Compared and Contrasted Against One Another
V. DEFENSES
Unlike § 817.545, Fla. Stat. (2009) and two other federal statutes concerning mortgage fraud previously discussed, both § 877.10, Fla. Stat. (2009) and § 817.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) require reliance by a person or entity by the fraudulent activity undertaken in order for a defendant to be convicted for either statute. § 877.10, Fla. Stat. (2009) specifically states this reliance requirement,102 but § 877.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) does not.103 However, the latter’s reliance requirement is laid out in the Third District Court of Appeal case, Adams v. State, 650 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
In Adams, the defendant gave “…an erroneous address and social security number, and misrepresented the address of…” an unregistered company the defendant owned to obtain a mortgage loan from a corporation.104 Subsequently, the company determined the information was false and notified law enforcement.105 “The police suggested issuing the check to lure the defendant to appear.”106 After exiting the corporation’s office, the defendant was arrested.107 A jury convicted the defendant and on appeal she argued her conviction for a violation of …
To be continued in the next posting of Attorney Behr’s prosecution series…
___________________________
Any use of the previous article requires written permission from Attorney Ralph Behr and from this website and its subsidiaries under State and Federal Law. DO NOT copy and use the text provided above and/or publish as your own. The document may only be used for private study or distributing among peers in paper, not on internet transmission, with no intent to make profit or sell without credit being due to the original author.