Disclaimer:  The following is for informational purposes and not intended to be construed as legal advice.  Please seek the advise of an attorney.

If you are in Florida, please see Fl statute 90.953

In Re: b) The Fourth District Court of Appeals in the state of Florida decided an issue quite pertinent to todays foreclosures; in the case of StateStreetBank and Trust Co., Trustee for Holders of Bear Stearns Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1993-12 v. Harley Lord, et al., 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Court held that StateStreetBank could not maintain a cause of action to enforce a missing promissory note or to foreclose on the related mortgage in the absence of proof that it or its assignor ever held possession of the promissory note. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002).

c) The Court explained that pursuant to section 90.953, Florida Statutes, (2002), Florida's code of evidence, the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure must present the ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE as a duplicate of a note is not admissible. Otherwise, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of section 673.3091, Florida Statutes to pursue enforcement. W.H. Dwoning v. First Na'tl Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955), Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

d) StateStreetBank was later cited with approval by Dasma Investments, LLC v. Realty Associates Fund III, L.P., 459 F.Supp.2d 1294(S.D.Fla.2006) where the court held that if a party is not in possession of the original note and cannot reestablish it, the party cannot prevail in an action on the note. In Dasma, the court explained that in Florida a promissory note is a negotiable instrument and that a party suing on a promissory note, whether just on the note itself or together with a foreclose on a mortgage securing the note, must be in possession of the ORIGINAL NOTE or reestablish the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3091. See, Shelter Dev. Group, Inc. v. Mma of Georgia, Inc., 50 B.R. 588, 590 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.1985).

e) 90.953 Admissibility of duplicates.-A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless:
(1) The document or writing is a negotiable instrument as defined in s. 673.1041, a security as defined in s. 678.1021, or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of money, is not itself a security agreement or lease, and is of a type that is transferred by delivery in the ordinary course of business with any necessary endorsement or assignment.
(2) A genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.
(3) It is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
(4) A promissory note is clearly a negotiable instrument within the definition of section § 673.1041 (1) FS and either the ORIGINAL must be produced, or in the event of a lost note, the document must be re-established under section § 673.3091 (2) FS. In this case, the Plaintiff clearly FAILED to attempt to move Court to re-establish the necessary PROMISSORY NOTE under § 673.3091 (2) FS or any other Florida statute upon filing and initiating frivolous complaint.

5th DCA in Florida.

In Re: 4. That the Plaintiff pursuant to section 90.952 FS failed to attach the ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE. 90.952 FS Requirement of originals.-Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph. Additionally, as the Fifth District Court of Appeals in the state of Florida noted, The original document that is generally required to be filed with the court in a mortgage proceeding is the ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE (NOT a copy, a faxed copy, a lost note affidavit etc,) and NOT the mortgage. The ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding so that it DOES NOT remain in the stream of commerce. Booker T. Perry and Betty J. Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., Et Al.

In this case the Perry's lost the case in a technicality. Please google case and study it. Do Not make the same mistake. The Perry's failed to OBJECT to a note provided to them by the attorneys and the court admitted it.

5. Plaintiff and their attorneys knowingly proceeded to use Dade County Public Records in an attempt and with intent to commit fraud upon the Defendant(s) and the Court. 817.034 Florida Communications Fraud Act.?(3). Services. (d) "Scheme to defraud" means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.

1. In the event that law permits the enforcement of a lost negotiable instrument section § 673.3091 (2), F.S. applies. Section § 673.3091 (2) F.S., requires a person seeking to enforce a lost negotiable instrument to:

1) Prove the terms of the instrument;

2) Prove the right to enforce the instrument; and

3) Protect the person who has to make payment from other claims to pay the instrument.

4) Plaintiff failed to prove ALL conditions above. (1) (2) and (3).

f) Plaintiff failed to prove "Chain of Title" with their respective assignments assigning the rights to enforce

g) Information obtained from bill SB 282, sponsored by Senator Posey on February 2, 2004

h) Why would one lose or destroy a valuable negotiable instrument? Defendants only guess would be to hide fraud.

i) "Actual Fraud. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scienter] when it causes injury to another. [see: e.g.,Steven H. Gifis, ?Law Dictionary', 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v. "Fraud.

Want to know more??? Click Here to get started!