Document for Tikal Investment Company-Dissolved Vs Ruiz, Larysa

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL ACTION
M. RORAUL

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, FILED IN COMPUTER

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: 11-2009-CA-011019

vs. DIVISION:
TIKAL INVESTMENT COMPANY -
DISSOLVED , et al,

Defendant(s).

/

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, by and through the undersigned counsel and

files this its Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and states as follows:
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure stating that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A Motion for Summary
Judgment is based on the record and may be supported or opposed by facts that would be admissible into evidence.
1.510 (c) (e), Fla. R. Civ. P. (1998).

On or about January 4, 2010 the Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Defendant’s Answer and
Affirmative Defense.

LAW

The Courts of this state have held that in pleading a defense certainty will be insisted upon. The certainty

required is that the pleader must set forth the facts in such a manner as to reasonably inform his adversary of what is

Proposed to be proved in order to provide the latter with a fair opportunity to meet it and Prepare his evidence. Zito

FILE_NUMBER: F09124409 DOC_ID: M005403ots

y. Washington Federal Savings & Loan, 318 So.2d 175 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Citizens National Bank of Orlando v.

Youngblood, 296 So.2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Walker v. Walker, 254 So.2d 832 (Fla. Ist DCA 1971).
The Defendant’s affirmative defenses raise nothing more than a “paper issue”, as no facts have been offered

in support thereof. Bared v. Miami Professional Sports, 353 So.2d 167 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). The Defendant has

failed to allege any facts in connection with the affirmative defenses that would allow the Plaintiff to ascertain the
truth or falsity of the same or enable Plaintiff to frame a suitable response thereto. For these reasons the affirmative
defenses set forth by the Defendant are legally insufficient and indicate that the purpose of the affirmative defenses is
merely to interpose delay, to forestall the foreclosure action and to harass the Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION

Because the Defendant’s affirmative defenses are legally insufficient, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment should be granted.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to all
parties listed on the attached service list on this YA day of February, 2010.

Florida Default Law Group, P.L.

P.O. Box 25018
Tampa, Florida 33622-5018

By:
——Christopher

Florida Bar No. 55866

Scott R. Lin

Florida Bar No. 11277

Anne M. Cruz-Alvarez

Florida Bar No. 17140Service List

TIKAL INVESTMENT COMPANY - DISSOLVED
c/o STEPHEN P. MATZUK, Esq.

1211 ORANGE AVE

STE 201

WINTER PARK, FL 32789

LARYSA RUIZ

c/o STEPHEN P. MATZUK, Esq.
1211 ORANGE AVE

STE 201

WINTER PARK, FL 32789

WALTER RUIZ

c/o STEPHEN P. MATZUK, Esq.
1211 ORANGE AVE

STE 201

WINTER PARK, FL 32789