Fraud on the Court Results in Dismissal of 11 Eviction Actions

By Andrew Ostrega Case Law January 26, 2014

The Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida recently dismissed twelve eviction actions when it determined that the property manager had forged the landlord’s signature on all the complaints, thus committing a fraud on the court. The court retained jurisdiction for a determination as to attorneys fees and costs. See opinion below.

ESTAD LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MARK WARD, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Civil Division. Case No. 2013-CC-002151-O, Division 72. July 30, 2013. Wilfredo Martinez, Judge. Counsel: Jaisen J. Stango, Orlando, for Defendant.

ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY DISMISSALWITHOUT LEAVE TO AMENDTHIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on April 1, 2013 upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff failed to appear with counsel. Reynaldo Tirado, Plaintiff’s Property Manager, appeared. Defendant appeared by counsel, Jaisen J. Stango, Esquire. The Court, after hearing argument from counsel, carefully reviewing the pleadings, motions, and exhibits attached thereto, and otherwise being fully informed in the premises, finds that the motion has merit and should be granted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Court does hereby

ORDER, ADJUDGE, and FIND as follows:

1. Plaintiff, through its Property Manager, Reynaldo Tirado, filed this action to evict Defendant for nonpayment of rent pursuant to the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT2. The Court finds it lacks authority to exercise its eviction power, i.e., jurisdiction, in this particular eviction action to award Plaintiff possession of the leased premises because Plaintiff’s Property Manager, Reynaldo Tirado, lied under oath and committed fraud upon this Honorable Court.

3. The Court acknowledges Defendant did not deposit any monies into the rent registry and if the Court would have summarily entered a default against the Defendant, rather than setting this matter for hearing, the fraud committed upon this Honorable Court and in other Divisions would not have been discovered.

4. Defendant’s attorney, Jaisen J. Stango, Esquire, called Mr. Reynaldo Tirado (Plaintiff’s Property Manager) as a witness. After the Clerk put the Property Manager under oath, Defendant’s attorney asked the Property Manger about the signature on the complaint. The Property Manager testified the complaint was signed by Sean McElvaney (the managing member of the Plaintiff). Defendant’s attorney then asked the Property Manager about the signature on the owner’s authorization form. The Property Manager testified the owner’s authorization form was signed by the Managing Member.

5. The Defendant’s attorney then asked the Property Manger to explain to the Court specifically how the Managing Member provided him with the owner’s authorization form after it was signed. The Property Manager testified he emailed the form to the Managing Member and then the Managing Member emailed it back to him. The Defendant’s attorney then asked the Property Manger if the owner’s authorization form was specifically for this particular eviciton or was it for use with multipleevictions. The Property Manager testified the form was only for this particular eviction.

6. The Defendant’s attorney then asked the Property Manger to explain to the Court specifically how the Managing Member provided him with the complaint after it was signed. The Property Manager testified he drafted the complaint and then sent the complaint to the Managing Member by FedEx at an address in Atlanta and then the Managing Member signed it and sent it by FedEx back to him. The Defendant’s attorney asked the Property Manager to explain why he emailed the owner’s authorization from, but spent the additional money and time to send the complaint to the Managing Member by FedEx. The Property Manager testified he understood the complaint had to be filed with an original signature. The Defendant’s attorney then asked the Property Manager why he had to send the complaint to the Managing Member by FedEx when he simply could have emailed the Managing Member the complaint and the Managing Member could have signed it and sent it to him by FedEx. The Property Manager did not provide an answer sufficient to satisfy the Court.

7. The Court then reminded the Property Manager he was under oath and the Court asked the Property Manager again about the signatures on the complaint and the owner’s authorization form. The Property Manager testified the Managing Member signed the complaint and the owner’s authorization form.

8. The Court then showed the Property Manager several owner’s authorization forms with the same exact signature used in other evictions filed by the Property Manager on behalf of the Plaintiff. By placing the forms on top of each other and holding the papers up to the light it was clear to the Court the Property Manager used the same exact owner’s authorization form for each eviction, but changed the Defendant’s Name on each form submitted to the Court for that particular eviction.

9. The Property Manager then admitted he lied under oath and testified he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint filed in this case.

10. The Court then asked about the authenticity of the signatures on other complaints filed by the Property Manager on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on other complaints as well.

11. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002133-O.

12. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002135-O.

13. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002138-O.

14. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002142-O.

15. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002143-O.

16. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002146-O.

17. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002149-O.

18. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002153-O.

19. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-CC-002155-O.

20. The Property Manager admitted he forged the Managing Member’s signature on the complaint in case number 2013-0C-002157-O.

21. As a matter of public policy, the Court must dismiss this action because Plaintiff has come into this Honorable Court with unclean hands. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The above-captioned civil action is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.

PREVAILING PARTY & ENTITLEMENT

TO ATTORNEY’S FEES22. The Court retains jurisdiction to determine if Defendant is the prevailing party in this case and is entitled to recover costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, from the Plaintiff pursuant to § 83.48, Fla. Stat., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(d), and any other applicable law, rule, or statute. The Court retains jurisdiction to award Defendant costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, from Plaintiff if the Court deems it just and proper.

23. The Court retains jurisdiction to hear any other motions and grant any other relief in furtherance with this order and ruling in this case.

Fraud on the Court – Bad Idea!