Preview
Filing # 135795618 E-Filed 10/03/2021 07:13:32 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 2014 CA 001582
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION ("FANNIE MAE"),
Plaintiff,
VS
MARY LYNN THOMPSON; UNKNOWN
TENANT #1 N/K/A BARBARA
THOMPSON; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF
MARY LYNN THOMPSON; ESCAMBIA
COUNTY, FLORIDA; STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; ELEANOR
W. GIBSON
Defendant(s),
REPLY TO DEFENDANT MARY LYNN THOMPSON'S ANSWER TO THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REESTABLISHMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE-
STAMPED CANCELLED
Plaintiff, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION ("FANNIE MAE"), by
and through its undersigned attorney, hereby files this reply to the Defendant MARY LYNN
THOMPSON's Answer and states as follows:
HN AA MUNA ADA ATT
19-280263 - MiL
Plaintiff hereby denies and avoids each and every affirmative defense presented by
Defendants and demands strict proof thereof.
Affirmative defenses require the recitation of ultimate facts which support the position that
the plaintiff is precluded from recovery. See Zito v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan
Association of Miami Beach, 318 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
To assert such a fact, the allegations made in the affirmative defenses must be properly
directed at the allegations made in the complaint.
A purported defense which is nothing more than a denial of fact or a conclusion of law does
not set forth a basis upon which judgment may be precluded. Wiggins v. Protmay, 430 So. 2d
541 (Fla Ist DCA 1983). Certainty is required when pleading affirmative defenses and
pleading conclusions of law unsupported by allegations of ultimate fact is legally insufficient.
Bliss vy. Carmona, 418 So.2d 1017 (Fla 3d DCA 1982) (citing Chris Craft Industries, Inc. v.
Van Valkenberg, 267 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1972)). Certainty is required when pleading defenses
and claims alike. Zito v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami Beach,
318 So.2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
An affirmative defense does not merely deny the facts of the opposing party's claim; rather, it
must raise some new matter that defeats the opposing party's otherwise valid claim. Tropical
Exterminators Inc. v. Murray, 171 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); see also Langford v.
McCormick, 552 So.2d 964, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (an affirmative defense is any matter
that avoids an action and that, under applicable law, must be affirmatively established by the
defendant).
Rule 1.140(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requires any defense to be "stated
specifically and with particularity." It is also necessary to allege all the elements of an
affirmative defense. Yaeger v. Lora Realty, Inc., 245 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
As notes by the Court in Cady v. Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc., 528 So.2d 136, 138
(Fla. 4th DCA 1988), "[c]ertainy is required when pleading defenses, and pleading
conclusions of law unsupported by allegations of ultimate fact is legally insufficient." See
also Bliss v. Carmona, 418 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982).
An affirmative defense shall fail if it is legally insufficient. Thompson v. Bank of New York,
862 So.2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rule 1.140(f), Fla. R. Civ. P.
Defendant's affirmative defenses fail to allege the ultimate facts and elements upon which the
defenses are based and therefore fail to meet the requirement of Florida law for affirmative
defenses and may not be considered as valid defenses. /d. at 771.
10 The defendant's affirmative defenses are legally insufficient in that they are not proper
affirmative defenses. Further the defenses fail to allege the facts and elements of a legally
cognizable affirmative defense and are a mere denial and conclusion of law.
11 Defendant's affirmative defenses includes alleged facts and allegations which do not create
valid affirmative defenses in that they do not create a legal position that would defeat
Plaintiff's allegations in the Amended Complaint.
12 Defendant has failed to set forth any ultimate facts to support the alleged affirmative
defenses; accordingly, such defenses are fatally deficient and must fail as a matter of law.
Notwithstanding the material defects as set forth herein, Plaintiff denies each and every
affirmative defense set for by Defendant and demand strict proof thereof.
13 Plaintiff denies defendant's first affirmative defense alleging lack of standing. Defendant
incorrectly asserts that in order for a Plaintiff to have standing to maintain a foreclosure
action, the Plaintiff must be the owner and holder of the Note. Plaintiff is the holder of the
subject Note. As such, the holder of a Note has standing to seek enforcement of the Note.
See Mortgage electronic Registration Systems Inc. v. Azize, 965 So.2d 151, 153 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2007). "Holder", with respect to a negotiable instrument, means the person in
possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or, in the case of an instrument payable to an
identified person, if the identified person is in possession. See Fla. Stat. 671.201(20). In the
instant matter, the original Promissory Note attached to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint bears
an endorsement in blank. This is sufficient to establish it as the holder of the Promissory
Note, with standing to enforce the same at the time of filing the original Complaint. See
Riggs v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 36 So.3d 932, 933 (Fla 4th DCA 2010). Federal
National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") has standing to enforce the Note.
14 Plaintiff denies Defendant's second affirmative defense alleging failure to comply with
condition precedent and demand strict proof thereof. Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to
provide proper notice of default pursuant to paragraph 6(c) of the Note and paragraphs 15 and
22 of the subject mortgage by providing Defendant Notice of Default 30 days prior to
accelerating the loan. However, Defendant was sent a Notice of Intent to Accelerate and
Foreclosure on October 29, 2012, which specifies the loan is in default, how to cure the
default, and provides until December 18, 2012 in which to do so. If further advises that
failure to timely cure the default will results in the acceleration of the loan and the initiation
of foreclosure proceedings. Defendant is also informed of her right to reinstate the loan
following acceleration and of her right to raise the non-existence of default and any other
available defense to the acceleration and foreclosure proceeding. All requirements for a
notice of default and intent to accelerate, as prescribed by paragraph 6(c) of the Note and
paragraphs 15 and 22 of the subject mortgage have been met.
15 Plaintiff denies Defendant's third and sixth affirmative defenses alleging unclean hands and
estoppel, and demand strict proof thereof. Unclean hands is an equitable defense that is akin
to fraud; its purpose is to discourage unlawful activity (see Congress Park Office Condos I,
LLC y. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So.3d 602, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)), and the
showing of unclean hands requires a showing of unscrupulous practices and conduct,
concealment of important facts, trickery, or taking an unfair advantage of one's position. See
Dale y. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1925). Like fraud, unclean hands is not so subtle a
concept that it cannot be described with precision. See Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636
So.2d 579, 580 (Fla 4th DCA 1994). However, nothing in Defendant's third or sixth
affirmative defenses, upon which Defendant relies in asserting the defense, satisfies the
burden of demonstrating such egregious facts that would bar Plaintiff's equitable relief.
Congress Park at 609.
16. This notwithstanding, the burden of proof of payment in a foreclosure action is on defendant
as she is in the best position to provide such proof of payment. See Deese v. Mobley, 392
So.2d 364 (Fla. Ist DCA 1981); see also Crum v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty
Company, 468 So.2d 1004 (Fla. Ist DCA 1985). However, Defendant has made no
affirmative showing of what payments were made and when.
17 Plaintiff denies defendant's fourth affirmative defense alleging unfair loan servicing and
demand strict proof thereof. First, defendant alleges Plaintiff conducted dual tracking
representing to defendant the terms and conditions of the mortgage and mote would be
materially modified while simultaneously seeking this foreclosure action. Dual tracking
applies only to proceeding with a foreclosure while simultaneously evaluating a complete
loan modification. Second, defendant also alleges that Plaintiff charges improper fees and
failed to properly apply payments. The applicable loan documents expressly provide for fees
and charges to be assessed including but not limited to interest, escrow items, prepayments
charges, late charges, attorney fees, and various loan charges. Further, as notes above in
response to defendant's third and sixth affirmative defenses, the burden of proof of payment
in a foreclosure action is on defendant.
18 Plaintiff denies defendant's fifth affirmative defense alleging failure to mitigation and
demands stict proof thereof. Failure to mitigate damages is the equivalent of an allegation of
contributory negligence, as described in Florida Statues Chapter 768. See Ridley v. Safety
Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934, 943-944 (Fla. 1996), which is properly raised as an affirmative
defense in action in law seeking the recovery of monetary damages on the basis of liability.
However, the instant action is a statutory action in equity and as such, Plaintiff has no
affirmative duty to mitigate damages, nor can a finding of contributory negligence be made
by the finder of fact.
19, Plaintiff denies defendant's seventh and eighth affirmative defenses alleging payment and
material breach of agreement and demand strict proof thereof. Defendant alleges Plaintiff
breached the terms of the subject Note, mortgage and modification agreement by failing to
account for, accept, and apply payments made. Defendant has made no affirmative showing
of what payments were made and when or how they have been misapplied.
20. Plaintiff denies defendant's ninth affirmative defense alleging unauthorized signatures and
demand strict proof thereof. Defendant denies the authenticity of and authority to make the
signatures of the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. 673.3081. However, defendant asserts this
allegation in a vague and conclusory manner and fails to state any ultimate facts as mandated
by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d). This notwithstanding, in addition to the presumption of
authenticity described in Fla. Stat. 673.3081(a), the promissory mote and mortgage are both
considered self-authenticating within the meaning of Fla. Stat. 90.902. Moreover, Fla. Stat
692.01 states that "[n]o corporate resolution need be recorded to evidence the authority of the
person executing the deed, mortgage, or other instrument for the corporation, and an
instrument so executed is valid whether or not the officer signing for the corporation was
authorized to do so by the board of directors, in the absence of fraud in the transaction by the
person receiving it". Defendant has made no showing of such fraudulent participation in the
transaction on the part of Plaintiff.
21. Plaintiff denies defendant's tenth affirmative defense alleging breach of the modification
agreement by failing to properly accept, apply, and account for payments made by defendant.
As notes above regarding application of payments on the Note, the burden of proof of
payment in a foreclosure action is on Defendant as she is the best position to provide such
proof of payment. See Deese; Crum. However, Defendant mad made no affirmative
showing of which payments were made and when pursuant to either the loan or loan
modification.
22 Plaintiff denies Defendant's request for attorney fees and demand strict proof thereof.
Defendant claims to be entitled to an award of attorney fees. However, pursuant to Fla. Stat.
57.105(7), this Court has the discretion to award attorney fees to Defendant should she
prevail in this action. Defendant is not entitled to an automatic award of attorney fees.
23. Plaintiff requests any and all affirmative defenses be seemed without a legal or factual basis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby replies to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses and grant such
other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to
the parties listed on the attached service list via Mail and/or E-mail in accordance with the
corresponding addresses listed therein on this 2 day of October, 2021.
ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE
& PARTNERS, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
6409 Congress Ave., Suite 100
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: 561-241-6901
Facsimile: 561-997-6909
Service Email: flmail@raslg.com
By: _\S\Kim Stevens_
Kim Stevens, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 543136
Communication Email: kstevens@raslg.com
SERVICE LIST
TAYLOR, WARREN & WEIDNER, P.A.
J, PHILLIP WARREN, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR MARY LYNN THOMPSON
1700 W. MAIN STREET SUITE 100
PENSACOLA, FL 32502
PRIMARY EMAIL: PWARREN@TWWLAWFIRM.COM
SECONDARY EMAIL: THENDRIX@TWWLAWFIRM.COM
UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MARY LYNN THOMPSON
121 CRAFT STREET
PENSACOLA, FL 32534
UNKNOWN TENANT #1 N/K/A BARBARA THOMPSON
121 CRAFT STREET
PENSACOLA, FL 32534
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
C/O BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
221 PALAFOX STREET, SUITE 400
PENSACOLA, FL 32502
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
C/O DIRECTOR, OR ANY OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE
2450 SHUMARD OAKS BLVD
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399
ELEANOR W, GIBSON
926 CRANBROOK AVE
PENSACOLA, FL 32505
Preview
Filing # 135795618 E-Filed 10/03/2021 07:13:32 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2014 CA 001582 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION ("FANNIE MAE"), Plaintiff, VS MARY LYNN THOMPSON; UNKNOWN TENANT #1 N/K/A BARBARA THOMPSON; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MARY LYNN THOMPSON; ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; ELEANOR W. GIBSON Defendant(s), REPLY TO DEFENDANT MARY LYNN THOMPSON'S ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REESTABLISHMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE- STAMPED CANCELLED Plaintiff, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION ("FANNIE MAE"), by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby files this reply to the Defendant MARY LYNN THOMPSON's Answer and states as follows: HN AA MUNA ADA ATT 19-280263 - MiL Plaintiff hereby denies and avoids each and every affirmative defense presented by Defendants and demands strict proof thereof. Affirmative defenses require the recitation of ultimate facts which support the position that the plaintiff is precluded from recovery. See Zito v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami Beach, 318 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). To assert such a fact, the allegations made in the affirmative defenses must be properly directed at the allegations made in the complaint. A purported defense which is nothing more than a denial of fact or a conclusion of law does not set forth a basis upon which judgment may be precluded. Wiggins v. Protmay, 430 So. 2d 541 (Fla Ist DCA 1983). Certainty is required when pleading affirmative defenses and pleading conclusions of law unsupported by allegations of ultimate fact is legally insufficient. Bliss vy. Carmona, 418 So.2d 1017 (Fla 3d DCA 1982) (citing Chris Craft Industries, Inc. v. Van Valkenberg, 267 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1972)). Certainty is required when pleading defenses and claims alike. Zito v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami Beach, 318 So.2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). An affirmative defense does not merely deny the facts of the opposing party's claim; rather, it must raise some new matter that defeats the opposing party's otherwise valid claim. Tropical Exterminators Inc. v. Murray, 171 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); see also Langford v. McCormick, 552 So.2d 964, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (an affirmative defense is any matter that avoids an action and that, under applicable law, must be affirmatively established by the defendant). Rule 1.140(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requires any defense to be "stated specifically and with particularity." It is also necessary to allege all the elements of an affirmative defense. Yaeger v. Lora Realty, Inc., 245 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). As notes by the Court in Cady v. Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc., 528 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), "[c]ertainy is required when pleading defenses, and pleading conclusions of law unsupported by allegations of ultimate fact is legally insufficient." See also Bliss v. Carmona, 418 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). An affirmative defense shall fail if it is legally insufficient. Thompson v. Bank of New York, 862 So.2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rule 1.140(f), Fla. R. Civ. P. Defendant's affirmative defenses fail to allege the ultimate facts and elements upon which the defenses are based and therefore fail to meet the requirement of Florida law for affirmative defenses and may not be considered as valid defenses. /d. at 771. 10 The defendant's affirmative defenses are legally insufficient in that they are not proper affirmative defenses. Further the defenses fail to allege the facts and elements of a legally cognizable affirmative defense and are a mere denial and conclusion of law. 11 Defendant's affirmative defenses includes alleged facts and allegations which do not create valid affirmative defenses in that they do not create a legal position that would defeat Plaintiff's allegations in the Amended Complaint. 12 Defendant has failed to set forth any ultimate facts to support the alleged affirmative defenses; accordingly, such defenses are fatally deficient and must fail as a matter of law. Notwithstanding the material defects as set forth herein, Plaintiff denies each and every affirmative defense set for by Defendant and demand strict proof thereof. 13 Plaintiff denies defendant's first affirmative defense alleging lack of standing. Defendant incorrectly asserts that in order for a Plaintiff to have standing to maintain a foreclosure action, the Plaintiff must be the owner and holder of the Note. Plaintiff is the holder of the subject Note. As such, the holder of a Note has standing to seek enforcement of the Note. See Mortgage electronic Registration Systems Inc. v. Azize, 965 So.2d 151, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). "Holder", with respect to a negotiable instrument, means the person in possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or, in the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in possession. See Fla. Stat. 671.201(20). In the instant matter, the original Promissory Note attached to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint bears an endorsement in blank. This is sufficient to establish it as the holder of the Promissory Note, with standing to enforce the same at the time of filing the original Complaint. See Riggs v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 36 So.3d 932, 933 (Fla 4th DCA 2010). Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") has standing to enforce the Note. 14 Plaintiff denies Defendant's second affirmative defense alleging failure to comply with condition precedent and demand strict proof thereof. Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to provide proper notice of default pursuant to paragraph 6(c) of the Note and paragraphs 15 and 22 of the subject mortgage by providing Defendant Notice of Default 30 days prior to accelerating the loan. However, Defendant was sent a Notice of Intent to Accelerate and Foreclosure on October 29, 2012, which specifies the loan is in default, how to cure the default, and provides until December 18, 2012 in which to do so. If further advises that failure to timely cure the default will results in the acceleration of the loan and the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. Defendant is also informed of her right to reinstate the loan following acceleration and of her right to raise the non-existence of default and any other available defense to the acceleration and foreclosure proceeding. All requirements for a notice of default and intent to accelerate, as prescribed by paragraph 6(c) of the Note and paragraphs 15 and 22 of the subject mortgage have been met. 15 Plaintiff denies Defendant's third and sixth affirmative defenses alleging unclean hands and estoppel, and demand strict proof thereof. Unclean hands is an equitable defense that is akin to fraud; its purpose is to discourage unlawful activity (see Congress Park Office Condos I, LLC y. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So.3d 602, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)), and the showing of unclean hands requires a showing of unscrupulous practices and conduct, concealment of important facts, trickery, or taking an unfair advantage of one's position. See Dale y. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1925). Like fraud, unclean hands is not so subtle a concept that it cannot be described with precision. See Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579, 580 (Fla 4th DCA 1994). However, nothing in Defendant's third or sixth affirmative defenses, upon which Defendant relies in asserting the defense, satisfies the burden of demonstrating such egregious facts that would bar Plaintiff's equitable relief. Congress Park at 609. 16. This notwithstanding, the burden of proof of payment in a foreclosure action is on defendant as she is in the best position to provide such proof of payment. See Deese v. Mobley, 392 So.2d 364 (Fla. Ist DCA 1981); see also Crum v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 468 So.2d 1004 (Fla. Ist DCA 1985). However, Defendant has made no affirmative showing of what payments were made and when. 17 Plaintiff denies defendant's fourth affirmative defense alleging unfair loan servicing and demand strict proof thereof. First, defendant alleges Plaintiff conducted dual tracking representing to defendant the terms and conditions of the mortgage and mote would be materially modified while simultaneously seeking this foreclosure action. Dual tracking applies only to proceeding with a foreclosure while simultaneously evaluating a complete loan modification. Second, defendant also alleges that Plaintiff charges improper fees and failed to properly apply payments. The applicable loan documents expressly provide for fees and charges to be assessed including but not limited to interest, escrow items, prepayments charges, late charges, attorney fees, and various loan charges. Further, as notes above in response to defendant's third and sixth affirmative defenses, the burden of proof of payment in a foreclosure action is on defendant. 18 Plaintiff denies defendant's fifth affirmative defense alleging failure to mitigation and demands stict proof thereof. Failure to mitigate damages is the equivalent of an allegation of contributory negligence, as described in Florida Statues Chapter 768. See Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934, 943-944 (Fla. 1996), which is properly raised as an affirmative defense in action in law seeking the recovery of monetary damages on the basis of liability. However, the instant action is a statutory action in equity and as such, Plaintiff has no affirmative duty to mitigate damages, nor can a finding of contributory negligence be made by the finder of fact. 19, Plaintiff denies defendant's seventh and eighth affirmative defenses alleging payment and material breach of agreement and demand strict proof thereof. Defendant alleges Plaintiff breached the terms of the subject Note, mortgage and modification agreement by failing to account for, accept, and apply payments made. Defendant has made no affirmative showing of what payments were made and when or how they have been misapplied. 20. Plaintiff denies defendant's ninth affirmative defense alleging unauthorized signatures and demand strict proof thereof. Defendant denies the authenticity of and authority to make the signatures of the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. 673.3081. However, defendant asserts this allegation in a vague and conclusory manner and fails to state any ultimate facts as mandated by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d). This notwithstanding, in addition to the presumption of authenticity described in Fla. Stat. 673.3081(a), the promissory mote and mortgage are both considered self-authenticating within the meaning of Fla. Stat. 90.902. Moreover, Fla. Stat 692.01 states that "[n]o corporate resolution need be recorded to evidence the authority of the person executing the deed, mortgage, or other instrument for the corporation, and an instrument so executed is valid whether or not the officer signing for the corporation was authorized to do so by the board of directors, in the absence of fraud in the transaction by the person receiving it". Defendant has made no showing of such fraudulent participation in the transaction on the part of Plaintiff. 21. Plaintiff denies defendant's tenth affirmative defense alleging breach of the modification agreement by failing to properly accept, apply, and account for payments made by defendant. As notes above regarding application of payments on the Note, the burden of proof of payment in a foreclosure action is on Defendant as she is the best position to provide such proof of payment. See Deese; Crum. However, Defendant mad made no affirmative showing of which payments were made and when pursuant to either the loan or loan modification. 22 Plaintiff denies Defendant's request for attorney fees and demand strict proof thereof. Defendant claims to be entitled to an award of attorney fees. However, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 57.105(7), this Court has the discretion to award attorney fees to Defendant should she prevail in this action. Defendant is not entitled to an automatic award of attorney fees. 23. Plaintiff requests any and all affirmative defenses be seemed without a legal or factual basis. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby replies to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses and grant such other and further relief this Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the parties listed on the attached service list via Mail and/or E-mail in accordance with the corresponding addresses listed therein on this 2 day of October, 2021. ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE & PARTNERS, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff 6409 Congress Ave., Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: 561-241-6901 Facsimile: 561-997-6909 Service Email: flmail@raslg.com By: _\S\Kim Stevens_ Kim Stevens, Esquire Florida Bar No. 543136 Communication Email: kstevens@raslg.com SERVICE LIST TAYLOR, WARREN & WEIDNER, P.A. J, PHILLIP WARREN, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR MARY LYNN THOMPSON 1700 W. MAIN STREET SUITE 100 PENSACOLA, FL 32502 PRIMARY EMAIL: PWARREN@TWWLAWFIRM.COM SECONDARY EMAIL: THENDRIX@TWWLAWFIRM.COM UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MARY LYNN THOMPSON 121 CRAFT STREET PENSACOLA, FL 32534 UNKNOWN TENANT #1 N/K/A BARBARA THOMPSON 121 CRAFT STREET PENSACOLA, FL 32534 ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA C/O BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 221 PALAFOX STREET, SUITE 400 PENSACOLA, FL 32502 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE C/O DIRECTOR, OR ANY OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE 2450 SHUMARD OAKS BLVD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 ELEANOR W, GIBSON 926 CRANBROOK AVE PENSACOLA, FL 32505