Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
2025-03929 · Lackawanna County
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Plaintiff alleges he paid off the roughly $230,000 remaining balance on a Fidelity Bank mortgage for his property at 25 Dundaff Street in 2025 specifically to avoid a flood-insurance requirement costing about $14,000 per year, that there was never any agreement on how that payoff would be applied, and that Fidelity refused to refund the money or waive the flood-insurance obligation while holding him liable for 2025 flood-insurance costs. He brings a breach-of-contract claim seeking a refund; jury trial demanded.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: A Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale and Rule to Show Cause was filed January 16, 2026, indicating a related foreclosure/sheriff’s-sale proceeding running in parallel. On February 2, 2026, Tufano filed a Praecipe for Discontinuance with Prejudice, voluntarily ending the case himself before the court ruled on Fidelity’s pending preliminary objections. That parallel proceeding is now identified: it is C103, Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank v. FRM LLC (Lackawanna 2025-07728), the commercial mortgage foreclosure on the same 25 Dundaff Street property, in which a writ of execution and a Pa.R.C.P. 3129.1 affidavit had issued on 2025-12-01. Four days after this case was discontinued, on 2026-02-06, the bank's counsel discontinued both of its own actions (C103 and C022) with prejudice as well - so all three dockets in the dispute ended within five days of one another.
Research status: Source-backed (direct LPA portal docket + case detail)
Research notes: Confirmed by direct review of the case’s Verified Complaint and docket entries via the Lackawanna Prothonotary’s portal.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano says he sent Fidelity Bank two payments of $115,000, totalling $230,000, intending to close the mortgage and avoid a roughly $14,000-a-year flood-insurance requirement, and that no agreement governed how the money was to be applied.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano filed C009 in Lackawanna County against Fidelity Bank over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank filed C103, a commercial mortgage foreclosure against FRM LLC, seeking $12,934.80 and judicial sale of the business premises.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano, pro se, moved to consolidate the foreclosure with his own earlier suit C009, arguing FRM LLC is only a holding company with no cause of action against it and calling the foreclosure a 'frivolous and vexatious lawsuit' brought to 'drain his already abysmal financial resources'.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano filed C026, a second Lackawanna action against Fidelity Bank over the same December 2022 purchase and flood-insurance payoff dispute.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano filed a Motion to Stay Sheriff's Sale and Rule to Show Cause in C009. The sale being stayed is the one begun in C103 on 2025-12-01 - a link the tracker had recorded as an unidentified 'related foreclosure/sheriff's-sale proceeding' until this pass.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano discontinued both of his own suits against the bank, C009 and C026, with prejudice, before any ruling on the merits in either.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
I might just file a lawsuit against all the banks just to get them to pay their lawyers a retainer, because if I file a lawsuit — there's like a dozen banks, right? — if I spend just an hour or two to draft up a lawsuit against all 12 dozen banks, that means they're going to have to pay at least a 10 or $15,000 retainer to their lawyers just to respond to the case.
Describes contemplated litigation against numerous banks, explicitly framed as a way to make them incur legal-retainer costs — potential litigation-motive/repeated-filing evidence.
Why this classification: Describes drafting a single suit against roughly a dozen banks for the express purpose of forcing each to pay a $10,000-$15,000 retainer, costed against an hour or two of his own time.
Watch at 02:48 — youtube.com ↗I spent every day last week writing up lawsuits, suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven. I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms. I'm suing these I literally filed seven lawsuits last week and it looks like we're going to be filing a few more.
A self-reported filing count that the docket data corroborates exactly, with two of the seven identified by their subject matter in the same breath. The case tracker records exactly seven actions filed in the week Monday 2025-05-26 → Sunday 2025-06-01: C007, C008, C009, C010, C011 and C012 (all Lackawanna County, 2025-05-27) and C097 (New York Supreme Court, 2025-05-29). "Suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven" is C012, Tufano v. Rational USA Inc (2025-03932), whose own claims summary reads: "purchased a commercial 'Rational' combi oven … that arrived missing parts; the parts supplier … and Rational USA took more than six months to provide the missing parts, then sent the wrong ones, after which Rational ceased contact." "I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms" is C009, Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2025-03929), part of the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute, which the recorded litigation timeline shows filed 2025-05-27 "over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge." The Repeat filing on the same dispute factor is carried by C011 (Fenix Internet, filed about six and a half months after C042's dismissal) and C010 (USDA, about two months after C049's dismissal), which the recorded litigation timeline characterises as new complaints on already-litigated grievances — though he does not say so here. The count matching is a corroboration, not proof he meant those seven. He names two; the other five are inferred from the calendar alone.
Watch at 16:48 — youtube.com ↗We're here in the freezer down at Frankie's Herage Me. And this is the reason I left New York and got this building because to put a freezer up that is this size, 24x 24x 40 ft, which cost a fortune, probably over a million dollars, and this whole building, it was basically a few hundred,000 that I got a loan on. So, it was really the only option, and it was still within a few hours of the city.
Two distinct pieces of background that this research does not otherwise carry in the speaker's own words. First, the loan on the business premises. He states the building was acquired with a loan of "a few hundred thousand". The Fidelity Bank mortgage dispute is precisely a fight over a commercial mortgage on the business premises: C009 (Tufano v. Fidelity Bank, Lackawanna 2025-03929, filed 2025-05-27, discontinued with prejudice 2026-02-02), C103 (Fidelity Bank v. FRM LLC, Lackawanna 2025-07728, filed 2025-09-22 — the mortgage foreclosure on 25 Dundaff Street, in which a writ of execution and a Pa.R.C.P. 3129.1 affidavit issued 2025-12-01) and C022 (Fidelity Bank v. Free Range Meat LLC, 2025-07808, confession of judgment). This video is published between the first and the second of those, and it is a first-person description of the financed asset at the centre of them. Second, the relocation. "This is the reason I left New York… it was still within a few hours of the city" is a plain statement that the move out of New York was driven by the cost of the cold-storage facility — an ordinary commercial reason. That matters because the New York-to-Pennsylvania move sits behind the venue of most tracked filings, and behind the New York arbitration and state matters in the Starowicz-related litigation; his own stated reason for the move is worth recording rather than leaving the question open. It describes no filing conduct — no suit, no count, no ruling, no court. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor).
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗The action still in court. So, I don't know how they were able to get this issued. I think they filed a separate lawsuit against the LLC, which isn't valid. It's just a holding company. And now I got this notice in the mail from the sheriff saying they're going to auction it off because it's a commercial mortgage foreclosure.
A first person account of a counterparty splitting proceedings between a personal action and a separate action against his limited liability company, while the action he brought is said to be still in court. This is the entity name split described from the inside, the phenomenon that makes company name docket searches necessary. His remark that the separate suit is not valid is his own characterisation, not a ruling.
Why this classification: Describes filings made by the opposing side and their effect on him rather than filings of his own, and names no entity, bank, court or docket number beyond the LLC.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗And then today, what's [ __ ] insane is I got a notice that my building's being foreclosed on. Now, I filed a lawsuit last year. This issue is in the court system. It was being resolved, but they went to some crooked lawyer and filed new lawsuits against different entities and got a judgment against my building.
He confirms a suit he filed the previous year over the bank dispute and describes the bank filing new lawsuits against different entities that produced a judgment against his building, on the day he says a foreclosure notice arrived.
Why this classification: Moderate because it confirms a filing he made, which is a filing-conduct factor but not one of the three core factors, so Strong is unavailable. Both halves match the tracker on dates and subject matter, but he names no case number, no court and no entity, so the case links are inferences from the record rather than identifications he made.
Watch at 01:02 — youtube.com ↗Now, I responded to those lawsuits, but the judge probably ignore them because you can't represent yourself prosay. However, I also filed motions to consolidate in my prosay case, which I'm guessing the judge didn't even bother to look at.
Confirms filings he has made, responses to the bank's actions and motions to consolidate, and alleges in the same breath that the judge disregards them because he is unrepresented.
Why this classification: Moderate on two counts that are both non-core: he confirms filings he has made, and he alleges that the forum is disregarding them. The consolidation motions are a concrete and checkable docket claim, which is what gives this quote its value; the disregard is an expectation he states, not a ruling, and no judge is named or identifiable.
Watch at 01:25 — youtube.com ↗I did some googling and it seems pretty clear that the actions of Fidelity Bank have shifted this from a civil to a criminal matter, because they have shown intent to steal and personal gain. However, I have a feeling when I go to the sheriff's office on Monday, they're going to give me a hard time if I want to press criminal charges against Fidelity Bank for stealing my money.
A stated intent to escalate an existing civil dispute into a criminal complaint against the same defendant, self-sourced to his own online research ("I did some googling") rather than counsel — relevant to the chronology of the Fidelity Bank matters and to the pattern of escalation this dataset tracks. Notably, this is a contemplated step, not evidence any charges were sought or filed.
Why this classification: Contemplates escalating the Fidelity Bank dispute from civil to criminal, anticipating resistance from the sheriff's office.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗All because Fidelity Bank chose to ignore my civil complaint and file their own with attempt to like go around the complaint and steal my property.
A specific, checkable procedural allegation — that the bank filed its own action rather than responding to his complaint — which a docket review of the Lackawanna Fidelity Bank matters could confirm or refute.
Why this classification: Says the bank ignored his civil complaint and filed its own action to move around it; records his filing and the competing one.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗So I ended up filing a lawsuit in May of last year and that's been going through the courts. But the bank being the crooks they are had their lawyer file other lawsuits against my other LLC's for the same issue. But since it's the same mortgage issue, they shouldn't have done that. Of course, the Lacawana County Court pushed their lawyers documents through and they got a judgment against me. So, Fidelity Bank circumvented my lawsuit.
Three docket facts stated from memory - a suit he filed in May 2025, a responsive action against his LLC, and a judgment entered against him - each of which corresponds to a tracked record.
Why this classification: Confirms his own filings and describes a judgment entered against him. The account is of separate actions by different parties rather than his own repeat filing on one grievance.
Watch at 02:46 — youtube.com ↗You guys know we've been having a hard time with the uh bank trying to foreclose on the property. Thankfully, uh we got a lot of orders and we had enough working capital to pay off the bank loan and just No, we didn't really pay off the bank loan. We came to an agreement in the court and I paid the bank X amount of money. It wasn't too crazy, but you know, it was enough money that I I still am not able to make my bills, but you know, they're not necessarily bills that need to be paid. It's not like I'm losing my building anymore.
the strongest finding in this slice. This is the speaker's own account of why the four Fidelity Bank dockets ended when they did — a negotiated payment, reached "in the court", that stopped the sheriff's sale of his building. A praecipe for discontinuance does not state its consideration, so the docket record cannot supply this; the video can. He self-corrects mid-sentence from "pay off the bank loan" to "we came to an agreement", which is the substantive detail. Tier is Moderate, not Strong: the Strong rubric requires a core filing-conduct factor and this describes a settlement, not a filing. The factor is No filing-conduct factor for the same reason — a negotiated discontinuance is neither a filing he made nor a ruling against him — and the outcome itself is written up here so the call stays auditable.
Watch at 00:04 — youtube.com ↗Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2025-03929)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-03929-tufano-v-fidelity-bank/