardin+ )ra%d is a+ainst all that this co%ntr-Gs %dicial s-stem stands )or.

Allo*in+ and re*ardin+ an- criminal person or entit- to perpetrate a )ra%d%lent

scheme in *hich its victimGs claims have been s%bstantiated b- evidence *ith the

intention to deprive another o) propert- Band d%e process12 *hich also res%lted in a

12 7he F%fth and Fo"#teenth Amendments to the Un%ted State& Con&t%t"t%on contain a d2* /o*,, 0a2,*.

%e process deals *ith the ad%n%&t#at%on of "&t%$e and th%s the d%e process cla%se acts as a sa)e+%ard )rom

arbitrar- denial o) li)e, libert-, or /o/*: b- the 6overnment o%tside the sanction o) la*.

14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_justice


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_justice



lon+term )inancial loss to its victims and lon+term ph-sical harm, is a crime all in

itsel).

4.T* A//*00**,' P66: D*8*n,* Do*, No E@02d* T* Fo

Ind66d2a0 R*,/on,6$606:.

As Cindependent contractorsD and independent companies, rban and

&arlisle 6alla+her are contracted b- several companies and receive

compensation )or their services. 7he- cond%ct these services in their o*n )acilities,

pa- their o*n emplo-eesG *a+es and cond%ct s%pervision and trainin+ o) their o*n

emplo-ees.

7he emplo-eeindependent contractor distinction can be si+ni)icant in other

respects as *ell. >or e:ample, i) an independent contractor is considered to be an

Cemplo-eeD b- the Internal 'even%e Service or the epartment o) ?abor, the

compan- can be responsible )or additional ta:es, *a+es, overtime pa-, etc. %nder

)ederal la*s and re+%lations implemented b- those a+encies. Are rban and

&6&6 responsible )or their o*n emplo-eesG ta:es, *a+es, overtime pa-, ins%rance

and bene)its or #ANA



Is it to be believed that rban and &6&6 and their emplo-ees can act

reclessl- in%rin+ the Appellants and others and not be liable )or their recless

behavior

Since rbanGs and &6&6Gs act%al emplo-ees *ere also directl- implicated

15

in ca%sin+ harm to the $lainti))s9Appellants, the- cannot )all %nder the privity

%mbrella and tr- to pi++-bac their *a- o%t o) their o*n responsibilit- )or the

harm ca%sed. rban and &6&6 have openl- admitted to bein+ CcontractedD b-

Appellee #ANA and b- others to per)orm services and are independent emplo-ers

themselves *ho hire and s%pervise their o*n emplo-ees. rban and &6&6 are

)%ll- capable o) main+ their o*n decisions )or the bene)it o) their compan- and

are in control o) the per)ormance o) their emplo-ees. I) the- *ere reL%ested b-

#ANA to train their emplo-ees to commit ille+al activities and in%re others as a

res%lt, the- co%ld have re)%sed to enter said contract or to do so. #ANA did not

hire these rban or &6&6 emplo-ees or provide them a pa-chec. #ANA is not

their emplo-er or master. rban and &6&6 is the emplo-er and master o) their

o*n emplo-ees and committed these acts b- their o*n )ree*ill.



#ANA is responsible9liable )or its emplo-ees, rban is responsible9liable )or

its emplo-ees and &arlisle 6alla+her is responsible9liable )or its emplo-ees.

Even i) rban and &arlisle 6alla+her *ant to )alsel- call themselves an

emplo-ee or a+ent, the- cannot escape their o*n individ%al responsibilities as

separate entities.

1(

@o*ever, #an o) America, rban nor &arlisle 6alla+her have ever been

penalied )or the )ra%d%lent acts that their emplo-ees perpetrated a+ainst the

Appellants *ith the intent to de)ra%d and in%re them. All o) these Cindivid%alD

emplo-ers B#ANA, rban, &6&6 *ere responsible )or the actions o) their

emplo-ees d%rin+ the ho%rs the- *ere emplo-ed and )or instr%ctin+ them to do so.

rban and &6&6 never sho*ed)ace )or the acts committed b- their o*n

emplo-ees in prior liti+ation.

7he coconspiratorsG emplo-ees committed these )ra%d%lent acts %nder the

instr%ctions o) their o*n emplo-ers and )or the monetar- bene)it o) their o*n

emplo-ers. 7he t-pe o) *or that these emplo-ees *ere hired to do *as indeed



)ra%d%lent *ith the p%rpose o) deceivin+ homeo*ners and the +overnment and

man- emplo-ees *ere named individ%all- b- the Appellants and e:hibits *ere

)iled to s%bstantiate these claims1!. 7heir individ%al emplo-ers B#ANA, rban,

&6&6 *ere in )act responsible )or their hirin+, *a+es, trainin+ and s%pervision.

7hese emplo-ees consistentl- and )ra%d%lentl- held titles and positions that *ere

deceptive to the AppellantsG detriment. 7hese emplo-ees misrepresented *ho the-

act%all- *ored )or and even *ent as )ar as misrepresentin+ the department

Appellee #ANA concealed in prior actions and d%rin+ discover- that these

emplo-ees *ere not in )act their o*n. 7hese emplo-ees *ere to represent their o*n

emplo-ers rban and &arlisle 6alla+her in prior actions, not #an o) America.

At all times prior, the Appellants %nno*in+l- re)erred to all o) these emplo-ees as

emplo-ees o) #an o) America *hen man- *ere not. 7he Appellants had no

no*led+e o) their tr%e identities or the scheme and )ra%d%lent actions perpetrated

a+ainst them b- these other individ%al entities to their detriment.

rban and &6&6 sho%ld have been oined in previo%s s%its. nbeno*nst

to the Appellants, rban and &6&6 have both claimed an interest relatin+ to the

13 See Appellants Appendi!, Hol. 1, 8ri+inal &omplaint, oc. 2 BE:hibits ?

1"



s%bect o) the action14, beca%se realisticall-, these companies co%ld have been

liable *hen their o*n individ%al emplo-ees *ere speci)icall- named in the prior

action in *hich the- directl- assisted in in%rin+ the Appellants. Secondl-, i) an

action *o%ld have s%ccess)%ll- been bro%+ht a+ainst theses concealed companies,

this mi+ht allo* the plainti)) a do%ble recover- Bor the potential )or

one. 6enerall-, co%rts hold that an iss%e that co%ld be bro%+ht %p b%t

Cvol%ntaril-D isnGt, is *aived, and th%s has been +iven a )%ll and )air opport%nit- to

have been heard on its merits. 7he Appellants *ere not +iven this option beca%se

the- did not have the C)%ll and )air opport%nit-D to liti+ate and9or vol%ntaril- brin+

%p or omit these iss%es beca%se the- *ere concealed alon+ *ith these necessar-

de)endants.

7his M&onspirac-M perpetrated on the Appellants *o%ld not have s%cceeded

*itho%t the participation o) all conspirators.

B. D*8*ndan, Fa60 To Add*,, T* Ma*6a0 Fa, and D6*

A*n6on o8 * D6,6 Co2.

1. T* D6,6 Co2 I)no*d P0a6n688,' C0a6, O8 D6,o*:

A$2,*.

14 Even tho%+h rban and &6&6 have both no* claimed interest in previo%s actions bet*een the Appellants and

#an o) America B#A&, no C&erti)icate o) Interested $ersons and &orporate isclos%re StatementsD Bsee

Appellants Appendi!, Hol. 1, oc. 40 )iled *ith the istrict &o%rt b- Appellee #an o) America ever disclosed this

interest and instead concealed these interested parties even tho%+h the- sho%ld have been oined to prior claims.

1J



i. &he Appellees 0iolated (iscovery Rules, 'ntimidated &he

Appellants and 6et 3ere Re$arded %or &heir isconduct.

7he Appellants *ere clearl- victims o) Cdiscover- ab%seD in prior and in

c%rrent liti+ation. iscover- ab%se taes a variet- o) )orms incl%din+ evasive

discover- responses, boilerplate obections to *ritten discover-, the )ail%re to

prod%ce responsive doc%ments, and even main+ misrepresentations. S%ch cond%ct

is directl- contrar- to the ver- p%rpose o) discover-/ to ens%re that la*s%its are

decided b- *hat the )acts reveal, not b- *hat )acts are concealed.

1

>ed. '. &iv. $. !"Bc sanctions appl- to )ail%res to disclose in)ormation

reL%ired b- '%le 2(Ba, as *ell as to )ail%res to s%pplement discover- responses in

accordance *ith '%le 2(Be. 7he a%tomatic e:cl%sion sanction o) material not

disclosed p%rs%ant to '%le 2(Ba *as added b- the 1! amendments to the r%le. In

2000, a s%bseL%ent amendment made the same remed- available )or material that



sho%ld have been disclosed in discover- responses. '%le 2(Ba lists Cmandator-D

disclos%res that m%st be made even in the absence of a re7uest )rom the opposin+

part-. 7hese disclos%res incl%de the identi)ication Bnames o) *itnesses and

doc%ments that ma- be %sed to s%pport the disclosin+ partiesG claims or de)enses,

comp%tations o) dama+es, and ins%rance a+reements. >ed. '. &iv. $. 2(BaB1BA.

In addition, '%le 2(Be imposes a d%t- to s%pplement a '%le 2(Ba initial

disclos%re or a response to an interro+ator- Cin a timel- manner i) the part- learns

that in some material respect the disclos%re or response is incomplete or incorrect.D

>ed. '. &iv. $. 2(BeQ #olon-illin v. ears Roebuck (e Puerto Rico, 'nc., 455 >.!d

!0, !" B1st &ir. 200( BCOAP part- m%st s%pplement its ans*ers to interro+atories i)

the part- learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or

incorrect and the other part- is %na*are o) the ne* or corrective in)ormation.D.

20

'%le !"Bc en)orces the disclos%re reL%irements imparted b- '%le 2(. '%le

!"Bc states, in relevant part/

CI) a part- )ails to provide in)ormation or identi)- a *itness as reL%ired b-

'%le 2(Ba or Be, the part- is not allo*ed to %se that in)ormation or *itness



to s%ppl- evidence on a motion, at a hearin+, or at a trial, %nless the )ail%re

*as s%bstantiall- %sti)ied or is harmless.D

e)endant 9Appellee #an o) America did not even disclose names as

reL%ired15. id #ANA )eel that the- needed to compl- *ith these r%les. No, the-

did not. #ANAGs attorne- clearl- stated in an email dated September 10, 2014 a)ter

three B! *ees o) the Appellants seein+ the disclos%res that the- do not 8believe

that in disclosin corporate representatives a party is re7uired to desinate the

representative by name in its initial disclosures 9: .

7he sanction is intended to provide Ca stron+ ind%cement )or disclos%reD o)

material that the disclosin+ part- *o%ld e:pect to %se as evidence, *hether at trial,

at a hearin+, or on a motion. >ed. '. &iv. $. !"BcB1 advisor- committeeGs notes to

1! amendmentQ see also tar (irect &elecom, 'nc. v. "lobal #rossin

Band$idth, 'nc., 2"2 >.'.. !50, !5 B<..N.K. 2011 BCI) the >ederal '%les o)

&ivil $roced%re are to be e))ective and meanin+)%l, parties sho%ld not be permitted

to conceal potential so%rces o) responsive in)ormation in the hope that the

15 See Appellants Appendi!, Hol%me 4 C$lainti))sG 3otion to &ompelD, oc. ( and Appellants

Appendi!, Hol%me 5, C $lainti))sG 8bection to 8rder 6rantin+ 3otion to Sta-D, oc. J!.

16 Also provided in $lainti))sG 3otion to &ompel.

21



opposin+ part- does not discover their deliberate omission %ntil the discover-

deadline has e:pired.D.

7he S%preme &o%rt has noted that '%le !" sanctions m%st be applied

dili+entl- both to penalie those *hose cond%ct ma- be deemed to *arrant s%ch a

sanction and to deter those *ho mi+ht be tempted to en+a+e in s%ch cond%ct in the

absence o) a deterrent. Road$ay E!press, 'nc. v. Piper , 44" .S. "52, "(4 B1J0.

id the district co%rt compel discover- )rom Appellee #an o) America )or

violatin+ discover- r%les and )or %sin+ their disclos%res to intimidate the

Appellants instead No.

#eca%se discover- is a search )or the 2, the r%les o) discover- are

desi+ned to serve the ends o) %stice b- )acilitatin+ an intensive search b-

providin+ proced%ral mechanisms desi+ned to mae a trial a )air contest *ith the

basic iss%es and )acts disclosed to the )%llest practicable e:tent. M?iti+ation is not a

+ame. It is the timehonored method o) seein+ the tr%th, )indin+ the 2" and

doin+ <2,6*.M ;aeer v. "oodyear &ire and Rubber #o., No. &H050204('@X

'8S B. &t. Ari., Nov. J, 2012 BSilver, ., p. 1.

22



7o+ether, the r%les o) civil proced%re in both state and )ederal co%rt, alon+

*ith the '%les o) $ro)essional &ond%ct1" serve to sec%re )airness in the trial

process b- deterrin+ deliberate discover- miscond%ct and b- providin+ a remed- i)

miscond%ct nevertheless occ%rs.

&o%rts and la*-ers have the a%thorit- and tools to prevent discover- ab%se. &o%rts

have the discretion to iss%e sanctions incl%din+ orders o) de)a%lt, establishin+ )acts

)or the p%rpose o) the pendin+ case, costs and attorne-Rs )ees. 7he

$lainti))s9Appellants made it no*n to the district co%rt o) these ab%ses and instead

their 3otion to &ompel iscover-1J *as denied and their evidence o) said ab%se

and alle+ations *ere i+nored b- the district co%rt.

7he Appellees impeded discover- and as an Cobstr%ctionD tactic, the- )iled a

3otion to Sta- *hich *as )ra%d%lentl- %sed to avoid ans*erin+ the AppellantsG

Interro+atories B Appellants Appendi!, Hol. 5, oc. J!.

ltimatel-, the )ra%d%lent and malicio%s behavior *as re*arded.

17 See '%les o) $ro)essional &ond%ct, '%le 4.1BaBbQ '%le J.4 3iscond%ct.

18 See Appellants Appendi! 0olume <, C$lainti))sG 3otion 7o &ompelD, oc. ( and Appellants Appendi!, Hol%me

5, C$lainti))sG 8bection 7o 3otion 7o Sta- 8rderD, oc. J!.

2!



No C3otion to E:cl%de EvidenceD *as ever )iled b- e)endant #an o)

America in prior liti+ation and no s%ch motion *as )iled in this c%rrent action b-

an- Appellee.

;. A00 A//*00**, A* R*,/on,6$0* Fo Fa2d20*n Con*a0*n.

6enerall-, the )ollo*in+ elements m%st be present to prove )ra%d%lent

concealment/

A material )act *as concealed or s%ppressed.

7he part- *ho concealed the in)ormation did so to ind%ce a )alse belie).

7he in)ormation co%ld not have been discovered thro%+h a reasonable

inL%ir- or inspection.

7he concealment ca%sed the plainti)) to act di))erentl- than i) the

in)ormation had been disclosed.

7he concealment ca%sed harm to the plainti)).

s%all- )ra%d%lent concealment o) )acts *hich, i) no*n at the trial, *o%ld

have prevented the %d+ment is +ro%nd )or relie) 1.

7he $lainti))s demonstrated d%e dili+ence even a)ter the %d+ment in )avor o) #an

o) America, in that the- discovered the concealed )ra%d as soon as mi+ht

19 %reeman on Judments, 5th Ed. Hol. !, Sec. 12!4, p. 25"1.

24



Creasonabl-D have been e:pected and shortl- a)ter ever-one else discovered it as

*ell. 7he district co%rt erroneo%sl- believes that the Appellants are more

no*led+eable than co%ntless attorne-s or investi+ative so%rces b- statin+ that this

concealed )ra%d sho%ld have been discovered previo%sl-. Not even avid attorne-s

de)endin+ their clients Bhomeo*ners or investi+ators *ere able to Ccrac the

codeD o) this )ra%d %ntil mid 201! and late 201! *hen emplo-ee *histleblo*ers

s%r)aced and soon a)ter the )ra%d%lent #an o) America 8))ice o) the $resident

scam s%r)aced months later as a res%lt. Even tho%+h )latterin+, it is obvio%sl-

ridic%lo%s that the Appellants, pro se plainti))s *ith limited )inancial reso%rces and

investi+ative means, co%ld have discovered this )ra%d even *ith d%e dili+ence lon+

be)ore an-one else did and especiall- *hen rel-in+ on misrepresentations b-

#ANA in prior liti+ation.

7he Appellees *ithheld relevant and necessar- in)ormation )rom the

Appellants at all times, even d%rin+ liti+ation. 7he Appellees deceived the

Appellants d%rin+ discover- and had a d%t- to disclose pertinent )acts and other

perpetrators relevant to the case.

MSilence can onl- be eL%ated *ith )ra%d *here there is a le+al or moral d%t-

to spea, or *here an inL%ir- le)t %nans*ered *o%ld be intentionall-

25



misleadin+. . . <e cannot condone this shocin+ behaviorFFM +.. v. &$eel, 550

>.2d 2", 2. See also +.. v. Prudden, 424 >.2d 1021, 10!2Q #armine v. Bo$en,

(4 A. !2.

3. A00 A//*00**, Co6*d In*n6ona0 M6,*/*,*na6on, And

Con,/6*d To D*8a2d * A//*00an,.

In outhern (evelopment #o. v. ilva, 125 .S. 24", J S.&t. JJ1, !1 ?.Ed.

B1JJ", the .S. S%preme &o%rt de)ined the le+al elements o) a civil )ra%d as

)ollo*s/T 7he de)endant has made a representation in re+ard to a material )act.

T 7he representation *as )alse

T 7he de)endant ne* the representation *as )alse

T 7he representation *as intended to provoe an action b- the plainti))

T 7he plainti)) s%))ered dama+e as a res%lt

In actin+, the plainti)) reasonabl- ass%med the representation *as tr%e.

In all )ra%d cases, the prosec%tion or plainti)) m%st prove that a )alse

statement *as intentional and part o) a deliberate scheme to de)ra%d. A person

intentionall- maes a )alse statement i) it is his desire to ca%se the social harm, or

2(

i) he acts *ith no*led+e that the social harm *ill almost certainl- res%lt )rom his

actions. In some instances, partic%larl- those involvin+ civil actions )or )ra%d and

sec%rities cases, the intent reL%irement is met i) the plainti)) is able to sho* that the

)alse statements *ere made reclessl-that is, *ith complete disre+ard )or tr%th

or )alsit-. 7hat is de)initel- the case here.



7he $lainti))s9Appellants in this c%rrent action *ere able to sho* the

malicio%s scheme to de)ra%d them perpetrated b- A?? named e)endants.

e)endants rban and &arlisle 6alla+her *ere ver- *illin+ to compl- in this

)ra%d%lent scheme and to in%re the $lainti))s.

II. CONCLUSION

>or all the reasons set )orth herein, this &o%rt sho%ld reverse or void the

8rders entered b- the district co%rt +rantin+ the e)endantsAppellees 3otion to

ismiss. All other matters and motions *ron+)%ll- decided b- the district co%rt

sho%ld also be reversed. 7he Appellants stron+l- believe that this c%rrent action

*o%ld be o) interest to the .S. S%preme &o%rt +iven that the district co%rt

disre+arded the S%preme &o%rtGs stance on )ra%d and constit%tional ri+hts and ho*

tho%sands o) others *ere a))ected b- the AppelleesG scheme. 7he district co%rtGs

decision sho%ld be reversed and remanded )or )%rther proceedin+s.

2"

'espect)%ll- s%bmitted,

______________________________

Abdiel Echeverria $ro se Appellant



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

______________________________

Isabel Santamaria $ro se Appellant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2J

III. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ?ITH RULE 3;+a+7

I hereb- certi)- that m- *ord processin+ pro+ram, 3icroso)t <ord, co%nted

(, "1 *ords in the )ore+oin+ brie), incl%sive o) the portions e:cl%ded b- '%le

!2BaB"B#Biii.



2

IV. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I @E'E#K &E'7I>K that a tr%e and correct cop- o) the )ore+oin+ brie)

*ith priorit- mail posta+e has been )%rnished b- .S. 3ail on this date on the

)ollo*in+ co%nsel/

osh%a '. ?evine

?eibler, 6onale $ort%ondo



44 <est >la+ler Street

&o%rtho%se 7o*er, 25th >loor

3iami, >lorida !!1!0

7elephone/ B!05 !"0400

>acsimile/ B!05 !"(2(

'ichard ?. >arle-

;atten 3%chin 'osenman, ??$

550 S. 7-ron Street, S%ite 200

&harlotte, N& 2J202421!

7elephone/ B"04 !44!0(2

>acsimile/ B"04 !44!040

;evin &o:

@olland ;ni+ht

!14 So%th &alho%n Street

S%ite (00

7allahassee, >lorida !2!01

7elephone/ BJ50 4255(2(

>acsimile/ BJ50 224JJ!2

!0

echeverria vs bank of america, n.a.; urban settlement services d/b/a urban lending solutions and...

Documents