arrow left
arrow right
  • B & Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP VS CAMBRIDGE, RONAE D RPMF -Non-Homestead ($50,001 - $249,999) document preview
  • B & Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP VS CAMBRIDGE, RONAE D RPMF -Non-Homestead ($50,001 - $249,999) document preview
  • B & Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP VS CAMBRIDGE, RONAE D RPMF -Non-Homestead ($50,001 - $249,999) document preview
  • B & Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP VS CAMBRIDGE, RONAE D RPMF -Non-Homestead ($50,001 - $249,999) document preview
  • B & Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP VS CAMBRIDGE, RONAE D RPMF -Non-Homestead ($50,001 - $249,999) document preview
  • B & Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP VS CAMBRIDGE, RONAE D RPMF -Non-Homestead ($50,001 - $249,999) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Filing # 27693057 E-Filed 05/26/2015 02:20:22 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA B&Z ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP. AS SERVICER O/B/O FRANCES RODRIGUEZ MAGILL; JEROMY TRASORRAS ET AL., Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 14-27400CA09 v. RONAE D. CAMBRIDGE ET AL., Defendants, / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOW COMES, Defendant, Ronae Cambridge, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files Defendants’ first set of Request for Admission pursuant to Rule 1.370 of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and all applicable Rules of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. Plaintiff's claims are barred because Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and is not the proper party to this cause of action. Answer: 2. Plaintiff's claims are barred because Plaintiff has no interest in the subject note or mortgage and therefore does not have standing to bring the instant action. Answer: 3. Plaintiffs claims are barred because Plaintiff has no equitable interest in the subject note or mortgage and therefore does not have standing to bring the instant action Answer: 4 Plaintiff's claims are time barred because Plaintiff cause of action expired five (5) years after the default and/or maturity of the note and mortgage. Page 1 of 3Answer: 5 Plaintiffs claims are barred because Plaintiff is not in possession of the original note. Answer: 6. Plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in relation to the instant action and continued to communicate with the Defendants/mortgagees even though they were represented by counsel Answer: 7. Plaintiff did not send Defendant(s) a notice of default and intent to accelerate the subject note and mortgage. Answer: 8 Plaintiff or Plaintiffs assignor did not provide Defendant with any Truth in Lending disclosures three days prior to the time when he/she signed the loan documents. Answer: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing with mailed to the Plaintiff's attorney, jcooper@polenbergcooper.com; Iquimuyog@polenbergcooper.com; Iquimuyog@polenbergcooper.com; ydaneshfarpolenbergcooper.com; jrucker@miamidade.gov. Polenberg Cooper, PLLC, 1351 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway Suite 101, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33323 on this 26" day of May 2015. Brown & Belleh, P.L.L.C. Attorney for Defendant Causeway Square 1801 NE 123" Street Suite 409 North Miami, Florida 33181 Page 2 of 3Tel/Fax: 888-450-7999 Eservice: owei@bellehlaw.com By: /s/ Owei Z. Belleh Owei Belleh FBN.: 617598 Page 3 of 3