Second action filed by Tufano
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 v. Fidelity Bank
2026-00063 · Lackawanna County
Closed; voluntarily discontinued with prejudiceVoluntarily discontinued with prejudicePennsylvania
CourtLackawanna County
FiledJanuary 5, 2026
StatusClosed; voluntarily discontinued with prejudice
OutcomeVoluntarily discontinued with prejudice
Final dispositionDiscontinued with prejudice
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro se—
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedSeptember 23, 2026
About this case
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 entered a contract with Fidelity Bank in December 2022 to purchase property at 25 Dundaff Street that required him to maintain an active flood-insurance policy costing approximately $14,000 per year; to avoid that cost he paid off the remaining mortgage balance in full (two $115,000 payments, $230,000 total) in February 2025.
He alleges Fidelity Bank then claimed he owed a pro-rated flood-insurance payment for the first three months of 2025 despite there being no agreement on what the $230,000 payoff was to be applied to, and refused either to refund the money or resume normal mortgage payments as he requested, even though his sole intent in paying off the loan had been to avoid the flood-insurance requirement. He further alleges that, as of January 2026, he believes judicial officials representing Lackawanna County colluded with Fidelity Bank to fraudulently deprive him of his property and business.
Defendants
- Fidelity Bank
- Lackawanna County
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
- Cipriani & Wener Pc Lawyer profile
Source record
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome and research status
Outcome reason: Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Discontinuance with Prejudice before any ruling on the merits.
Research status: Verified via direct LPA portal lookup
Research notes: Direct LPA portal lookup (2026-08-20): case discontinued with prejudice via Tufano's own Praecipe (2026-02-02), before any ruling on the merits. Verified Complaint read (Dec-2022 property purchase; flood-insurance payoff dispute; alleges collusion between Lackawanna County judicial officials and Fidelity Bank).
Related litigation
- Dispute group: Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute
Chronology events
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Voluntary discontinuance with prejudice
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 video statements
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.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:48 in the archived transcript. Play at 2:21 in this project’s compilation ↗
Dispute background statement¶
I've been spending I think like $2 or $3,000 a month just to keep these HVAC units up and running which is not sustainable from a business perspective neither is the $155,000 a year flood insurance
The same DSP021 grievance stated a second time nine minutes later, this time with a figure attached and coupled to the refrigeration-plant costs at the same premises. Its research value is the pairing: the two recurring costs he describes as unsustainable in October 2023 are the flood insurance (DSP021, which produced four docket records from 2025) and keeping the freezers and coolers running (the Crispino refrigeration/freezer-repair grievance, DSP012). Both later became litigation; neither had been filed on when this was recorded. Possible case/dispute link: DSP021, tentative (see the caveat on the previous block — no bank and no property are named). ⚠⚠ The figure disagrees with the pleading and must not be reconciled. This track says "$155,000 a year"; C026's claims summary in src/data/research_notes.csv says the policy cost "approximately $14,000 per year" and C009's says "about $14,000 per year". Contract section 7 is explicit that a figure spoken on camera is the least reliable content in this archive and that two disagreeing figures are recorded as disagreeing, never averaged or corrected. Both are recorded here; neither is promotable without a document check.
Source removed. Quoted at 18:49 in the archived transcript.
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
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.
Source removed.
Court-treatment allegation¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:38 in the archived transcript.
Claim / pleading description¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:46 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:04 in the archived transcript.
Related video research
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.
- FRESH PRODUCE IN! New Fish Products! Breakfast Sausage! Candy!? FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG!!!Source removed
- FORECLOSING MY BUSINESS!? Time to Expose Surgeons FULL TIME!?Source removed
- Can we PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES against Fidelity Bank!?Source removed
- Beef Pot Pies! Twix Bars! Tallow Sticks! GANGSTALKING CONTINUES!? Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- Free Range Meat Weekly #4 TURKEY PREORDERS! Not Scammed! New (Used) Equipment!Source removed
Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2026-00063)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2026-00063-tufano-v-fidelity-bank/