lZ96LL0CIAI0- AN0S asecoo-mas-aa 1VIIN1301ANO0 (e)9 'd 14180 '8 '03d oi 1NVfS8fld -1VIIN3OldN00 ki# FOR DE SIT ONLY Stonegate 7;• cgss Ranch LW O ;._'CAWIRE, _ I • ' I YS •• w 7 (I) n 0 no • 0 (750 t: 2 cw EFTA01346739

d" the old > Rodberg property to SGBK for just over what he owed Stonegate Bank on > it. I checked SGBK and it has the same corporate address as > Stonegate, hence the name "SGBK." Apparently, the bank bought the > property for what he owed on it. > I think now is a good time to call Mark C. and say you

st him and Rowland for $452,304.92, and ordered the property sold at auction. (Rowland's the guy who went in for $200,000 and was put on the deed). Stonegate already got a judgment against Mike in Palm Beach for $200,000.00+. Mike is going to try to stick Rowland with the judgment by going bankrupt. Than

ed in most of them. His personal home is in foreclosure. He was ordered to file a complete financial statement with the court withing 45 days in the Stonegate lawsuit (signed 25 Aug 2010), so I will grab that document when it is filed. My understanding is the sheriffs deputy investigating the case is tryi

ke "sold" the old Rodberg property to SGBK for just over what he owed Stonegate Bank on it. I checked SGBK and it has the same corporate address as Stonegate, hence the name "SGBK." Apparently, the bank bought the property for what he owed on it. I think now is a good time to call Mark C. and say you not