Preview
Filing # 100032352 E-Filed 12/09/2019 05:05:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
IRIS BEAUGRAND, individually and as
POA for Heidrun Riedner,
Plaintiff,
¥ CASE NO: 2017 CA 181
ROBERT O’TOOLE,
Defendant.
/
AFFIDAVIT OF IRIS BEAUGRAND
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF SARASOTA
1, Iris Beaugrand, being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say:
1 Lam over the age of 18 years old.
2 That the facts and matters stated herein are true and of Affiant’s own personal
knowledge.
The issues between the parties have already been litigated in the pleadings and final
judgment in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court case number 2016 CA 6351, Iris
Beaugrand v. Robert O° Toole (Sarasota case).
See the extensive counterclaim and answer to such (attached hereto) filed by Mr. Robert
O'Toole dealing with the Charlotte property which is at issue in-this case.
Further the trial court ruling which included a denial of the very same claims Mr.
O'Toole asserts herein or which could have been asserted, were affirmed in all respects
by the Second District Court of Appeal case number 2D 18-1935, Robert O° Toole,
appellant y. Iris Beaugrand, appellee.
6. The extensive testimony taken in the Sarasota case is filed of record herein and refutes
the position taken by Mr. O* Toole in his summary judgment motion.
7. As to the Charlotte house at issue herein:
The initial purchase contract was in both Robert O’Toole and my name:
b. We decided to purchase the house as a rental property:
My mother Heidrun Riedner gave use $45,000 to purchase the property and we
used joint monies to pay the remainder purchase price;
Robert O’ Toole and I decided that the initial deed would be placed in Robert
O° Toole’s name solely so that I could earn a real estate commission on the
purchase transaction, which real estate commission we jointly used;
We placed the house into our joint name after we purchased the house because
that was our agreement, i.e, to purchase the house jointly as a rental;
Robert O’ Toole has not abided by this agreement and has lived in and used the
house despite my ownership in the house and my disagreement with him living in
the house:
g- Robert O’ Toole claims the house as his homestead but he doesn’t pay the taxes on
the property which | am having to pay so that the property does not get sold as a
tax deed.
All of the issues between the parties as to the Charlotte house were litigated and
decided in the Sarasota trial / case between the parties.
oN
OU
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
a
AFFIANT: Co
oo
WAL
state oF _ Flwdy
COUNTY OF __# be A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9" day of December, 2019 by Iris Beaugrand who is
pergon nov mo me or who produced the following identification _
LO
ae i
04
iar"
Signa @ Of Notary Public
(NOTARY SEAL)
Type Name of Notary Public
Filing # 56401773 E-Filed 05/14/2017 09:48:25 PM
TN THE 12°" CIRCUIT
COL IN AND FOR,
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No: 2016. CA 006351 NC
IRIS BEAUGRAND,
Plaintiff
DE NDANT BOB O'TOOLE’S
AN: IRMATIVE DE 3S
ROBERT O'TOOLE, NDC TER-CLAIM
Difesidant.
Defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE, by and through undersigned counsel, answers the
complaint in this action as follows:
ANSWER
1, The allegations contained in paragraph { of the complaint are pitted: for
jurisdictional parposes only.
2. The allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the comyplaint are
adyautted,
3. The allegations contained in pa aphs 78,9, (0 and (2 of the complaint are
denied and strict proof thereof is hescby demanded.
4. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complain
defendant admits that counsel for plaintiff issued a letter to hiny making certain demands
concesning the dispositian ‘of the property that is the subject of this action (and another
property described infe at paragraph 11 of the counterclaim) and that lidgation against him
would commence should he fail to adhere to these demands, Remainder denied.
5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the complaint
defendant admiss that the property that is the subject of this action is a rental property the
income from which, in part, funds the costs to maintain it. Remainder denied.
ul
Filed 05/15/2017 08:48 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
Beangrand 9. O'Toole
G 16 1635!NC
6. To b extent allegations are deemed to ¢: within the wherefore clause or
prayer for relief of the complaint, or are otherwise not mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs or otherwise herein, those allegations are denied,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Ag un affirmative defen: . defendant asserts that plaintiff has failed ts auach
che instruments which form the basis of her lawsuit against defendant, to the deed, noe
and mortgage concerning the property that is the subject matter of this. action, in
contraventon of Pla. RCP, ti (.
8, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts thar the complaint tails
to state a claim for whieh relicf can be granted in that plaintitf, inher demand leer thar
preceded this action, clai -d the existence of « partnership with respect to the property char
is the subject matter of this action, but there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to
support a cause of action for disassociation, dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the
purported parmership, or an accounting or other relief, as requieed by Morida Stature
$620,81002 Revit ed Uniform Partnership Act of 1995).
9. i an affirmarive defense, defendant further asses rs that. the parti are
jointly able ander a not ated by a morgage that encumbers the property that is the
subject of this action and the forced, premature sale of the property prior to matunty of the
note contrary t the best interests of defendant, and would constimtc wrongful
disassociation of defendant ar plainnff's purported partner forth s particular undertaking
violation of Florida Statute §620.8602¢b).
18, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the conyplaint fails
to state a cain apon which relief can be granted to force the sale of the property thar is the
subject of this action; for an accounting and for payment of plaintiff's legal fess in thar the
complaint does not alle, ts sufficient to establish a right to do so.
tt As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the property in
question is not occupied by either party, is an investment property that generates reotal
income and is not a non-divisihle property within the meaning of Chapter 64, Mlosida
we
Beangrand 1, O'Tvole
Case 20M $35T NC
Stanzies, nor has plaintiff established a proper basis.or compe! Mig
Hin ng reason to force the sale of
the pruperty tw the detriment of defendant, who is the rightful owner of it,
22,As an affirmative defense, defendant further asseres that defendant owned
«
the properry in fee simple prior to his relationship with plaintiff, deeding the property to
himself and her with rights of survivorship as a means of estate planning (the parties were
never legally martied to one another) with no financial contribution by plainaff whaisvever.
She consequently has no present interest in the, property © plas a contingent beneficiary
upon the death of defendant (should he predece e heri.,
13. As an affirmative defense, defendant farther asserts that plaintiff is nor
entitled to seek equitable relief by failing herself to do equity, is estopped from seeking such
relief, or otherwise may not seck such telief by inducing defendant tw place her on the ttle to
his property on the pretense of her love and affection for him, inducing bim by the same
means tw pay all costs associated with maintaining this property, without any contribution by
;
plaintiff ro dg that ens S and then by secking in this action to deprive defendans of his
righefal interest in the property; force the sale of the property; arid cause unnce! ary loss
and expense, all to the detriment of defendant,
14, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that it would otherwise
be inequitable for plaintiff to be granted the relief demanded in the complaint.
15. As an affirmath ¢ defer , oF by way of set-off of counterclaim, defendant
urther ay serts that plaintiff has nade no faancial contribution to the acquisiton of the
property that is the subject of this action, has made no contribution tow ards the costs of
maintaining the property, has made nw contribution towards the management of the
property, and therefore has no right to disbursement of a portion of the proceeds over and
above her contribution, if any, towards the costs and management of the property.
16. Defendant has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this caus and
to compensate him is reasonable fashion for his effort
7. To the extent the: affirmative defenses or answers are deemed to constitute
set-off of counterclaini, or vice versa, defendant prays they be so treated,
ate :
a OTe
Ci 6 CA GRIN
WHEREPORE, defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE prays that the Court denv alf relief
to plain ft against bir, or such portion of the relief deemed just and appropriate: enter
jnclyment in his favor and against plaintiff, either partially or wholly; award to hint an
amount by way of set-off or by way of counterclaim in bis favor and against plainuff for the
amounts justly due to him; aa acd to him attorney fees and costs if appropriate, and
otherwise as provided by law; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief.
provided by law and deemed appropriate in the premises,
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant/Counterplaindff. ROBERT O'TOOLE sues plaintiff/counterdcfendant
IRIS. BEUAUGRAND, individually and as attorney in fact under power(s} of attorney for
RL JERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER, and alleges as follows:
1 ‘This is an action for equitable and other appropriate: relief concerning real
and personal property tithed jointly or individually, as the case may be, wherein the amount ut
controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interests and costs,
» Coanterplaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE COTO "Gs thé owner of
record of certain real and personal property, and has an interest in such properties not of
record, ax mote fully appears herein.
3. Countendefendant 1RIS BEAUGRAND CBEAUGR. D”) isthe owner of
record of certain real and personal property, and,.as mote fully appe: he ei hi ted
rights and an interest in others on behalf of her parents, KLAUSE GOERKE, and
HEDDRUN RIEDNER, parsuant to a power(s) of attorney to act on their behalf.
4, Ac all times material hereto BEAUGRAND was and is a duly lieensed and
pmeticing Realtor in the See of Morida and bas superior knowled and expe ck
concerning real estate transactions as compared to O'FOOLE,
&« Sometime in. approximately 2005. BEAUGRAND and (YTOOLE began a
committed relationship with one another and shordy thereafter began to cohabinee in the
real property located ar 1855 Bayshore Drive, Englewood, Morida CBAYSHORE
PROPERTY De which at that time was owned in fee simple absolute by O'TOOLE.
Psd
Be, ad (Tooke
Case 6 CA GR FNC
4, After approximately one year of cobabitating at the BAYSHORE
PROPERTY the couple moved in to the property located at 616 Pinto Trail, Englewood,
Florida {f C PINTO TRAIL’), owned by BEAUGRAND in fee simple, and continued. 1 so
cohabieate until the parated in the suntmer of 2016,
‘The parties cohabitated at PINTO TRAIL under an agreement whereby they
would equally divide the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses, inchiling mortgage payments,
taxes, insurance and utilities. Living with them at PINTO TRAIL were the children of
BEAUGRAND), born of a previous relationship.
8 In November, 20 cons ideration of the fact that the couple were in a
commutted relationship (and had moved from O'TOOLE’s home and into PINTO TRAIL),
BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute ad the BAYSHORE PROPERTY as
a means of estate planning, whereby they held dle to the property as joint tenants with
rights of survivorsbip. A true and correct copy of the deed to that effect is attached hereto
made a part hereofas Exhibit A.
9, BE UGRAND also induced O'TOOLE to excoute a note and morgage to
the BAYSHORE PROPERTY by advising him. fincorreedy} that this would allow the
existing mortgage to be refinanced on more favorable terms, BEAUGRAND further
advised that she would have to appear oa the title to the property in onder for her wo also
esecute the note and mortgage on the BAYSHORE PROPERTY.
1. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of any interest
in the BAYSHORE PROPERTY and contribured fink, if any, towards payment of
mortgage loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property.
ui In December, 2015, O'TOOLE, purchased “property ki ated at 880 Fast 1°
Street, Englewood, Florida (880 PROPERTY”), a result. of which BEAUGRAND received
a real estate commission. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of
this property and contributed fittle, if any, towards parment of loan payments, max
insurance, and maintenance for this property,
Sie
Beangran )Teode
Case #2 i 46359MC
12. in January, 2016 (approximately six months before the parties separated}
BEAUGRY ND induced O'TOOLE to exceute a deed to the 889 PROPERTY parporedly
also as a means of estate planning, whereby they would bold tide to the proper 5. joint
tenants with rights of survivorship, as was the case with OTOOLE’s. BAYSHORE
PROPERTY, A sruc and correct copy of the handwritten quit clint deed presumably 10
that effect is attached hereto and made a patt hereof as Exhibit B.
1a ‘The deed to the 88) PROPERTY described in pamgraph 12 supns, was
prepared without the assistance of counsel, or by a qualified ntle agent, The deed, signed
shortly after. the closing (where BEAUGRAND received a commission) fails to contain
words to the effect that title was to be held jointly with rights of survivorship,
iA In the sommer of 2012, OTOOLE purchased commercial space in, the
«
Gallery Plaza, located. at Unit 5, 3502 North Access Road, Englewood (GALLERY
PLAZA UNIT ‘, for his computer repair business, KLAUS GOERKE foaned the fands
to O'TOOLE for the purchase 830,000) under terms whereby O'TOOLE would make
interest-only payments and pay mxcs.on the property. .
15, In func, 2012, rather than having a properly prepared now and mortgage
execured, KEAUSE. GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER took title w the GALLERY
PLAZA-UNIT jointly in their names with no mention of O'TOOLE.
16. O'TOOLE continued to make loan and other payments.for the GALLERY
PLAZA UNIT until, as mote fully appears def, BEAUGRAND, pursuant to asserted rights
under a power(s) of attorney, evicted him and his business ftom tie premises,
1 Daring their relationship, the parties jointly acquired other property,
including, defer ala, a stallion (Tosso"}. BEAUGRAND also has pos: ion of, other
roperty belonging to OPTOOLE that she has dectined to return to him, including, dnfer aibHid,
a*boat trailer, art, and personal hooks and records.
18, All conditions precedent to this action bave been satistied or waived.
*
Hie Be
.
Beaugrand », O'Toole
Case 22018 351 NC
19, O'TOOLE has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this cause
and to compensate him in reasonable fashion for his efforts.
COUNT b MS RE TED TO BAYSHORE PROPERTY
20, CYTOOLE real nd incorporates by re nce as if fully set forth herein,
the prececling paragraphs numbered f through 19. ‘
at As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced
CY TOOLE, to execute deed to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY that purports to grane to her
an interest in the property as a joint tenant with sights to mke sole utle to the property in the
event O'TOOLE predeceases her. O'TOOLE was induced to enter into this arrangement
as a means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one another) and on
the pretense of BEY UGRANDs enduring love and affection for him.
23 BEAUGRAND made ‘no financial contribution towards the BAYSH( JRE
PROPERTY either at the time she induced O'TOOLE tp place her in tite to the property
nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the
mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance of the property.
23, BE AUGRAND. lias no present interest in the property cxcept. as 2
contingent beneficiary upon the death of O'TOOLE (Should he predecease ber} the basis
for which no longer exists (ia that they ate no longer in a commited relationship)
24, BEAUGRAND. obtained any interest. she has in the BAYSHORE
PROPERTY under the promise and. expectation thar she would remain in a committed
rationship with GPTOOLE until the first of them we pass and would share equally in
the expense and management of i; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance. upon. these
express and implied promises; a confidential relationship. existed. at the time between.
BEAUGRAND and O'TOOL and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly enriched were she:
to succeed in depriving OYTOOLE of ownership of this property, «
25. By operation of law and otherwise the interest of BE GRAND. in
O'TOOL property is by way of a constructive or resulting trust,
TP es
Bew ait OT aol
ste 2016 357 NC
26, ‘The equities concerning the BAYSHORE PROPERTY militate in favor of
recognizing the interests of OP TOOLE in the same-to the exclusion of BEAUG AND.
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE. prays that the Court emer a
declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE, and Ast
BEAUGRAND concerning any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the
BAYSHORE PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or
resulting irust; ordering a reformation of the deed t reflect the true imerests of the
in this property; awarding to him a spe al equity in any and all proceeds upon the fore
sile of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief provided by
Jaw or in equity, and deemd appropriate in the premises.
COUNT He CLAIMS RELATED TO PINTO TRAIL,
27, O'TOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein;
the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19.
28. As set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE entered
into a committed relationship outside of mariage, but cobabitated as such for a substantial
period of time, during which their finances became entangled,
29 Spe fically, the parties moved out of O'TOOLE's residence (BAYSHORE
PROPERTY? id inte PINTO PRAU, under an arrangement whereby they would equally
share the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses; which O'TOOLE would ochenwise not incur
had. they remained at his own residence.
MM During the time the parties cohabitated at PINTO ‘TRAIL, BEAUGRAND
consiswarly failed wo remit payment for her share of the housing expenses, while O'TOOLE,
just as consistently kept currenr for both parties’ share of those expenses, and also
contributed funds and labor for repairs and maintenance of the property.
BEAL AND induced O'TOOLE to deed interests in his property to her
in consideration of their continued relationship with one another, but failed and refused to
Beanggen (V Teole
Cass 2016 NC
geant any interest in PIN t TRALL to him, even while accepting the benefits of finds and
Jnbor be expended to allow her to maintain possession and nile to her property.
a BEAUGRAND was accordingly unjustly enriched by the funds and labor
32.
expended by O'TOOLE for her benefit and thar of PINTO TRALL in violation of the
ayeeement between the parties that she would bear one-half of those expenses and labor.”
33, In fashioning relief as between the partes, either at law of in equity,
OPPOOLE is entitled to a credit for the funds and labor expended by him to the benefit of
BEAUGRAND and her property, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount so
expended by him during the course of their relationship and cohabitation,
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enwr a
declaratory judgment finding the equities wm be in favor of O'TOOLE and against
BEAUGRA a 19 concerning the finds expended by him for ber benefit ix connection with
the PINTO PROPERTY; finding thar he is entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable
fien concerning the same; awarding to him judgment for the vareimburscd amounts
expended by him either by way of damages or in quantum meruit, and that the Court grant
such additional and further relief deemd appropriate in the premises,
COUNT Hb CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 886 PROPERTY
. M. OMPOOLE realleges and incorporates by reference a¢ ally set forth b re
the preceding paragraphs numbered { through 19.
35, As is more fully set forth herein and othenwise, BEAUGRAND induced
O'TOOLE to execute a deed to bis 880 PROPERTY that purports to grant to her an
interest: in the property as a joint tenant. O'TOOLE was induced to enter into this
arrangement 28.2 means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one
another) and on the pretense of B UGRAND’s enduring tove and affection for him.
36. BEAUGRAND made ho finascial contebution towards the 880
PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE to place her in tile to the property
HP:
Bea endl B, OT sale
6 NC
nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the
mortgage, t s, insurance and maintence of the property.
37, Despite the fact that the deed to the property was inartfully drawn,
BEAUGRAND has no prese: interest in the property except as a contingent beneficiary
upon the death of OPTOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which no longer
ts (in that they are no longer in a commited relationship’.
38. BEAUGRAND obtained any intorest she hag in the 880 PROPERTY vader
the promise and expectation thar she would 1 ain in a committed relationship with
OTOO! unnd the fiest of them were to pass and would share equally in the expe: atid
management of i; OTTOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied
promise: a confidential reladonship existed ar d » me berween BEAUGRAND and
OFOOLE; and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly ensched were she t succeed in
depriving O'TOOLE of owners! ip of this property.
39, By operation of law and otherwise. the interest of BEAUGRAND in
OPFOOL property is by way of a constructive or resalting trast.
4 ‘The equities conecening the 880 PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing
the intere: of O'TOOLE in the same tothe exclusion of BEAUGRA:
WHEREFORE, counmtrplaintif? O'TOOLE, prays that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE and against
BEAUGRAND concerning any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the 880
PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or resulting trust:
ordering a reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the patties ind propery;
awarding 10 hint a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the property;
and that the Court grant such additional and facther relief provided by lnw of ia equity, and
deemed appropriate in the premises,
Wis
au ad » Thole
Cage #2038 C4 6351 NC
COUNT IV: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE GALLERY PLAZA UNIT
at. CPTOOLE realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein,
she preecding paragraphs numbered { through 19,
42, As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, O'TOOLE entered into an
agreement with KLAUSE GOERKE whereby the later loaned the sam of $50,060 towards
she acquisinon of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, where O'TOOLE, in celainace on this
arranagement, relocated his computer repair business.
43. ide to the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT became ves din KLAUSE
GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER (BEAUGRAND’s parents) te the exclusion of
CTOOLE and without 1 properly recorded mortgage feflecting the auc arrangements
etwoen the parties concerning the loan nude by GOERIKE to O'TOOLE.
44, Pursuant to a course of dealing benveen GOERKE and O'TOOLE the later
continued 10 make loan paymenes and other payments in conncetion with the GALLERY
PLA UNET in reliance upon the validity of the agreement berween them,
48, Subsequent to the separation of BEAUG AND and O'TOGLE, the former,
acting on behalf of her parents pursuant to.a power(s) of attorney, terminated the agreement
as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, falsely alleged that the panties in faer had entered
into a “fease” of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, and forced the cjectment of O'TOOLE
and his business from the premises on extremely short notice,
46. The termination of the agreement benween GORRKE and CPTOOLE
caused direct and conseguential damages to O'TOOLE, was inequitable, an caused unjust
enrichment 16 BEAVGRAND and ber parents.
:
ay, In fashioning relief as berween the parties, either at law or in equity,
O'TOOLE is entitled to a credit for the losses he sustained a result of the wrongful
termination of the agreement as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, or judgment for
money daniages equal to the amount of that loss,
Ui
Bec nd COT
OCA
WHEREFORE, counterplaintif O'TOOLE pra th t the Court enter a
dechiratory judgment findi Mfx thef es ts be in favor of O'TOOLE and against
BEALGRAND in connection with the GALLERY PL A UNIT; finding thar he: is
entitled to a sp al equity, credit or equitable fien concerning the same; awarding to him
judgment for his lasses concerning the termination of the loan ay reement and wrongful
tieetment, heras a judgment for damva; ‘or by way of promissory stoppel; and that the
Court grant such additional and further relief deemed appropnate in the premises.
COUNY ¥: CLAIMS RE TED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY
4B, O'TOOLE malleges and incorporates by reference: if fully set forth herein,
the preceding paragraphs aumbered t through 19.
49, As more fully set forth herein and otherwise, the ies obrained joint aide
06, inter alia, a stallion Fosso”) and other property.
50. Pursuant to Florida Statutes {64.091, io addition to real property, personalty
is also subject t the partition process. ‘
St, BEAUGRAND also has possession of other property belonging to
OPPOOLE that she has declined to return to him, includin inter alia, 9 boat trailer, art, and.
personal books and weords,
OPOOL entitled be reimbursed for the amounts paid by him towards
the acquisition of jointly owned property or for the sale of the same with the proceeds
equitahly divided between the parties, and for the ream of the items of personal property
belonging to him sill in the posse: ion of B UGRAND
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment equitably dividing personal property joinily owned by the parties and
for the partition and sale of the same, if ne essary; ordering BEAUGRAND to return
personal property in hee possession and control thar belongs t O'TOOLE; otdering an
accounting of the personal property joinily owned or in which cach has a special claim of
2tP a
Beans a) snd 1, O Teak
Case B 2016 CA GRE NC
right or equity; and that the Court grant such additional and farther relict provided by taw or
is equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises.
1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a tee and correct copy of the forcgoing was
caused to be served by electronic mail on May 14, 2017, upon Stocle T. Willams, Esquire,
STEEI ST WILLIAMS, PA, attornes fr plaintiff, Pincapple Place, 1381 McAnsh Square,
Sarasota, Morida, 34236; Steck'l Wit ni Cor aS Noh
asi, Nob
Respectfully submitted,
BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA
PO BOX 1133
Englewood, Florida 34295
Tel: (941) 404-4704
BretCigrk @ Me awyer, Com
(Bret ark ‘
Bret Clark, Esquire FB #384038
Atiorney for Defendant/Counterplaintif?
Robert O'Toole
{EXHIBITS ON FOLLOWING PAGES}
3
Beangrand OT seks
Cae # GCA
O31 NC
ag! Ware
Pressly and Br FER cm is
tsar Pega
ra SexyTi
a se e els
“3 OE 8 &
Des aC Raut e S| teEekGate ois
Eigiewoin Horst 8
AT FRI
Re sebe TROP TLET0 Reale were
oe wee Teds *
General Warranty Deed
‘te ton Bonester 3. 2087 A, By Robert Q’Eole,ahage
gene
wa whose abes i IS RayneDr, Kyla FBS
rae ile ie gm, ee Beaagrand and Robert 7 Fowle jou evant with fal righte a sarivorshp wise
pt eck
aes ARS Bapabce Des, Emgbowesd, FL METS berecner ced te greats
tse wet= hone‘id spa glSe pene aerate cin ne Bs fe ep ng
Witness, shes gon, feta gern ofr of an Osan, (10.0 at oer caer commas,
seg bene i ereby acon ee prams, Baris. ll allen, venus, sete eaeaed Suni at je,
abel carla ed ate Socats Canty, Mei ie
Let 983, Enplenoad Gardens, Dit as ger plat thefant, ersoried
te Pit Bow 4 Page 72 and 78 of tie
Public Recor of Saranota Couaty, Flic
‘hye ages re ese en, coe tne aera 8,
Posed Ra HDD
‘iogetier
ins in women betes sapien ints engin
8 a8e te pect
“Focave and ta Held, ee sence spe fre,
‘Ad te gut evebyvonenaces wa wt rae at de yet mal ete fa a es mp el be pee
Soe god igh at inst arty wo pe a ey a ua Su he yor Rasy Aly waa tees ad aw wi de
‘he son mgs bs ol os af 2 pete oma eat Bor nl at fe a a escabrees xaypt Mes acancng,
siege a center
| Witneax Where, de seit pune Ses ign an yeni shee prea We dys yo Fg dre wei
Sigted,reaiod dn detvevct in oe pooserces
Hy
a Baw Sve
‘eninge W . Seanfon ses ney
pcenrnat
re te te 2 AgvGe
Bute rahe hak. a oo wie tsa)
debe bon et Lalo L Phere
Soot Bonds
Caan sere
erga vat wns acing bes Nore 26, 2
meson ec st bevhine pnd Facial. Bedeja. se tamataseenReber OTovise sng an, who bas perce
ooure Pihyteth.
Eafe ware sat Pn ene
Sy Cea ae oe
ea
"es Sse aie
aoa Wines Dab apse
i Gone
elk ERE se
identification and wha dididid not toke an oxth,
os,
“SS sedny
a SKE
ure of ty Ceri
tu Ah
oe. SAO
Printed
‘BECAT 3 PROG
ty Pat» He aa
Sy Co, Egar 27.2858]
Gone 9 177
ante Poa er ay |
EXHIBIT B
gS
Filing # 57461550 E-Filed 0607/2017 05:15:58 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
IRIS BEAUGRAND,
Plaintiff,
¥ CASE NO: 2016 CA 6351
ROBERT O° TOOLE,
Defendant.
/
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff iris Beaugrand files this answer and affirmative defense to the counterclaim filed in this
matter and states:
Without knowledge.
ithout knowledge.
Admit as stated in the complaint filed herein or as stated in the Charlotte {litigation of the
parties, otherwise denied.
Admit Plaintiff is a realtor, otherwise denied,
Admit the parties lived together otherwise without knowledge.
6 Admit
Adznit expenses were shared otherwise without knowledge.
Denice
Denied.
10. Denied.
i Denied.
Denied.
13 Denied,
14 Denied.
13 Denied.
16. Denied.
17 Denied.
18. Without knowledge.
19. Without knowledge.
Count I~ Claims Related to Bayshore Property
20. Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein.
21 Denied.
Denied.
23 Denied.
24 Denied.
25 Denied.
26 Denied.
Count I ~ Claims Related to Pinte Trail
27. Answers to prior Paragraphs are realleged herein.
Filed 06/07/2017 07:15 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
28 Admit the parties cohabitated together otherwise denied,
29. Without knowledge,
38. Denied.
31 Denied
32. Denied.
33 Denied.
Count If] ~ Claims Related to the 880 Property
34 Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein,
35 Denied.
36. Denied.
37, Denied.
38. Denied.
Denied.
40, Denied,
Count IV ~ Claims Related to the Gallery Plaza Unit
al Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein,
42 Without knowledge.
43 Denied.
Denied.
AS, Denied
46 Denied.
Denied.
Count V — Claims Related to Personal Property
Ag Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein.
49 . Without knowledge
56. Without knowledge.
31 . Without knowledge
52 . Without knowledge.
Hirst Affirmative Defense
As to count 1, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including
any claim for declaratory relief, fraud or reformation.
Second Affirmative Defense
As to count 2, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including
any claim for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, or quantum meruit,
Third Affirmative Defense
As to count 3, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including
any claim: for declaratory relief, fraud or reformation.
2(P
Fourth Affirmative Defense
As to count 4, the duration of the written lease agreement of the parties expired on June 1, 2014,
and thereafter the tenancy at issue was an oral tenancy. This oral te cy of Robert O'Toole was
terminated pursuant to the provisions of Florida law, j.c. Chapter 83 FS. Accordingly, count 3
fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law.
Fifth A ative De:
As to count 4, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including
any claim for declaratory relief, equitable lien, wrongful ejectument, or promissory estoppel,
Sixth Affirmative Defense
As to count 5, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including
any claim for declaratory relief, accounting, or partition.
Seven: ripative fe @
As to all counts, ifany damages are owed to Robert O’ Toole (“O'Toole”), Iris Beaugrand
(Beaugrand”) is entitled to a set off of such amount for monies O'Toole owes Beaugrand.
Eighth Affirmative Defense Statute of Limitations
Each cause of action, claim and item of damages did not accrue within the time prescribed by
Jaw for them before this action was brought.
Eighth Affirmative Defense Statute of Fraud
The agreemeni(s) alleged in the counterclaim pertains to transfer or contract for the sale of
Jands and was not in writing and signed by defendant or by some other person lawfully
authorized by defendant to do so.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
As to all counts, Robert O’ Toole has unclean hands.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correet copy of the foregoing has been sent via
Email to Bret Clark, Esq, attorney for Robert O’ Toole on this 7 day of June, 2017.
3} ge
Steele T. Williams, PLA.
Pineapple Place
1381 McAnsh Square
Sarasota, FL 34236-5620
Ph (94})378-1800
Email: Sieele TW itliamsce: yincast.net
Website: Steele Williams.coni
# Steele T. Williams
a eerie nt
FB 079995
Be
Preview
Filing # 100032352 E-Filed 12/09/2019 05:05:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION IRIS BEAUGRAND, individually and as POA for Heidrun Riedner, Plaintiff, ¥ CASE NO: 2017 CA 181 ROBERT O’TOOLE, Defendant. / AFFIDAVIT OF IRIS BEAUGRAND STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SARASOTA 1, Iris Beaugrand, being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say: 1 Lam over the age of 18 years old. 2 That the facts and matters stated herein are true and of Affiant’s own personal knowledge. The issues between the parties have already been litigated in the pleadings and final judgment in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court case number 2016 CA 6351, Iris Beaugrand v. Robert O° Toole (Sarasota case). See the extensive counterclaim and answer to such (attached hereto) filed by Mr. Robert O'Toole dealing with the Charlotte property which is at issue in-this case. Further the trial court ruling which included a denial of the very same claims Mr. O'Toole asserts herein or which could have been asserted, were affirmed in all respects by the Second District Court of Appeal case number 2D 18-1935, Robert O° Toole, appellant y. Iris Beaugrand, appellee. 6. The extensive testimony taken in the Sarasota case is filed of record herein and refutes the position taken by Mr. O* Toole in his summary judgment motion. 7. As to the Charlotte house at issue herein: The initial purchase contract was in both Robert O’Toole and my name: b. We decided to purchase the house as a rental property: My mother Heidrun Riedner gave use $45,000 to purchase the property and we used joint monies to pay the remainder purchase price; Robert O’ Toole and I decided that the initial deed would be placed in Robert O° Toole’s name solely so that I could earn a real estate commission on the purchase transaction, which real estate commission we jointly used; We placed the house into our joint name after we purchased the house because that was our agreement, i.e, to purchase the house jointly as a rental; Robert O’ Toole has not abided by this agreement and has lived in and used the house despite my ownership in the house and my disagreement with him living in the house: g- Robert O’ Toole claims the house as his homestead but he doesn’t pay the taxes on the property which | am having to pay so that the property does not get sold as a tax deed. All of the issues between the parties as to the Charlotte house were litigated and decided in the Sarasota trial / case between the parties. oN OU FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. a AFFIANT: Co oo WAL state oF _ Flwdy COUNTY OF __# be A Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9" day of December, 2019 by Iris Beaugrand who is pergon nov mo me or who produced the following identification _ LO ae i 04 iar" Signa @ Of Notary Public (NOTARY SEAL) Type Name of Notary Public Filing # 56401773 E-Filed 05/14/2017 09:48:25 PM TN THE 12°" CIRCUIT COL IN AND FOR, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 2016. CA 006351 NC IRIS BEAUGRAND, Plaintiff DE NDANT BOB O'TOOLE’S AN: IRMATIVE DE 3S ROBERT O'TOOLE, NDC TER-CLAIM Difesidant. Defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE, by and through undersigned counsel, answers the complaint in this action as follows: ANSWER 1, The allegations contained in paragraph { of the complaint are pitted: for jurisdictional parposes only. 2. The allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the comyplaint are adyautted, 3. The allegations contained in pa aphs 78,9, (0 and (2 of the complaint are denied and strict proof thereof is hescby demanded. 4. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complain defendant admits that counsel for plaintiff issued a letter to hiny making certain demands concesning the dispositian ‘of the property that is the subject of this action (and another property described infe at paragraph 11 of the counterclaim) and that lidgation against him would commence should he fail to adhere to these demands, Remainder denied. 5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the complaint defendant admiss that the property that is the subject of this action is a rental property the income from which, in part, funds the costs to maintain it. Remainder denied. ul Filed 05/15/2017 08:48 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL Beangrand 9. O'Toole G 16 1635!NC 6. To b extent allegations are deemed to ¢: within the wherefore clause or prayer for relief of the complaint, or are otherwise not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs or otherwise herein, those allegations are denied, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Ag un affirmative defen: . defendant asserts that plaintiff has failed ts auach che instruments which form the basis of her lawsuit against defendant, to the deed, noe and mortgage concerning the property that is the subject matter of this. action, in contraventon of Pla. RCP, ti (. 8, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts thar the complaint tails to state a claim for whieh relicf can be granted in that plaintitf, inher demand leer thar preceded this action, clai -d the existence of « partnership with respect to the property char is the subject matter of this action, but there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to support a cause of action for disassociation, dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the purported parmership, or an accounting or other relief, as requieed by Morida Stature $620,81002 Revit ed Uniform Partnership Act of 1995). 9. i an affirmarive defense, defendant further asses rs that. the parti are jointly able ander a not ated by a morgage that encumbers the property that is the subject of this action and the forced, premature sale of the property prior to matunty of the note contrary t the best interests of defendant, and would constimtc wrongful disassociation of defendant ar plainnff's purported partner forth s particular undertaking violation of Florida Statute §620.8602¢b). 18, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the conyplaint fails to state a cain apon which relief can be granted to force the sale of the property thar is the subject of this action; for an accounting and for payment of plaintiff's legal fess in thar the complaint does not alle, ts sufficient to establish a right to do so. tt As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the property in question is not occupied by either party, is an investment property that generates reotal income and is not a non-divisihle property within the meaning of Chapter 64, Mlosida we Beangrand 1, O'Tvole Case 20M $35T NC Stanzies, nor has plaintiff established a proper basis.or compe! Mig Hin ng reason to force the sale of the pruperty tw the detriment of defendant, who is the rightful owner of it, 22,As an affirmative defense, defendant further asseres that defendant owned « the properry in fee simple prior to his relationship with plaintiff, deeding the property to himself and her with rights of survivorship as a means of estate planning (the parties were never legally martied to one another) with no financial contribution by plainaff whaisvever. She consequently has no present interest in the, property © plas a contingent beneficiary upon the death of defendant (should he predece e heri., 13. As an affirmative defense, defendant farther asserts that plaintiff is nor entitled to seek equitable relief by failing herself to do equity, is estopped from seeking such relief, or otherwise may not seck such telief by inducing defendant tw place her on the ttle to his property on the pretense of her love and affection for him, inducing bim by the same means tw pay all costs associated with maintaining this property, without any contribution by ; plaintiff ro dg that ens S and then by secking in this action to deprive defendans of his righefal interest in the property; force the sale of the property; arid cause unnce! ary loss and expense, all to the detriment of defendant, 14, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that it would otherwise be inequitable for plaintiff to be granted the relief demanded in the complaint. 15. As an affirmath ¢ defer , oF by way of set-off of counterclaim, defendant urther ay serts that plaintiff has nade no faancial contribution to the acquisiton of the property that is the subject of this action, has made no contribution tow ards the costs of maintaining the property, has made nw contribution towards the management of the property, and therefore has no right to disbursement of a portion of the proceeds over and above her contribution, if any, towards the costs and management of the property. 16. Defendant has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this caus and to compensate him is reasonable fashion for his effort 7. To the extent the: affirmative defenses or answers are deemed to constitute set-off of counterclaini, or vice versa, defendant prays they be so treated, ate : a OTe Ci 6 CA GRIN WHEREPORE, defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE prays that the Court denv alf relief to plain ft against bir, or such portion of the relief deemed just and appropriate: enter jnclyment in his favor and against plaintiff, either partially or wholly; award to hint an amount by way of set-off or by way of counterclaim in bis favor and against plainuff for the amounts justly due to him; aa acd to him attorney fees and costs if appropriate, and otherwise as provided by law; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief. provided by law and deemed appropriate in the premises, COUNTERCLAIM Defendant/Counterplaindff. ROBERT O'TOOLE sues plaintiff/counterdcfendant IRIS. BEUAUGRAND, individually and as attorney in fact under power(s} of attorney for RL JERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER, and alleges as follows: 1 ‘This is an action for equitable and other appropriate: relief concerning real and personal property tithed jointly or individually, as the case may be, wherein the amount ut controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interests and costs, » Coanterplaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE COTO "Gs thé owner of record of certain real and personal property, and has an interest in such properties not of record, ax mote fully appears herein. 3. Countendefendant 1RIS BEAUGRAND CBEAUGR. D”) isthe owner of record of certain real and personal property, and,.as mote fully appe: he ei hi ted rights and an interest in others on behalf of her parents, KLAUSE GOERKE, and HEDDRUN RIEDNER, parsuant to a power(s) of attorney to act on their behalf. 4, Ac all times material hereto BEAUGRAND was and is a duly lieensed and pmeticing Realtor in the See of Morida and bas superior knowled and expe ck concerning real estate transactions as compared to O'FOOLE, &« Sometime in. approximately 2005. BEAUGRAND and (YTOOLE began a committed relationship with one another and shordy thereafter began to cohabinee in the real property located ar 1855 Bayshore Drive, Englewood, Morida CBAYSHORE PROPERTY De which at that time was owned in fee simple absolute by O'TOOLE. Psd Be, ad (Tooke Case 6 CA GR FNC 4, After approximately one year of cobabitating at the BAYSHORE PROPERTY the couple moved in to the property located at 616 Pinto Trail, Englewood, Florida {f C PINTO TRAIL’), owned by BEAUGRAND in fee simple, and continued. 1 so cohabieate until the parated in the suntmer of 2016, ‘The parties cohabitated at PINTO TRAIL under an agreement whereby they would equally divide the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses, inchiling mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities. Living with them at PINTO TRAIL were the children of BEAUGRAND), born of a previous relationship. 8 In November, 20 cons ideration of the fact that the couple were in a commutted relationship (and had moved from O'TOOLE’s home and into PINTO TRAIL), BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute ad the BAYSHORE PROPERTY as a means of estate planning, whereby they held dle to the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorsbip. A true and correct copy of the deed to that effect is attached hereto made a part hereofas Exhibit A. 9, BE UGRAND also induced O'TOOLE to excoute a note and morgage to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY by advising him. fincorreedy} that this would allow the existing mortgage to be refinanced on more favorable terms, BEAUGRAND further advised that she would have to appear oa the title to the property in onder for her wo also esecute the note and mortgage on the BAYSHORE PROPERTY. 1. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of any interest in the BAYSHORE PROPERTY and contribured fink, if any, towards payment of mortgage loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property. ui In December, 2015, O'TOOLE, purchased “property ki ated at 880 Fast 1° Street, Englewood, Florida (880 PROPERTY”), a result. of which BEAUGRAND received a real estate commission. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of this property and contributed fittle, if any, towards parment of loan payments, max insurance, and maintenance for this property, Sie Beangran )Teode Case #2 i 46359MC 12. in January, 2016 (approximately six months before the parties separated} BEAUGRY ND induced O'TOOLE to exceute a deed to the 889 PROPERTY parporedly also as a means of estate planning, whereby they would bold tide to the proper 5. joint tenants with rights of survivorship, as was the case with OTOOLE’s. BAYSHORE PROPERTY, A sruc and correct copy of the handwritten quit clint deed presumably 10 that effect is attached hereto and made a patt hereof as Exhibit B. 1a ‘The deed to the 88) PROPERTY described in pamgraph 12 supns, was prepared without the assistance of counsel, or by a qualified ntle agent, The deed, signed shortly after. the closing (where BEAUGRAND received a commission) fails to contain words to the effect that title was to be held jointly with rights of survivorship, iA In the sommer of 2012, OTOOLE purchased commercial space in, the « Gallery Plaza, located. at Unit 5, 3502 North Access Road, Englewood (GALLERY PLAZA UNIT ‘, for his computer repair business, KLAUS GOERKE foaned the fands to O'TOOLE for the purchase 830,000) under terms whereby O'TOOLE would make interest-only payments and pay mxcs.on the property. . 15, In func, 2012, rather than having a properly prepared now and mortgage execured, KEAUSE. GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER took title w the GALLERY PLAZA-UNIT jointly in their names with no mention of O'TOOLE. 16. O'TOOLE continued to make loan and other payments.for the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT until, as mote fully appears def, BEAUGRAND, pursuant to asserted rights under a power(s) of attorney, evicted him and his business ftom tie premises, 1 Daring their relationship, the parties jointly acquired other property, including, defer ala, a stallion (Tosso"}. BEAUGRAND also has pos: ion of, other roperty belonging to OPTOOLE that she has dectined to return to him, including, dnfer aibHid, a*boat trailer, art, and personal hooks and records. 18, All conditions precedent to this action bave been satistied or waived. * Hie Be . Beaugrand », O'Toole Case 22018 351 NC 19, O'TOOLE has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this cause and to compensate him in reasonable fashion for his efforts. COUNT b MS RE TED TO BAYSHORE PROPERTY 20, CYTOOLE real nd incorporates by re nce as if fully set forth herein, the prececling paragraphs numbered f through 19. ‘ at As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced CY TOOLE, to execute deed to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY that purports to grane to her an interest in the property as a joint tenant with sights to mke sole utle to the property in the event O'TOOLE predeceases her. O'TOOLE was induced to enter into this arrangement as a means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one another) and on the pretense of BEY UGRANDs enduring love and affection for him. 23 BEAUGRAND made ‘no financial contribution towards the BAYSH( JRE PROPERTY either at the time she induced O'TOOLE tp place her in tite to the property nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance of the property. 23, BE AUGRAND. lias no present interest in the property cxcept. as 2 contingent beneficiary upon the death of O'TOOLE (Should he predecease ber} the basis for which no longer exists (ia that they ate no longer in a commited relationship) 24, BEAUGRAND. obtained any interest. she has in the BAYSHORE PROPERTY under the promise and. expectation thar she would remain in a committed rationship with GPTOOLE until the first of them we pass and would share equally in the expense and management of i; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance. upon. these express and implied promises; a confidential relationship. existed. at the time between. BEAUGRAND and O'TOOL and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly enriched were she: to succeed in depriving OYTOOLE of ownership of this property, « 25. By operation of law and otherwise the interest of BE GRAND. in O'TOOL property is by way of a constructive or resulting trust, TP es Bew ait OT aol ste 2016 357 NC 26, ‘The equities concerning the BAYSHORE PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing the interests of OP TOOLE in the same-to the exclusion of BEAUG AND. WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE. prays that the Court emer a declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE, and Ast BEAUGRAND concerning any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or resulting irust; ordering a reformation of the deed t reflect the true imerests of the in this property; awarding to him a spe al equity in any and all proceeds upon the fore sile of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief provided by Jaw or in equity, and deemd appropriate in the premises. COUNT He CLAIMS RELATED TO PINTO TRAIL, 27, O'TOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein; the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19. 28. As set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE entered into a committed relationship outside of mariage, but cobabitated as such for a substantial period of time, during which their finances became entangled, 29 Spe fically, the parties moved out of O'TOOLE's residence (BAYSHORE PROPERTY? id inte PINTO PRAU, under an arrangement whereby they would equally share the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses; which O'TOOLE would ochenwise not incur had. they remained at his own residence. MM During the time the parties cohabitated at PINTO ‘TRAIL, BEAUGRAND consiswarly failed wo remit payment for her share of the housing expenses, while O'TOOLE, just as consistently kept currenr for both parties’ share of those expenses, and also contributed funds and labor for repairs and maintenance of the property. BEAL AND induced O'TOOLE to deed interests in his property to her in consideration of their continued relationship with one another, but failed and refused to Beanggen (V Teole Cass 2016 NC geant any interest in PIN t TRALL to him, even while accepting the benefits of finds and Jnbor be expended to allow her to maintain possession and nile to her property. a BEAUGRAND was accordingly unjustly enriched by the funds and labor 32. expended by O'TOOLE for her benefit and thar of PINTO TRALL in violation of the ayeeement between the parties that she would bear one-half of those expenses and labor.” 33, In fashioning relief as between the partes, either at law of in equity, OPPOOLE is entitled to a credit for the funds and labor expended by him to the benefit of BEAUGRAND and her property, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount so expended by him during the course of their relationship and cohabitation, WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enwr a declaratory judgment finding the equities wm be in favor of O'TOOLE and against BEAUGRA a 19 concerning the finds expended by him for ber benefit ix connection with the PINTO PROPERTY; finding thar he is entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable fien concerning the same; awarding to him judgment for the vareimburscd amounts expended by him either by way of damages or in quantum meruit, and that the Court grant such additional and further relief deemd appropriate in the premises, COUNT Hb CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 886 PROPERTY . M. OMPOOLE realleges and incorporates by reference a¢ ally set forth b re the preceding paragraphs numbered { through 19. 35, As is more fully set forth herein and othenwise, BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a deed to bis 880 PROPERTY that purports to grant to her an interest: in the property as a joint tenant. O'TOOLE was induced to enter into this arrangement 28.2 means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one another) and on the pretense of B UGRAND’s enduring tove and affection for him. 36. BEAUGRAND made ho finascial contebution towards the 880 PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE to place her in tile to the property HP: Bea endl B, OT sale 6 NC nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the mortgage, t s, insurance and maintence of the property. 37, Despite the fact that the deed to the property was inartfully drawn, BEAUGRAND has no prese: interest in the property except as a contingent beneficiary upon the death of OPTOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which no longer ts (in that they are no longer in a commited relationship’. 38. BEAUGRAND obtained any intorest she hag in the 880 PROPERTY vader the promise and expectation thar she would 1 ain in a committed relationship with OTOO! unnd the fiest of them were to pass and would share equally in the expe: atid management of i; OTTOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied promise: a confidential reladonship existed ar d » me berween BEAUGRAND and OFOOLE; and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly ensched were she t succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of owners! ip of this property. 39, By operation of law and otherwise. the interest of BEAUGRAND in OPFOOL property is by way of a constructive or resalting trast. 4 ‘The equities conecening the 880 PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing the intere: of O'TOOLE in the same tothe exclusion of BEAUGRA: WHEREFORE, counmtrplaintif? O'TOOLE, prays that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE and against BEAUGRAND concerning any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the 880 PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or resulting trust: ordering a reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the patties ind propery; awarding 10 hint a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and facther relief provided by lnw of ia equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises, Wis au ad » Thole Cage #2038 C4 6351 NC COUNT IV: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE GALLERY PLAZA UNIT at. CPTOOLE realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, she preecding paragraphs numbered { through 19, 42, As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, O'TOOLE entered into an agreement with KLAUSE GOERKE whereby the later loaned the sam of $50,060 towards she acquisinon of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, where O'TOOLE, in celainace on this arranagement, relocated his computer repair business. 43. ide to the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT became ves din KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER (BEAUGRAND’s parents) te the exclusion of CTOOLE and without 1 properly recorded mortgage feflecting the auc arrangements etwoen the parties concerning the loan nude by GOERIKE to O'TOOLE. 44, Pursuant to a course of dealing benveen GOERKE and O'TOOLE the later continued 10 make loan paymenes and other payments in conncetion with the GALLERY PLA UNET in reliance upon the validity of the agreement berween them, 48, Subsequent to the separation of BEAUG AND and O'TOGLE, the former, acting on behalf of her parents pursuant to.a power(s) of attorney, terminated the agreement as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, falsely alleged that the panties in faer had entered into a “fease” of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, and forced the cjectment of O'TOOLE and his business from the premises on extremely short notice, 46. The termination of the agreement benween GORRKE and CPTOOLE caused direct and conseguential damages to O'TOOLE, was inequitable, an caused unjust enrichment 16 BEAVGRAND and ber parents. : ay, In fashioning relief as berween the parties, either at law or in equity, O'TOOLE is entitled to a credit for the losses he sustained a result of the wrongful termination of the agreement as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, or judgment for money daniages equal to the amount of that loss, Ui Bec nd COT OCA WHEREFORE, counterplaintif O'TOOLE pra th t the Court enter a dechiratory judgment findi Mfx thef es ts be in favor of O'TOOLE and against BEALGRAND in connection with the GALLERY PL A UNIT; finding thar he: is entitled to a sp al equity, credit or equitable fien concerning the same; awarding to him judgment for his lasses concerning the termination of the loan ay reement and wrongful tieetment, heras a judgment for damva; ‘or by way of promissory stoppel; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief deemed appropnate in the premises. COUNY ¥: CLAIMS RE TED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY 4B, O'TOOLE malleges and incorporates by reference: if fully set forth herein, the preceding paragraphs aumbered t through 19. 49, As more fully set forth herein and otherwise, the ies obrained joint aide 06, inter alia, a stallion Fosso”) and other property. 50. Pursuant to Florida Statutes {64.091, io addition to real property, personalty is also subject t the partition process. ‘ St, BEAUGRAND also has possession of other property belonging to OPPOOLE that she has declined to return to him, includin inter alia, 9 boat trailer, art, and. personal books and weords, OPOOL entitled be reimbursed for the amounts paid by him towards the acquisition of jointly owned property or for the sale of the same with the proceeds equitahly divided between the parties, and for the ream of the items of personal property belonging to him sill in the posse: ion of B UGRAND WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a declaratory judgment equitably dividing personal property joinily owned by the parties and for the partition and sale of the same, if ne essary; ordering BEAUGRAND to return personal property in hee possession and control thar belongs t O'TOOLE; otdering an accounting of the personal property joinily owned or in which cach has a special claim of 2tP a Beans a) snd 1, O Teak Case B 2016 CA GRE NC right or equity; and that the Court grant such additional and farther relict provided by taw or is equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises. 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a tee and correct copy of the forcgoing was caused to be served by electronic mail on May 14, 2017, upon Stocle T. Willams, Esquire, STEEI ST WILLIAMS, PA, attornes fr plaintiff, Pincapple Place, 1381 McAnsh Square, Sarasota, Morida, 34236; Steck'l Wit ni Cor aS Noh asi, Nob Respectfully submitted, BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA PO BOX 1133 Englewood, Florida 34295 Tel: (941) 404-4704 BretCigrk @ Me awyer, Com (Bret ark ‘ Bret Clark, Esquire FB #384038 Atiorney for Defendant/Counterplaintif? Robert O'Toole {EXHIBITS ON FOLLOWING PAGES} 3 Beangrand OT seks Cae # GCA O31 NC ag! Ware Pressly and Br FER cm is tsar Pega ra SexyTi a se e els “3 OE 8 & Des aC Raut e S| teEekGate ois Eigiewoin Horst 8 AT FRI Re sebe TROP TLET0 Reale were oe wee Teds * General Warranty Deed ‘te ton Bonester 3. 2087 A, By Robert Q’Eole,ahage gene wa whose abes i IS RayneDr, Kyla FBS rae ile ie gm, ee Beaagrand and Robert 7 Fowle jou evant with fal righte a sarivorshp wise pt eck aes ARS Bapabce Des, Emgbowesd, FL METS berecner ced te greats tse wet= hone‘id spa glSe pene aerate cin ne Bs fe ep ng Witness, shes gon, feta gern ofr of an Osan, (10.0 at oer caer commas, seg bene i ereby acon ee prams, Baris. ll allen, venus, sete eaeaed Suni at je, abel carla ed ate Socats Canty, Mei ie Let 983, Enplenoad Gardens, Dit as ger plat thefant, ersoried te Pit Bow 4 Page 72 and 78 of tie Public Recor of Saranota Couaty, Flic ‘hye ages re ese en, coe tne aera 8, Posed Ra HDD ‘iogetier ins in women betes sapien ints engin 8 a8e te pect “Focave and ta Held, ee sence spe fre, ‘Ad te gut evebyvonenaces wa wt rae at de yet mal ete fa a es mp el be pee Soe god igh at inst arty wo pe a ey a ua Su he yor Rasy Aly waa tees ad aw wi de ‘he son mgs bs ol os af 2 pete oma eat Bor nl at fe a a escabrees xaypt Mes acancng, siege a center | Witneax Where, de seit pune Ses ign an yeni shee prea We dys yo Fg dre wei Sigted,reaiod dn detvevct in oe pooserces Hy a Baw Sve ‘eninge W . Seanfon ses ney pcenrnat re te te 2 AgvGe Bute rahe hak. a oo wie tsa) debe bon et Lalo L Phere Soot Bonds Caan sere erga vat wns acing bes Nore 26, 2 meson ec st bevhine pnd Facial. Bedeja. se tamataseenReber OTovise sng an, who bas perce ooure Pihyteth. Eafe ware sat Pn ene Sy Cea ae oe ea "es Sse aie aoa Wines Dab apse i Gone elk ERE se identification and wha dididid not toke an oxth, os, “SS sedny a SKE ure of ty Ceri tu Ah oe. SAO Printed ‘BECAT 3 PROG ty Pat» He aa Sy Co, Egar 27.2858] Gone 9 177 ante Poa er ay | EXHIBIT B gS Filing # 57461550 E-Filed 0607/2017 05:15:58 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION IRIS BEAUGRAND, Plaintiff, ¥ CASE NO: 2016 CA 6351 ROBERT O° TOOLE, Defendant. / ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff iris Beaugrand files this answer and affirmative defense to the counterclaim filed in this matter and states: Without knowledge. ithout knowledge. Admit as stated in the complaint filed herein or as stated in the Charlotte {litigation of the parties, otherwise denied. Admit Plaintiff is a realtor, otherwise denied, Admit the parties lived together otherwise without knowledge. 6 Admit Adznit expenses were shared otherwise without knowledge. Denice Denied. 10. Denied. i Denied. Denied. 13 Denied, 14 Denied. 13 Denied. 16. Denied. 17 Denied. 18. Without knowledge. 19. Without knowledge. Count I~ Claims Related to Bayshore Property 20. Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein. 21 Denied. Denied. 23 Denied. 24 Denied. 25 Denied. 26 Denied. Count I ~ Claims Related to Pinte Trail 27. Answers to prior Paragraphs are realleged herein. Filed 06/07/2017 07:15 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL 28 Admit the parties cohabitated together otherwise denied, 29. Without knowledge, 38. Denied. 31 Denied 32. Denied. 33 Denied. Count If] ~ Claims Related to the 880 Property 34 Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein, 35 Denied. 36. Denied. 37, Denied. 38. Denied. Denied. 40, Denied, Count IV ~ Claims Related to the Gallery Plaza Unit al Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein, 42 Without knowledge. 43 Denied. Denied. AS, Denied 46 Denied. Denied. Count V — Claims Related to Personal Property Ag Answers to prior paragraphs are realleged herein. 49 . Without knowledge 56. Without knowledge. 31 . Without knowledge 52 . Without knowledge. Hirst Affirmative Defense As to count 1, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including any claim for declaratory relief, fraud or reformation. Second Affirmative Defense As to count 2, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including any claim for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, or quantum meruit, Third Affirmative Defense As to count 3, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including any claim: for declaratory relief, fraud or reformation. 2(P Fourth Affirmative Defense As to count 4, the duration of the written lease agreement of the parties expired on June 1, 2014, and thereafter the tenancy at issue was an oral tenancy. This oral te cy of Robert O'Toole was terminated pursuant to the provisions of Florida law, j.c. Chapter 83 FS. Accordingly, count 3 fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law. Fifth A ative De: As to count 4, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including any claim for declaratory relief, equitable lien, wrongful ejectument, or promissory estoppel, Sixth Affirmative Defense As to count 5, the count fails to state a cause of action recognizable under Florida law, including any claim for declaratory relief, accounting, or partition. Seven: ripative fe @ As to all counts, ifany damages are owed to Robert O’ Toole (“O'Toole”), Iris Beaugrand (Beaugrand”) is entitled to a set off of such amount for monies O'Toole owes Beaugrand. Eighth Affirmative Defense Statute of Limitations Each cause of action, claim and item of damages did not accrue within the time prescribed by Jaw for them before this action was brought. Eighth Affirmative Defense Statute of Fraud The agreemeni(s) alleged in the counterclaim pertains to transfer or contract for the sale of Jands and was not in writing and signed by defendant or by some other person lawfully authorized by defendant to do so. Ninth Affirmative Defense As to all counts, Robert O’ Toole has unclean hands. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correet copy of the foregoing has been sent via Email to Bret Clark, Esq, attorney for Robert O’ Toole on this 7 day of June, 2017. 3} ge Steele T. Williams, PLA. Pineapple Place 1381 McAnsh Square Sarasota, FL 34236-5620 Ph (94})378-1800 Email: Sieele TW itliamsce: yincast.net Website: Steele Williams.coni # Steele T. Williams a eerie nt FB 079995 Be