Preview
Filing # 89334699 E-Filed 05/10/2019 03:32:07 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,
v. CASE NO: 2017 CA 181
ROBERT O'TOOLE,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFE’S REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff, [ris Beaugrand, individually and as POA for Heidrun Riedner, files this reply as to all
Defendant’s affirmative defenses and states:
1 Denied. All the affirmative defenses are denied as such matters are no longer at issue or
such issues are moot.
Stipulation. Moreover, the parties stipulated in writing (See attached Exhibit A
incorporated herein by this reference) and on the record at trial in the Sarasota case
(defined below) that “the parties will resolve and try all issues they have between them in
the Sarasota case and will request the ruling the court in Sarasota County to be
controlling as to the disposition of all matters at issue in this case.” The Sarasota Court in
in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court case number 2016 CA 6351, Iris Beaugrand v.
Robert O’Toole, reached a judgment on the merits. (Referenced herein as the “Sarasota
case.”) All issues between the parties were decided, see the final judgment of the
Sarasota case which is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.
The Sarasota case was affirmed in all respects by the Second District Court of Appeal in
case number 2D 18-1935, Robert O’ Toole, appellant v. Iris Beaugrand, appellee.
Collateral estoppel would preclude the retrial of the issues asserted by Defendant.
1|Page
3
3. Res Judicata. Further, in addition to the Stipulation of the parties, the final judgment in
the Sarasota case is res judicata as to claims and issues raised by Defendant Robert
O'Toole in this Court in his affirmative defenses, especially given the extensive
counterclaim filed by Defendant Robert O’ Toole in the Sarasota case (See attached
Exhibit C which is incorporated by this reference.), which has now been fully
adjudicated.
Waiver. As a result of the Stipulation (Exhibit A), Defendant has waived its rights to
seek an adjudication (or retrial) of the issues as to the affirmative defenses asserted.
Estoppel. Defendant represented to Plaintiff that all issues between the parties would be
decided by the Sarasota case, and Plaintiff detrimentally relied on these oral and written
representations of Defendant, and now Defendant is estopped from claiming all issues
between the parties were not decided by the Sarasota case.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via
Email to Bret Clark, Esq. attorney for Robert O° Toole on this 10th day of May, 2019.
Steele T. Williams, P.A.
Pineapple Place
1381 McAnsh Square
Sarasota, FL 34236-5620
Ph: (941)378-1800
Emai eleT Williams@comcast
net
Website: Steele Williams.com
/s/ Steele T. Williams
FBN: 079995
ier
2|Page
EXHIBIT A
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
IRIS BEAUGRAND, individually and as
POA for Heidrun Riedner,
Plaintiff,
¥ CASE NO: 17000181 CA
ROBERT O'TOOLE,
Defendant.
a
STIPULATION
COMES NOW the parties to this matter who hereby stipulate to the following:
1 The parties were a couple for many years.
2. As a part of their relationship they became joint title owners of property. One property is
located in Charlotte County, the other property is located in Sarasota County.
Plaintiff has brought a partition and accounting complaint in this court to address the
jointly title real property in Charlotte County, and a partition and accounting complaint in
Sarasota County to address the jointly title real property in Sarasota County.
The parties have another case in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court, to-wit: Case Number:
2016 CA 6351 NC (the Sarasota case) which concerns the Sarasota County real property
the parties jointly own.
The Sarasota case is set for trial during December 2017, and the parties expect the issues
between them to resolve the title issues and claims involved in this case at such time,
For economies of the parties and the judiciary, the parties will resolve and try all issues
they have between them in the Sarasota case and will request the ruling the court in
Sarasota County to be controlling as to the disposition of all matters at issue in this case.
- Exhibit A 1lPage
This matter should be stayed until settlement or resolution of the Sarasota case.
Upon resolution of the Sarasota case, the parties, either of them, will report by motion to
this Court what the resolution of the Sarasota case was and what the disposition of this
case should be as a result.
Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant
Steele T, Williams. (But Clark
STEELE T. WILLIAMS, ESQ. BRET CLARK, ESQUIRE.
Florida Bar Number 079995 Florida Bar Number 384038
STEELE T. WILLIAMS, PA BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA
1381 MeAnsh Square PO BOX 1133
Sarasota, Florida 34236 Englewood, Florida 34295
(941) 378-1800 (941) 404-4704
Steele William @ comcast.net BretClark
@ WebNetLawyer.Com
Date signed: August 15, 2017 Date signed: August 16, 2017
2lPage
EXHIBIT B
+
RECO IN OFFICIA
RDLED RECORDS
INSTRUMENT# 2018057990
S/272018 2:34 PM
KAREN E. RUSHING
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH Vn CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SARASOTA COU ', FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION SO Receipt# 2234764
TRIS BEAUGRAND,
CASE NO: 2016 CA 63581
ROBERT O’TOOLE,
ee
EINAL JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came to be tried on the causes of action asserted by both parties,
inctuding based on
the stipulation af the parties all clsioas the parties assert in the Twentieth Judicial
Florida Circuit
Court Case: 2017 CA 181, in Charlotte County, Florida, and on the evidence
preseated
FT IS ADJUDGED
thar
1, Plaietitf iris iis dees i i 6 Pinto Trail, FL 34223 and defendant
Robert O'Toole each own 4g tenants in common in the real property in
as.
Parcel éa
Gardens Unit 5, as. plat thereof, recorded
in Plat Book 4, Page ic Recordsof | Eouny, hs
‘Mailing address: 1855 Bays
Dr, Englewo
ho od,re
FL 34273
[Bis property i indivisible and cannot be pattioned in kind nad is refered
to herein asthe
2. Within 45 Plaintiff shall submit a separate order ‘the Sarasota property will be
directed
to be
a
‘ata judicial sale ac ‘to Florida law with the proceeds of sach
30 follows: to pay the first and second mortgages,
i ‘attorney's fees of | if to be determined if any, and thereafter the
to be equally distributed to Sums are
3, Punruant to the Stipulatio
between n
the parties entered prior to trial and at trial, the Court
recomm
that the end
Circuit Court
s of‘Charlotte County order ag ‘
8) Plaintiff Iris Beaugrand and defendant Robert O" TooleSot en ce
fenants in common in the real property in Charlotte County, Florids: ase
Lot 1 and 2, BlocB, k Pools Renee ering to the plat thereof recorded ia
Plat Book 2, Page 99, Public Records of
cae
Mailing address: 808 B, First Street, Eaglewood, FL 34223
VPage
Filed 05/02/2018 01:03 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court,
Sarasota County, FL
i
a
bp “eiuonety is indivisible and camaot be partitioned in kind
and is refered to herin the
©) Within45 days after
of the parties,
case
Plant
shal fie this with the
as Twentieth Circuit Court Case: 2017
181, in Charlotte
a Ti Coie is t0 be sold at a judicial sale according to Florida law
with the
28 follows: fir to pay
st the $45,000 owed to Heideun
idnez, second the costs of such sale attomey’s foes of Plaintiff to be determi
Cate evra 1 be wt by the parti
subd by PaPinte the Chaos Coney ona eases
days of this judgment or us soon as ctl i fn the
§. As to Defendant's the ‘stipalated that Count 1V of the counterclaim
resolved on the record at trial, and as to Counts 111, Ei and V was
of the counterc of laiv
Defend ant
a
Judgment is entered against Robert O'Tooleaud in favor of Iris Besugr
and,
7. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce this judgment, to award
sttomey fees and to tax cost,
Haag aes heenneraine Se
ANDREA MCHUGH
ce: Steele T, Williams, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff
Bret Clarke, Exp. atomey for Defendant
Siero abies cr
2)Page
Filed 95/02/2018 01:03 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Saravota County
, FL
EXHIBIT C
Filing # 56828536 E-Filed 05/23/2017 04:36:47 PM
IN THE 12 CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No: 2016 CA 006351 NC
IRIS BEAUGRAND,
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT BOB O’TOOLE’S
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
ROBERT O'TOOLE, AND COUNTER-CLAIM
Defendant.
terested
Defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE, by and through undersigned counsel,
answers the
complaint in this action as follows:
ANSWER
1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the complaint arc admitted for
jurisdictional purposes only,
2.2. ‘The allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the complaint are
admitted.
3. The allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the complaint are
denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded,
4. With respect to thé allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint
defendant admits that counsel for plaintiff issued’a letter to him making certain
demands
concerning the disposition of the property that is the subject of this action (and
another
property described infra at paragraph 11 of the counterclaim) and that tigation
against him
would commence should he fail to adhere to these demands. Remainder denied,
5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the complaint
defendant admits 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.
Pa
Exhibit ©
Filed 05/23/2017 05:07 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit
Court, Sarasota County, FL
Beaygrand v, O Tooke
Case # 2016 CA G331 NC
6.
To the extent allegations are deemed to cxist within the wherefore clause or
prayer for relief of the complain, or are otherwise not mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs or otherwise herein, those allegations are denied,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
7 As an affirmative defense, defendant asserts that plaintiff has failed to attach
the instruments which form the basis of her lawsuit against defendant, to wit: the deed, note
and mortgage concerning the property that is the subject matter of this. action,
in
conttavention of Fla R.Civ,P. 1.130/a),
8. As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the complaint fails
to state a claim for which relief can be granted in that plaintiff, in her demand
letter that
preceded this action, claimed the existence of a partnership with respect to the property
thar
is the subject matter of this action, but there are insufficient allegations in the complaint
to
support 2 cause of action for disassociation, dissolution and winding up of the affairs
of the
perported partnership, oz an accounting or other relief, as requited by Florida Starute
$620.81002 et wg (Revised Uniform Partnership Act of 1995),
9. As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the parties” are
jointly lable under a note secured by a mortgage that encumbers the property that
is the
subject of this action and the forced, premature sale of the property prior to maturity of the
note is contrary tothe best intctests of defendant, and would constitute wrongful
disassociation of defendant as plaintiff's purported partner for this particular undertaking, in
violation of Florida Statute §620,8602().
10. As an affiemative defense, defendant further asserts that the complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to force the sale of the property that is the
subject of this action; for an accounting; and for payment of plaintiff's legal fess in thar the
complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish a right to do so,
i As an affirmative defense, defendant further assets that the property in
question is aot occupied by either party, is an investment property that generates
rental
jacome, and is nor a-non-divisible property within the meaning: of Chapter 64, Florida
. -
2UPegs
Beangrand u. O'Toole
Caie # 2016 CA 6351 NC
Statutes, nor has plaintiff established a proper basis or compelling reason to force the sale of
the property to the detriment of defendant, who is the rightfal owner of it.
12, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that defendant owned
the property in fee simple prior to his relationship with plaintiff, deeding the property to
himself and her with rights of survivorship as 4 means of estate planning (the parties were
never legally martied to one another) with no financial contribution by plaintiff whatsoever.
She consequently has no present interest in the Property except as a contingent beneficiar
y
upon the death of defendant (should ’he predecease her).
13, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that plaintiff is not
entitled to seek equitable relief by failing herself to. de equity, is estopped from seeking such
relief, of otherwise may not seck such relief by inducing defendant to place her on the tile 10
his property on the pretense of her love and affection for him, inducing him by the same
means to pay all costs associated with maintaining this property 5 without any contribution by
plaintiff towards that end, and then by seeking in this action to deprive defendant of his
rightful interest in the property; force the sale of the property; and cause unnecessary 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 affirmative defense, or by way of set-off or counterclaim, defendant
further asserts that plaintiff has made no financial contribution to the acquisition of the
Property that is the subject of this action, has made no contribution towards the costs
of
maintaining the property, has made no 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 xepresent him in this cause and
to compensate him in reasonable fashion for his efforts,
17. To the extent these affirmative defenses or answers are deemed to constitute a
set-off or counterclaim, or ice versa, defendantprays theybe so treated.
31Page
Beaugrand x. O'Toole
Case # 2016 CA 6351. NC.
WHEREFORE, defendant ROBERT O’TOOLE prays that the Court dény.all relief
to plaintiff as against him, or such portion of the relief deemed just and appropriate;
enter
judgment in his favor and against plaintifé, either partially or wholly; award to him an
amount by way of set-off or by way of counterclaim in his favor and against plaintiff for
the
amounts justly due to him; award 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/Counterplainiff ROBERT O'TOOLE, sues plaintiff/counterdefendant
IRIS BE. AUGRAND, individually ond as atomey in fact under power(s) of attorney
for
KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER, and alleges as follows:
t This is an action for equitable and other approptiate relief concerning real
and personal property titled jointly or individually, as the case may.be, wherein the amount
in
controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interests and costs,
2,2 Counterplaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE (O*TOOLE”) is the owner of
record of certain real and personal property, and has an interest in such properties nor of
record, as more fully appears herein,
3. Counterdefendant IRIS BEAUGRAND ( “BEAUGRAND’) is the owner of
record of cettain real and personal property, arid, as more fully appears hercin, has asserted
rights and an interest in others on behalf of her parents, KLAUSE GOERK} nd
HEIDRUN RIEDNER, pursuant to a power(s) f attomey to act on their behalf,
4, «At all times material hereto BEAUGRAND
was and is a duly licensed and
practicing Realtor in the State of Florida and has superior knowledge and experience
concerning real estate transactions as compared to O'TOOLE.
a Sometime in approximately 2005 BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE began a
committed relationship with one another and shortly thereafter began to. cohabitate in
the
real property located at 1855 Bayshore Drive, Englewood, Florida (“BAYSHORE
PROPERTY" , Which at that aime was owted in fee simple absolute by O"T' ‘OOLE.
4$1Page
Beasgrand », O'Tonke
Case # 2016 CA 8351 NC
66 After approximately one year of cohabitating at the BAYSHORE
PROPERTY the couple moved in to the property located at'616 Pinto Trail, Englewoo
d,
Blorida (“PINTO TRAIL”), owned by BEAUGRAND in fee simple, and continued to so
cohabitare until they separated in the summer of 2016,
7 ‘The parties cohabitated at PINTO TRAIL under an agreement whereby they
would equally divide the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses, including mortgage
payments,
taxes, insurance and utilities, Living with them at PINTO TRAIL were the children of
BEAUGRAND, born of a previous telationship.
8. In November, 2007, in consideration of the fact that the couple were in a
committed relationship (and had moved from O'TOOLE’s home and into PINTO
TRAIL),
BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a deed to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY
as
@ means of estate planning, whereby they held title to the property as joint tenants
with
rights of survivorship. A truc and correct copy of the deed to that effect is attached hereto
and made a part hereofas Exhibit A.
9. BEAUGRAND also induced’ GTOOLE to execute a note and morgage to
the BAYSHORE, PROPERTY by advising him (incorrecdy) that this
would allow: the
existing mortgage to be refinanced on more favorable terms. BEAUGRAND
iurther
advised that she would have to appear‘on the title to the ptoperty in order for her to
also
execute the note and mortgage on the BAYSHORE PROPERTY.
10. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of any interest
in the BAYSHORE. PROPERTY and contributed liede, if any, towards payment of
mortgage loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property.
i In December, 2015, O'TOOLE. purchased property located at 880 Bast’ 1%
Street, Englewood, Florida (“880 PROPERTY”), a result of which BEAUGRAND
received
real estate commission. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of
this property and contributed little, if any, towards payment of loan payments,
taxes,
insurance, and maintenance for this property.
SiPage
Beangrand «. O Tooke
Case # 2016 CA O351 NC
12,
4n January, 2016 (approximately six months before the parties separated)
BEAUGRAND induced O’TOOLE to execute a deed to the 880 PROPERTY purportedly
also as a means of estate plansing, whereby they would hold title to the property as joint
tenants with rights of survivorship, as was the case with O’TOOLE’s BAYSHORE
PROPERTY. A tree and comect copy of the handwriten quit claim deed presumabl
y to
that effect is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B,
13.
The deed to the 880 PROPERTY desctibed in paragraph 12 supra, was
prepared without the assistance of counsel, or by a qualified title agent, The deed, signed
shortly after the closing (where BEAUGRAND received 2 commission) fails to contain
words to the effect that title was to be held jointly with rights of survivorship.
14, In the summer of 2012, O'TOOLE purchased commetcial space in the
Gallery
Plaza, located ar Unit 5, 3502 North Access Road, Englewood “GALLERY
PLAZA UNIT”), for his computer repair business. KLAUSE GOERKE loaned the
funds
to O'TOOLE for the purchase ($50,000) under terms whereby O'TOOLE would make
interest-only payments and pay taxes on the property,
15,In June, 2012, rather than baving a properly prepared note and mortgage
executed, KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER ‘took tile to 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 more fully appears infiz, BEAUGRAND, pursuant to asserted rights
under a power(s) of attorney, evieted him and his business from the premises.
17, During their relationship, the parties jointly. acquired other property,
inchiding, infer alia, a stallion (Tosso”), BEAUGRAND also has possession. of other
property belonging to O'TOOLE that she has declined to return to him, including, inter alia,
a boat trailer, art, and personal books and records.
18. All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied or waived.
61Page
Beangrand v. O'Toole
Case # 2016 CA 6351 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 I: CLAIMS RELATED TO BAYSHORE PROPERTY
20, O'TOOLE tealloges and incorporates by ceference as if fully set forth herein,
the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 though 19.
at. As is more fully set. forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced
O'TOOLE to execute a deed to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY that purports to
grant to her
an interest in the property as a joint tenant with rights to take sole title 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 BEAUGRAND’s enduring love and affection for him.
22,
BEAUGRAND made no financial contribution towards the BAYSHORE
PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE to place her in title to the property
nor in the years ‘subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the
morgage, taxes, insurance and. maintenance-of the property,
23, BEAUGRAND has no present interest in the propery except as a
contingent beneficiary upon the death of O'TOOLE (should he predecease her)
the basis
for which no longer exists (in that they are.no longer in a commited relationship).
24, BEAUGRAND obtained any interest. she has in the BAYSHORE
PROPERTY under the promise and expectation that she would remain in a committe
d
relationship with O'TOOLE until the first of them were to pass and would share equally in
the expense and management of ir, O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those
express and implied promises; a confidential relationship. existed at the time berween
BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE; and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly entiched were
she
to succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property.
25. By operation of law and otherwise the interest of BEAUGRAND in
O'TOOLE'S property is by way of a constructive or resulting trust.
TiPage
Beangrand v. O'Toole
Case # 2018 CA 6351 NC
26, The equities concerning the BAYSHORE, PROPERTY militate in favor of
recognizing the interests of O'TOOLE in the same to the exclusion of BEAUGRAND,
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff 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 sights 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 trust; ordering a reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of
the parties
S propetty; awarding to him a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced
sale of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and further telief provided
by
law or in equity, and deemd appropriate in thepremises.
COUNT Il: CLAIMS RELATED TO PINTO TRATL
27, OPTOOLE realleges 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 martiage, but cohabitated as such for
a substaritial
period of time, during which their finances became entangled,
29, Specifically, the parties moved out of O'TOOLE’s residence (BAYSHORE
PROPERTY) and into PINTO TRAIL under an’atrangement whereby’ they would equally
share the PINTO TRAIL. housing expenses, which O'TOOLE would otherwise
not incur
had they semained at his own residence.
30, During the time the parties cohabitated at PINTO TRAIL, BEAUGRAND
consistently failed to remit payment for her share of the housing expenses, while O'TOOLE,
just as consistently kept current for both parties’ share of those expenses, and also.
contributed funds and labor for repairs and maintenance of the property.
3. BEAUGRAND 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
BPs
Beaugrand x. O'Toole
Case # 2016 CA 6351 NC
grant any interest in PINTO TRAIL to him, even while accepting the benefits of funds
and
labor he expended to allow her to mainzain possession and title to herproperty.
32, BEAUGRAND was accordingly unjustly enriched by the funds and labor
expended by O'TOOLE for her benefit and that of PINTO TRAIL in violation of the
agreement between the parties that she would bear one-half of those expenses and labor.
33. In fashioning relief as between the parties, either at law or in equity,
O'TOOLE is entitled to a credit for the funds and labor expended by him to the benefit
of
BEAUGRAND aad her propeity, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount so
expended by him during the course of their relationship and cohabitation,
WHEREFORE, counsplaintiff O'TOOLK. prays. that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE and against
BEAUGRAND concerning the funds expended by him for her benefit in connection with
the PINTO PROPERTY; finding that he is entitled to-a special equity, credit or equitable
Hen concerning the same; awarding to him judgment for the unreimbursed. amounts
expended by him either by way of damages or in quantum meruit; and that the Court grant
such additional and farther relief deemd appropriate in the premises.
COUNT Ill: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 880 PROPERTY
34. O'TOOLE realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth hetein,
the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19.
35. As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced
O'TOOLE fo excente a deed to his 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 as a means of estate planning (he patties were never legally married ta one
another) and on the pretense of BEAUGRAND’s enduring love and affection for him.
36. BEAUGRAND made no financial contribution towards the
880
PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE .to place her in title to the property
IP a
Beaugrand », O'Toole
Case # 2018 CA 6351 NC.
for in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for
the
mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintence of the property.
37, Despite. the fact that the deed to the property was inartfully drawn,
BEAUGRAND has no present interest in the Property except asa contingent beneficiary.
upon the death of O'TOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which ao
longer
exists (in. that they are no longer in a commited telationship).
38. BEAUGRAND obtained any interest she has in the 880 PROPERTY under
the promise and expectation that she would remain in a committed relationship. with
O'TOOLE until the first of them were to pass and would share equally in the expense
and
management of it; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied
Promises; a confidential relationship existed at the time between BEAUGRAND and
O'TOOLE; and BEAUGRAND «would be unjustly enriched were she to succeed in
depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property,
39, By operation of faw and otherwise the interest of BEAUGRAND in
O'TOOLE’S property is by way of a constructive or resulting wust.
40, ‘The equities conceming the 880 PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing
the interests of O'TOOLE in the same to the exclusion of BEAUGRAND,
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a
declaratozy 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,
orderinga reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the parties in this property;
awarding to him a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the
property;
and that the Court grant such additional and farther relief provided by law or in equity, and
decmed appropriate in. the premises,
WiFage
Beaugrandv. O'Toole
Cait # 2016-CA 6351 NC.
COUNT LV: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE GALLERY PLAZA UNIT
Al. O'TOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein,
the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 chrough 19,
42, As is mote folly set forth herein and othenwise, OTOOLE entered into an
agreement with KLAUSE GOERKE. whereby the later loaned the sum of $50,000 towards
the acquisition of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, where O'TOOLE, in relainace on this
attanagement, relocated his computer repair business.
43, Tide to the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT became vested in KLAUSE
GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER (BEAUGRAND’s patents) to the exclusion of
O'TOOLE and without a properly recorded morigage reflecting the true arrangements
between the parties concerning the loan made by GOERKE to O'TOOLE.
44. Pursuant to a. course of dealing between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, the later
continued to make loan payments and other payments in connection with the GALLERY
PLAZA UNIT in reliance upon the validity of the agreement between them.
45. Subsequent to the separation of BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE, the fortnes,
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 parties in fact had entered
into a “lease” of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, and forced the gjeciment of O'TOOLE
and his business from the premises on extremely short notice,
46. ‘The termination of the agreement between GOERKE and O'TOOLE
caused direct and consequential damages. to O'TOOLE, was inequitable, and caused unjust
enrichment to. BEAUGRAND and her parents.
47, In fashioning relief as benween the parties, either at law or in equity,
O'TOOLE is entitled to a credit for the losses he sustained as a result of the wrongful
termination of the agreement as between GOERKE and O’TOOLE, or judgment for
money damages equal to the amount of that loss.
Hipage
Beaugrand x. O'Toole
Caie # 2016 CA 6351. NC
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Coust enter a
declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE and against
BEAUGRAND in connection with the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT; finding that be is
entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable lien concerning the same; awarding to him
judgment for his losses concerning the termination of the loan agreement and wrongful
ejectment either as a judgment for damages or by way of promissory estoppel; and thar
the
Court grant such additional and further relief deemed appropiate in the premises,
COUNT V: CLAIMS RELATED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY
48. OPTOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully sex forth herein,
the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19.
49. As more fully set forth hercin and otherwise, the parties obtained joint title
to, inter alta, a stallion (“Tosso”) and other property.
50. Pursuant to Florida Statutes §64,091, in addition to real property, personalty
is also subject to the partition process.
51, BEAUGRAND. also. has possession of | other property belonging’ to
O'TOOLE that she has dectined to return to him, including, aver afia, a boat
trailer, art, and
personal books and records,
52, O*FOOLE is 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
equitably divided between the parties, and for the retum of the items of personal property
belonging to him still in the possession of BEAUGRAND
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment equitably dividing personal property jointly owned by the parties
and
for the partition and sale of the same, if necessary; ordering BEAUGRAND
to return
personal property in her possession and control that belongs to. O'TOOLE; ordering an
accounting of the personal property jointly owned or in which each has a special claim
of
I2Page
Beangrand v, O'Toole
Case # 2016 CA 6351.
NC
right or equity; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief, provided by law or
in equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises,
1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
caused to be served by electronic mail on May 14, 2017, upon Steele T, Williams,
Esquire,
STEELE T WILLIAMS, PA, attorney for plaintiff, Peapple Place, 1381 MeAnsh Square,
Sarasota, Florida, 34236; Sees i fai cas!
Respectfully submitted,
BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA
PO BOX 1133
Englewood, Florida 34295
Tel: (941) 404-4704
BretClark @WebNetLawyer.Co
Preview
Filing # 89334699 E-Filed 05/10/2019 03:32:07 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, v. CASE NO: 2017 CA 181 ROBERT O'TOOLE, Defendant. / PLAINTIFE’S REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiff, [ris Beaugrand, individually and as POA for Heidrun Riedner, files this reply as to all Defendant’s affirmative defenses and states: 1 Denied. All the affirmative defenses are denied as such matters are no longer at issue or such issues are moot. Stipulation. Moreover, the parties stipulated in writing (See attached Exhibit A incorporated herein by this reference) and on the record at trial in the Sarasota case (defined below) that “the parties will resolve and try all issues they have between them in the Sarasota case and will request the ruling the court in Sarasota County to be controlling as to the disposition of all matters at issue in this case.” The Sarasota Court in in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court case number 2016 CA 6351, Iris Beaugrand v. Robert O’Toole, reached a judgment on the merits. (Referenced herein as the “Sarasota case.”) All issues between the parties were decided, see the final judgment of the Sarasota case which is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The Sarasota case was affirmed in all respects by the Second District Court of Appeal in case number 2D 18-1935, Robert O’ Toole, appellant v. Iris Beaugrand, appellee. Collateral estoppel would preclude the retrial of the issues asserted by Defendant. 1|Page 3 3. Res Judicata. Further, in addition to the Stipulation of the parties, the final judgment in the Sarasota case is res judicata as to claims and issues raised by Defendant Robert O'Toole in this Court in his affirmative defenses, especially given the extensive counterclaim filed by Defendant Robert O’ Toole in the Sarasota case (See attached Exhibit C which is incorporated by this reference.), which has now been fully adjudicated. Waiver. As a result of the Stipulation (Exhibit A), Defendant has waived its rights to seek an adjudication (or retrial) of the issues as to the affirmative defenses asserted. Estoppel. Defendant represented to Plaintiff that all issues between the parties would be decided by the Sarasota case, and Plaintiff detrimentally relied on these oral and written representations of Defendant, and now Defendant is estopped from claiming all issues between the parties were not decided by the Sarasota case. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via Email to Bret Clark, Esq. attorney for Robert O° Toole on this 10th day of May, 2019. Steele T. Williams, P.A. Pineapple Place 1381 McAnsh Square Sarasota, FL 34236-5620 Ph: (941)378-1800 Emai eleT Williams@comcast net Website: Steele Williams.com /s/ Steele T. Williams FBN: 079995 ier 2|Page EXHIBIT A IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION IRIS BEAUGRAND, individually and as POA for Heidrun Riedner, Plaintiff, ¥ CASE NO: 17000181 CA ROBERT O'TOOLE, Defendant. a STIPULATION COMES NOW the parties to this matter who hereby stipulate to the following: 1 The parties were a couple for many years. 2. As a part of their relationship they became joint title owners of property. One property is located in Charlotte County, the other property is located in Sarasota County. Plaintiff has brought a partition and accounting complaint in this court to address the jointly title real property in Charlotte County, and a partition and accounting complaint in Sarasota County to address the jointly title real property in Sarasota County. The parties have another case in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court, to-wit: Case Number: 2016 CA 6351 NC (the Sarasota case) which concerns the Sarasota County real property the parties jointly own. The Sarasota case is set for trial during December 2017, and the parties expect the issues between them to resolve the title issues and claims involved in this case at such time, For economies of the parties and the judiciary, the parties will resolve and try all issues they have between them in the Sarasota case and will request the ruling the court in Sarasota County to be controlling as to the disposition of all matters at issue in this case. - Exhibit A 1lPage This matter should be stayed until settlement or resolution of the Sarasota case. Upon resolution of the Sarasota case, the parties, either of them, will report by motion to this Court what the resolution of the Sarasota case was and what the disposition of this case should be as a result. Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant Steele T, Williams. (But Clark STEELE T. WILLIAMS, ESQ. BRET CLARK, ESQUIRE. Florida Bar Number 079995 Florida Bar Number 384038 STEELE T. WILLIAMS, PA BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA 1381 MeAnsh Square PO BOX 1133 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Englewood, Florida 34295 (941) 378-1800 (941) 404-4704 Steele William @ comcast.net BretClark @ WebNetLawyer.Com Date signed: August 15, 2017 Date signed: August 16, 2017 2lPage EXHIBIT B + RECO IN OFFICIA RDLED RECORDS INSTRUMENT# 2018057990 S/272018 2:34 PM KAREN E. RUSHING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH Vn CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COU ', FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION SO Receipt# 2234764 TRIS BEAUGRAND, CASE NO: 2016 CA 63581 ROBERT O’TOOLE, ee EINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came to be tried on the causes of action asserted by both parties, inctuding based on the stipulation af the parties all clsioas the parties assert in the Twentieth Judicial Florida Circuit Court Case: 2017 CA 181, in Charlotte County, Florida, and on the evidence preseated FT IS ADJUDGED thar 1, Plaietitf iris iis dees i i 6 Pinto Trail, FL 34223 and defendant Robert O'Toole each own 4g tenants in common in the real property in as. Parcel éa Gardens Unit 5, as. plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 4, Page ic Recordsof | Eouny, hs ‘Mailing address: 1855 Bays Dr, Englewo ho od,re FL 34273 [Bis property i indivisible and cannot be pattioned in kind nad is refered to herein asthe 2. Within 45 Plaintiff shall submit a separate order ‘the Sarasota property will be directed to be a ‘ata judicial sale ac ‘to Florida law with the proceeds of sach 30 follows: to pay the first and second mortgages, i ‘attorney's fees of | if to be determined if any, and thereafter the to be equally distributed to Sums are 3, Punruant to the Stipulatio between n the parties entered prior to trial and at trial, the Court recomm that the end Circuit Court s of‘Charlotte County order ag ‘ 8) Plaintiff Iris Beaugrand and defendant Robert O" TooleSot en ce fenants in common in the real property in Charlotte County, Florids: ase Lot 1 and 2, BlocB, k Pools Renee ering to the plat thereof recorded ia Plat Book 2, Page 99, Public Records of cae Mailing address: 808 B, First Street, Eaglewood, FL 34223 VPage Filed 05/02/2018 01:03 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL i a bp “eiuonety is indivisible and camaot be partitioned in kind and is refered to herin the ©) Within45 days after of the parties, case Plant shal fie this with the as Twentieth Circuit Court Case: 2017 181, in Charlotte a Ti Coie is t0 be sold at a judicial sale according to Florida law with the 28 follows: fir to pay st the $45,000 owed to Heideun idnez, second the costs of such sale attomey’s foes of Plaintiff to be determi Cate evra 1 be wt by the parti subd by PaPinte the Chaos Coney ona eases days of this judgment or us soon as ctl i fn the §. As to Defendant's the ‘stipalated that Count 1V of the counterclaim resolved on the record at trial, and as to Counts 111, Ei and V was of the counterc of laiv Defend ant a Judgment is entered against Robert O'Tooleaud in favor of Iris Besugr and, 7. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce this judgment, to award sttomey fees and to tax cost, Haag aes heenneraine Se ANDREA MCHUGH ce: Steele T, Williams, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff Bret Clarke, Exp. atomey for Defendant Siero abies cr 2)Page Filed 95/02/2018 01:03 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Saravota County , FL EXHIBIT C Filing # 56828536 E-Filed 05/23/2017 04:36:47 PM IN THE 12 CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 2016 CA 006351 NC IRIS BEAUGRAND, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT BOB O’TOOLE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ROBERT O'TOOLE, AND COUNTER-CLAIM Defendant. terested Defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE, by and through undersigned counsel, answers the complaint in this action as follows: ANSWER 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the complaint arc admitted for jurisdictional purposes only, 2.2. ‘The allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the complaint are admitted. 3. The allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the complaint are denied and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded, 4. With respect to thé allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint defendant admits that counsel for plaintiff issued’a letter to him making certain demands concerning the disposition of the property that is the subject of this action (and another property described infra at paragraph 11 of the counterclaim) and that tigation against him would commence should he fail to adhere to these demands. Remainder denied, 5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the complaint defendant admits 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. Pa Exhibit © Filed 05/23/2017 05:07 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL Beaygrand v, O Tooke Case # 2016 CA G331 NC 6. To the extent allegations are deemed to cxist within the wherefore clause or prayer for relief of the complain, or are otherwise not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs or otherwise herein, those allegations are denied, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 7 As an affirmative defense, defendant asserts that plaintiff has failed to attach the instruments which form the basis of her lawsuit against defendant, to wit: the deed, note and mortgage concerning the property that is the subject matter of this. action, in conttavention of Fla R.Civ,P. 1.130/a), 8. As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted in that plaintiff, in her demand letter that preceded this action, claimed the existence of a partnership with respect to the property thar is the subject matter of this action, but there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to support 2 cause of action for disassociation, dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the perported partnership, oz an accounting or other relief, as requited by Florida Starute $620.81002 et wg (Revised Uniform Partnership Act of 1995), 9. As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the parties” are jointly lable under a note secured by a mortgage that encumbers the property that is the subject of this action and the forced, premature sale of the property prior to maturity of the note is contrary tothe best intctests of defendant, and would constitute wrongful disassociation of defendant as plaintiff's purported partner for this particular undertaking, in violation of Florida Statute §620,8602(). 10. As an affiemative defense, defendant further asserts that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to force the sale of the property that is the subject of this action; for an accounting; and for payment of plaintiff's legal fess in thar the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish a right to do so, i As an affirmative defense, defendant further assets that the property in question is aot occupied by either party, is an investment property that generates rental jacome, and is nor a-non-divisible property within the meaning: of Chapter 64, Florida . - 2UPegs Beangrand u. O'Toole Caie # 2016 CA 6351 NC Statutes, nor has plaintiff established a proper basis or compelling reason to force the sale of the property to the detriment of defendant, who is the rightfal owner of it. 12, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that defendant owned the property in fee simple prior to his relationship with plaintiff, deeding the property to himself and her with rights of survivorship as 4 means of estate planning (the parties were never legally martied to one another) with no financial contribution by plaintiff whatsoever. She consequently has no present interest in the Property except as a contingent beneficiar y upon the death of defendant (should ’he predecease her). 13, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that plaintiff is not entitled to seek equitable relief by failing herself to. de equity, is estopped from seeking such relief, of otherwise may not seck such relief by inducing defendant to place her on the tile 10 his property on the pretense of her love and affection for him, inducing him by the same means to pay all costs associated with maintaining this property 5 without any contribution by plaintiff towards that end, and then by seeking in this action to deprive defendant of his rightful interest in the property; force the sale of the property; and cause unnecessary 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 affirmative defense, or by way of set-off or counterclaim, defendant further asserts that plaintiff has made no financial contribution to the acquisition of the Property that is the subject of this action, has made no contribution towards the costs of maintaining the property, has made no 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 xepresent him in this cause and to compensate him in reasonable fashion for his efforts, 17. To the extent these affirmative defenses or answers are deemed to constitute a set-off or counterclaim, or ice versa, defendantprays theybe so treated. 31Page Beaugrand x. O'Toole Case # 2016 CA 6351. NC. WHEREFORE, defendant ROBERT O’TOOLE prays that the Court dény.all relief to plaintiff as against him, or such portion of the relief deemed just and appropriate; enter judgment in his favor and against plaintifé, either partially or wholly; award to him an amount by way of set-off or by way of counterclaim in his favor and against plaintiff for the amounts justly due to him; award 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/Counterplainiff ROBERT O'TOOLE, sues plaintiff/counterdefendant IRIS BE. AUGRAND, individually ond as atomey in fact under power(s) of attorney for KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER, and alleges as follows: t This is an action for equitable and other approptiate relief concerning real and personal property titled jointly or individually, as the case may.be, wherein the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interests and costs, 2,2 Counterplaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE (O*TOOLE”) is the owner of record of certain real and personal property, and has an interest in such properties nor of record, as more fully appears herein, 3. Counterdefendant IRIS BEAUGRAND ( “BEAUGRAND’) is the owner of record of cettain real and personal property, arid, as more fully appears hercin, has asserted rights and an interest in others on behalf of her parents, KLAUSE GOERK} nd HEIDRUN RIEDNER, pursuant to a power(s) f attomey to act on their behalf, 4, «At all times material hereto BEAUGRAND was and is a duly licensed and practicing Realtor in the State of Florida and has superior knowledge and experience concerning real estate transactions as compared to O'TOOLE. a Sometime in approximately 2005 BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE began a committed relationship with one another and shortly thereafter began to. cohabitate in the real property located at 1855 Bayshore Drive, Englewood, Florida (“BAYSHORE PROPERTY" , Which at that aime was owted in fee simple absolute by O"T' ‘OOLE. 4$1Page Beasgrand », O'Tonke Case # 2016 CA 8351 NC 66 After approximately one year of cohabitating at the BAYSHORE PROPERTY the couple moved in to the property located at'616 Pinto Trail, Englewoo d, Blorida (“PINTO TRAIL”), owned by BEAUGRAND in fee simple, and continued to so cohabitare until they separated in the summer of 2016, 7 ‘The parties cohabitated at PINTO TRAIL under an agreement whereby they would equally divide the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses, including mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities, Living with them at PINTO TRAIL were the children of BEAUGRAND, born of a previous telationship. 8. In November, 2007, in consideration of the fact that the couple were in a committed relationship (and had moved from O'TOOLE’s home and into PINTO TRAIL), BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a deed to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY as @ means of estate planning, whereby they held title to the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. A truc and correct copy of the deed to that effect is attached hereto and made a part hereofas Exhibit A. 9. BEAUGRAND also induced’ GTOOLE to execute a note and morgage to the BAYSHORE, PROPERTY by advising him (incorrecdy) that this would allow: the existing mortgage to be refinanced on more favorable terms. BEAUGRAND iurther advised that she would have to appear‘on the title to the ptoperty in order for her to also execute the note and mortgage on the BAYSHORE PROPERTY. 10. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of any interest in the BAYSHORE. PROPERTY and contributed liede, if any, towards payment of mortgage loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property. i In December, 2015, O'TOOLE. purchased property located at 880 Bast’ 1% Street, Englewood, Florida (“880 PROPERTY”), a result of which BEAUGRAND received real estate commission. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of this property and contributed little, if any, towards payment of loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property. SiPage Beangrand «. O Tooke Case # 2016 CA O351 NC 12, 4n January, 2016 (approximately six months before the parties separated) BEAUGRAND induced O’TOOLE to execute a deed to the 880 PROPERTY purportedly also as a means of estate plansing, whereby they would hold title to the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, as was the case with O’TOOLE’s BAYSHORE PROPERTY. A tree and comect copy of the handwriten quit claim deed presumabl y to that effect is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B, 13. The deed to the 880 PROPERTY desctibed in paragraph 12 supra, was prepared without the assistance of counsel, or by a qualified title agent, The deed, signed shortly after the closing (where BEAUGRAND received 2 commission) fails to contain words to the effect that title was to be held jointly with rights of survivorship. 14, In the summer of 2012, O'TOOLE purchased commetcial space in the Gallery Plaza, located ar Unit 5, 3502 North Access Road, Englewood “GALLERY PLAZA UNIT”), for his computer repair business. KLAUSE GOERKE loaned the funds to O'TOOLE for the purchase ($50,000) under terms whereby O'TOOLE would make interest-only payments and pay taxes on the property, 15,In June, 2012, rather than baving a properly prepared note and mortgage executed, KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER ‘took tile to 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 more fully appears infiz, BEAUGRAND, pursuant to asserted rights under a power(s) of attorney, evieted him and his business from the premises. 17, During their relationship, the parties jointly. acquired other property, inchiding, infer alia, a stallion (Tosso”), BEAUGRAND also has possession. of other property belonging to O'TOOLE that she has declined to return to him, including, inter alia, a boat trailer, art, and personal books and records. 18. All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied or waived. 61Page Beangrand v. O'Toole Case # 2016 CA 6351 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 I: CLAIMS RELATED TO BAYSHORE PROPERTY 20, O'TOOLE tealloges and incorporates by ceference as if fully set forth herein, the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 though 19. at. As is more fully set. forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a deed to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY that purports to grant to her an interest in the property as a joint tenant with rights to take sole title 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 BEAUGRAND’s enduring love and affection for him. 22, BEAUGRAND made no financial contribution towards the BAYSHORE PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE to place her in title to the property nor in the years ‘subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the morgage, taxes, insurance and. maintenance-of the property, 23, BEAUGRAND has no present interest in the propery except as a contingent beneficiary upon the death of O'TOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which no longer exists (in that they are.no longer in a commited relationship). 24, BEAUGRAND obtained any interest. she has in the BAYSHORE PROPERTY under the promise and expectation that she would remain in a committe d relationship with O'TOOLE until the first of them were to pass and would share equally in the expense and management of ir, O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied promises; a confidential relationship. existed at the time berween BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE; and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly entiched were she to succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property. 25. By operation of law and otherwise the interest of BEAUGRAND in O'TOOLE'S property is by way of a constructive or resulting trust. TiPage Beangrand v. O'Toole Case # 2018 CA 6351 NC 26, The equities concerning the BAYSHORE, PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing the interests of O'TOOLE in the same to the exclusion of BEAUGRAND, WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff 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 sights 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 trust; ordering a reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the parties S propetty; awarding to him a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and further telief provided by law or in equity, and deemd appropriate in thepremises. COUNT Il: CLAIMS RELATED TO PINTO TRATL 27, OPTOOLE realleges 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 martiage, but cohabitated as such for a substaritial period of time, during which their finances became entangled, 29, Specifically, the parties moved out of O'TOOLE’s residence (BAYSHORE PROPERTY) and into PINTO TRAIL under an’atrangement whereby’ they would equally share the PINTO TRAIL. housing expenses, which O'TOOLE would otherwise not incur had they semained at his own residence. 30, During the time the parties cohabitated at PINTO TRAIL, BEAUGRAND consistently failed to remit payment for her share of the housing expenses, while O'TOOLE, just as consistently kept current for both parties’ share of those expenses, and also. contributed funds and labor for repairs and maintenance of the property. 3. BEAUGRAND 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 BPs Beaugrand x. O'Toole Case # 2016 CA 6351 NC grant any interest in PINTO TRAIL to him, even while accepting the benefits of funds and labor he expended to allow her to mainzain possession and title to herproperty. 32, BEAUGRAND was accordingly unjustly enriched by the funds and labor expended by O'TOOLE for her benefit and that of PINTO TRAIL in violation of the agreement between the parties that she would bear one-half of those expenses and labor. 33. In fashioning relief as between the parties, either at law or in equity, O'TOOLE is entitled to a credit for the funds and labor expended by him to the benefit of BEAUGRAND aad her propeity, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount so expended by him during the course of their relationship and cohabitation, WHEREFORE, counsplaintiff O'TOOLK. prays. that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE and against BEAUGRAND concerning the funds expended by him for her benefit in connection with the PINTO PROPERTY; finding that he is entitled to-a special equity, credit or equitable Hen concerning the same; awarding to him judgment for the unreimbursed. amounts expended by him either by way of damages or in quantum meruit; and that the Court grant such additional and farther relief deemd appropriate in the premises. COUNT Ill: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 880 PROPERTY 34. O'TOOLE realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth hetein, the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19. 35. As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE fo excente a deed to his 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 as a means of estate planning (he patties were never legally married ta one another) and on the pretense of BEAUGRAND’s enduring love and affection for him. 36. BEAUGRAND made no financial contribution towards the 880 PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE .to place her in title to the property IP a Beaugrand », O'Toole Case # 2018 CA 6351 NC. for in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintence of the property. 37, Despite. the fact that the deed to the property was inartfully drawn, BEAUGRAND has no present interest in the Property except asa contingent beneficiary. upon the death of O'TOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which ao longer exists (in. that they are no longer in a commited telationship). 38. BEAUGRAND obtained any interest she has in the 880 PROPERTY under the promise and expectation that she would remain in a committed relationship. with O'TOOLE until the first of them were to pass and would share equally in the expense and management of it; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied Promises; a confidential relationship existed at the time between BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE; and BEAUGRAND «would be unjustly enriched were she to succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property, 39, By operation of faw and otherwise the interest of BEAUGRAND in O'TOOLE’S property is by way of a constructive or resulting wust. 40, ‘The equities conceming the 880 PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing the interests of O'TOOLE in the same to the exclusion of BEAUGRAND, WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a declaratozy 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, orderinga reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the parties in this property; awarding to him a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and farther relief provided by law or in equity, and decmed appropriate in. the premises, WiFage Beaugrandv. O'Toole Cait # 2016-CA 6351 NC. COUNT LV: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE GALLERY PLAZA UNIT Al. O'TOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 chrough 19, 42, As is mote folly set forth herein and othenwise, OTOOLE entered into an agreement with KLAUSE GOERKE. whereby the later loaned the sum of $50,000 towards the acquisition of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, where O'TOOLE, in relainace on this attanagement, relocated his computer repair business. 43, Tide to the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT became vested in KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER (BEAUGRAND’s patents) to the exclusion of O'TOOLE and without a properly recorded morigage reflecting the true arrangements between the parties concerning the loan made by GOERKE to O'TOOLE. 44. Pursuant to a. course of dealing between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, the later continued to make loan payments and other payments in connection with the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT in reliance upon the validity of the agreement between them. 45. Subsequent to the separation of BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE, the fortnes, 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 parties in fact had entered into a “lease” of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, and forced the gjeciment of O'TOOLE and his business from the premises on extremely short notice, 46. ‘The termination of the agreement between GOERKE and O'TOOLE caused direct and consequential damages. to O'TOOLE, was inequitable, and caused unjust enrichment to. BEAUGRAND and her parents. 47, In fashioning relief as benween the parties, either at law or in equity, O'TOOLE is entitled to a credit for the losses he sustained as a result of the wrongful termination of the agreement as between GOERKE and O’TOOLE, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount of that loss. Hipage Beaugrand x. O'Toole Caie # 2016 CA 6351. NC WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Coust enter a declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of O'TOOLE and against BEAUGRAND in connection with the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT; finding that be is entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable lien concerning the same; awarding to him judgment for his losses concerning the termination of the loan agreement and wrongful ejectment either as a judgment for damages or by way of promissory estoppel; and thar the Court grant such additional and further relief deemed appropiate in the premises, COUNT V: CLAIMS RELATED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY 48. OPTOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully sex forth herein, the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19. 49. As more fully set forth hercin and otherwise, the parties obtained joint title to, inter alta, a stallion (“Tosso”) and other property. 50. Pursuant to Florida Statutes §64,091, in addition to real property, personalty is also subject to the partition process. 51, BEAUGRAND. also. has possession of | other property belonging’ to O'TOOLE that she has dectined to return to him, including, aver afia, a boat trailer, art, and personal books and records, 52, O*FOOLE is 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 equitably divided between the parties, and for the retum of the items of personal property belonging to him still in the possession of BEAUGRAND WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a declaratory judgment equitably dividing personal property jointly owned by the parties and for the partition and sale of the same, if necessary; ordering BEAUGRAND to return personal property in her possession and control that belongs to. O'TOOLE; ordering an accounting of the personal property jointly owned or in which each has a special claim of I2Page Beangrand v, O'Toole Case # 2016 CA 6351. NC right or equity; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief, provided by law or in equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises, 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was caused to be served by electronic mail on May 14, 2017, upon Steele T, Williams, Esquire, STEELE T WILLIAMS, PA, attorney for plaintiff, Peapple Place, 1381 MeAnsh Square, Sarasota, Florida, 34236; Sees i fai cas! Respectfully submitted, BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA PO BOX 1133 Englewood, Florida 34295 Tel: (941) 404-4704 BretClark @WebNetLawyer.Co