Motion for Writ in BELL, KENNETH S vs. EQUIFIRST CORPORATION| Trellis.Law

On May 09, 1982 a was filed involving a dispute between Bell, Alena, Bell, Kenneth S, and Equifirst Corporation, Residential Funding Company Llc, Residential Funding Corp, Us Bank National Association Trustee Ramp 2006Ecf2, for 3 in the District Court of Flagler County.

Preview
Filing # 181442524 E-Filed 09/08/2023 04:50:32 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR FLAGLER COUNTY, FLORIDA

KENNETH BELL, SR., and ALENA BELL,
Case No. 2022-CA-000080
Plaintiffs,
v

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR RAMP 2006ECF2;
EQUIFIRST CORPORATION;
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
and RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP.,

Defendant.
/

USBANK’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER ABATING PROCEEDINGS

Defendant, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RAMP

2006EFC2 (“U.S. Bank” or “Defendant”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files its

opposition to the Motion for Relief from Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Order

Abating Proceedings filed by Plaintiffs, KENNETH BELL, SR., and ALENA BELL (collectively,

the “Bells” or “Plaintiffs”) on August 14, 2023, and moves to strike same in accordance with Rule

1.140, Fla. R. Civ. P., and states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs’ Motion requests the Court to strike the portion of the Order Lifting the

Abatement that directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. (Docket Number [“D.N.”] 43.)

Plaintiffs argue that there was no prior hearing or order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss so that

any order to amend is improper, wherein Plaintiffs are “at a loss” what needs to be amended.

Plaintiffs’ Motion must in of itselfbe stricken.

Electronically Received in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court - Flagler County, Florida - 09/11/2023 09:54 AM - DIN: 51
A hearing was conducted on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on April 13, 2022 where the

Court specifically held that Plaintiffs’ Complaint needed to be amended with additional allegations

required, although the Court abated the necessity to amend until after a related 5" DCA appeal

was concluded. Plaintiffs’ counsel specifically conceded to this fact at the last July 14, 2023

hearing. Now that the appeal has concluded, the Court has issued an order directing Plaintiffs to

amend. Plaintiffs must either comply with said order, or the Court should hold Plaintiffs in default,

dismissing the litigation.

BACKGROUND

1 This quiet title action was commenced by the Bells against U.S. Bank and others,

asserting that U.S. Bank’s mortgage on the property should be vacated, without explanation or

context. The suit was commenced during the pendency of an appeal of a judgment in Plaintiffs’

favor in a related foreclosure action for the property commenced by U.S. Bank. See Complaint,

Ex. F (D.N. 13); see also 2008-CA-002727 (the “Foreclosure Action”). The Court in the

Foreclosure Action had originally issued a judgment in favor of the Bells, holding that at the prior

trial U.S. Bank failed to prove standing, which judgment was appealed and ultimately overturned

this past year. (/d.) Specifically, during the trial, the Court would not admit the Pooling and

Servicing agreement (“PSA”) and Mortgage Loan Schedule (“MLS”) into evidence to show U.S.

Bank’s standing on hearsay grounds. (/d.) This judgment was appealed to the 5"" DCA. U.S. Bank

Nat'l Ass'n v. Bell, 355 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

2. U.S. Bank originally moved to dismiss the Bells’ Quiet Title Complaint for failure

to state a cause of action. (D.N. 31.) Specifically, any alleged unsuccessful foreclosure action

would not invalidate Defendant’s mortgage lien nor prohibit another foreclosure action, making a

quiet title action improper. 2010-3 SFR Venture, LLC v. Garcia, 149 So. 3d 123, 124 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2014) (dismissal of prior foreclosure action does not render mortgage unenforceable).

Indeed, each failed payment under the Note and Mortgage creates a new cause of action for

foreclosure. Id.; see also Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016) (if

mortgagee’s initial foreclosure action is unsuccessful for whatever reason, the mortgagee still has

the right to file subsequent foreclosure actions); Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 882 So. 2d 1004,

1008 (Fla. 2004) (successive foreclosure suits are not barred, regardless of whether or not the

mortgagee sought to accelerate payments on the note in the first suit.).

3 The Motion to dismiss was set for hearing on April 13, 2022. See Exhibit A —

Notice of Hearing. At the hearing, Defendants argued that the Quiet Title Action was improper

because even if there was an unsuccessful prior foreclosure action, it would not wipe out

Defendant’s mortgage lien. (See Exhibit B— April 13, 2022 Hearing Transcript “2022 Tr.” 8:20-

9:4.) Plaintiffs opposed, specifically arguing that U.S. Bank is only “pretending” to have standing

wherein it is not entitled to enforce the loan documents (although not explaining how the loan itself

is somehow invalid). (2022 Tr. 12-14.)

4 At the end of this hearing, the Court held that “in order to proceed on a quiet title

action, Ms. Herman, in all fairness, you’re going to have to amend the complaint. And you’re

going to have to add a whole lot more factual allegations than what you put in here.” (2022 Tr.

14:11-15.) Although the Court did abate the proceedings pending the 5'* DCA appeal, the Court

specifically stated that “rather than have [Plaintiffs] [amend] and then stay the proceedings until

we get a ruling from the 5"* DCA, I’m just going to stay them now. So I’m going to abate it until

we hear something from the 5" DCA.” (2022 Tr. 14:16-20.) In other words, the Court directed

Plaintiffs to amend the complaint, although not requiring them to comply until the abatement was

lifted.
5 After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the Court issued its Order Abating

Proceedings, although stating that Plaintiffs’ Complaint needed to be amended. (D.N. 38- Exhibit

Cc)
6 Thereafter, the 5" DCA issued a ruling overturning the judgment in the Foreclosure

Action. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Bell, 355 So. 3d 980 (Fla. Sth DCA 2023). The 5" DCA

specifically held that the trial court should have admitted the PSA and MLS proffered by U.S.

Bank into evidence at the trial, establishing U.S. Bank’s standing at inception of that lawsuit. Id.

at 983. This appellate holding made it clear, beyond any doubt, that the subject Quiet Title

Complaint was improper.

7 As a result, a hearing was conducted on Defendant’s Motion to Lift the Abatement

on July 14, 2023, where the Court directed Plaintiffs to amend the Complaint under the prior order.

(D.N. 42.) Of importance, Plaintiffs conceded during this exchange that a hearing on the Motion

to Dismiss was in fact held along with an issued ruling which directed Plaintiffs to amend.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Your Honor. My question is that order abating the
proceedings was —when it ruled on our motion to dismiss, it held the complaint
needed to be amended.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARTLEY: So I didn’t know if Your Honor wanted to issue an order
directing her to amend the complaint?

MS. HERMAN: That is correct. I agree with what counsel is saying, Your
Honor.

(See Exhibit D — July 2023 Transcript [2023 Tr.”] 3:22-4:6.)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A “motion to strike matter as redundant, immaterial or scandalous should be granted when

the material is wholly irrelevant, can have no bearing on the equities and no influence on the
decision.” McWhirter, Reeves, McGothlin, Davidson, Rief & Bakas, P.A. v. Weiss, 704 So. 2d 214,

216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) citing Pentecostal Holiness Church, Inc. v. Mauney, 270 So.2d 762, 769

(Fla. 4th DCA 1972); see also Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 853 So. 2d 1125, 1133 (Fla.

4th DCA 2003).

Here, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ statement in their Motion that the Court “refused to conduct

any hearings, until the appellate court made a ruling” misconstrues the record and procedural

posture. (Motion for Relief 2.) In turn, Plaintiffs’ statement that there “are no court minutes;

transcripts, or any other document or action evidencing that a hearing was held on the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss” is not true. (/d.§ 3.) Similarly, Plaintiff's statement that “[w]ithout having a

hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, nor an order granting same, Plaintiffs are at a loss

as to what alleged deficiency needs amending” is similarly ingenuine. (/d. § 5.) As a result,

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief must be denied and/or stricken.

WHEREFORE, Defendant U.S. Bank respectfully requests that the Court enter an order

denying and/or striking Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief, together with attorneys’ fees and such other

relief that this Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 E
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel.: 561.650.7900

By: /s/Adam P. Hartley
Adam P. Hartley, Esq., FBN 0052211
hartleya@gtlaw.com
andra. famadas@gtlaw.com
FLService@gtlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

The undersigned certifies in accordance with Local Rules that he reached out to Plaintiff's

counsel via email on August 15-16, & 24, 2023 to resolve the underlying dispute surrounding

Plaintiff's motion. To date, Plaintiffs have not withdrawn their motion, prompting the instant

Motion to Strike.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 8, 2023, this a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was filed electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system which will, in turn, send a

notice of electronic filing to parties and counsel of record.

Patricia K. Herman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA K. HERMAN, P.A.
1631 Rock Springs Road, #305
Apopka, FL 32712-2229
Tel.: 407.731.5823
lopkhpa@gmail.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Adam P. Hartley
Adam P. Hartley
Exhibit A
Filing # 146946484 E-Filed 04/04/2022 08:54:43 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR FLAGLER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
KENNETH BELL, SR.,
and ALENA BELL,
Plaintiffs, Case No: 2022-CA-000080
vs.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS TRUSTEE FOR RAMP 2006ECF2;
EQUIFIRST CORPORATION; RESIDENTIAL
FUNDING COMPANY, LLC; and, RESIDENTIAL
FUNDING CORP,
Defendants.
/

NOTICE OF HEARING
TO U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RAMP 2006ECF2;
EQUIFIRST CORPORATION;
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC; and,
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.,
or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will bring on to be heard:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
INJTS ENTIRETY AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS:

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COURT’S DEFAULT;

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT;

USBANK’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT;

AND,

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(THIRTY (30) MINUTES RESERVED)
in the above styled cause before the Honorable Judge Terence R. Perkins, in Courtroom 401,
Flagler County Courthouse at 1769 E. Moody Boulevard, Building 1, Bunnell, Florida 32110.

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Ifyou are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost
to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Court Ad trator at 125 E. Orange Avenue, Ste. 300, Daytona Beach,
Florida 32114, (386) 256-6096; 1-800- 3771 (TDD) or 1-800-955-8770, in 2 working days of your receipt of this Notice of Hearing;
if you are hearing impaired, call 1-800-955-8771.

Electronically Received in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court - Flagler County, Florida - 04/05/2022 02:43 PM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing

will be furnished via Florida E-Portal Notification to all parties of record in this action on this 4th

day of April, 2022.

/S/ Patricia K. Herman
PATRICIA K. HERMAN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No: 0113018
Law Office of Patricia K. Herman, P.A.
1631 Rock Springs Road, #305
Apopka, Florida 32712-2229
407/688.8082
407/688.8085 (Facsimile)
Email: lopkhpa@gmail.com
Service Email: service2lopkhpa@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Ifyou are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost
to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Court Adi trator at 125 E. Orange Avenue, Ste. 300, Daytona Beach,
Florida 32114, (386) 256-6096; 1-800-955-8771 (TDD) or 1-800-955-8770, in 2 working days of your receipt of this Notice of Hearing;
if you are hearing impaired, call 1-800-955-8771.
Exhibit B
Page 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
FLAGLER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2022-CA-000080
KENNETH BELL, SR., and
ALENA BELL

Plaintiffs,

vs.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS TRUSTEE FOR RAMP 2006ECF2;
EQUIFIRST CORPORATION; RESIDENTIAL
FUNDING COMPANY, LLC; and
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP.,
10
Defendants.
11
12 kOe RK eK kk kk ok Ok ok kk Ok OK
13
14 VIRTUAL ZOOM
HEARING BEFORE: HONORABLE TERENCE R. PERKINS
15
DATE TAKEN: APRIL 13, 2022
16
TIME: 8:52 a.m. - 9:06 a.m.
17
PLACE: VIRTUAL ZOOM
18
REPORTED BY: KRISTIN DWYER, RPR
19 COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC
20
21
22
23
24
25

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 2

APPEARANCES:
PATRICIA K. HERMAN, ESQUIRE
OF: Law Office of Patricia K. Herman, PA
1631 Rock Springs Road, #305
Apopka, FL 32712
lopkhpa@gmail.com
(407) 688-8082
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF VIA
VIDEOCONFERENCE

BETH A. NORROW, ESQUIRE

OF Greenberg Traurig, PA
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
10 norrowb@gtlaw.com
(561) 650-7926
11
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT VIA
12 VIDEOCONFERENCE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 3

PROCEEDINGS

kk
Ok kk

THE CLERK: All right. The next case we

have is 2022-CA-80, Kenneth Bell v. Equifirst

Corporation, et al.

THE COURT: All right. So let me have

counsel make their appearance. We'll start

first with plaintiff's counsel.

MS. HERMAN: Good morning, Your Honor

10 Patricia Herman for Kenneth and Alena Bell

11 THE COURT: And defense?

12 MS. NORROW: Good morning, Your Honor

13 This is Beth Norrow on behalf of U.S. Bank as

14 Trustee.

15 THE COURT: All right. Good morning,

16 counsel. Welcome. So we've got five minutes

17 and I have like four hearings scheduled here.

18 What motion do you want to take up first?

19 There's a motion to dismiss. There's a motion

20 for default. And we've got a bunch of

21 different things. I was thinking the motion to

22 dismiss is probably where we ought to start,

23 maybe.

24 MS. HERMAN: I listed that first on the

25 notice, Your Honor. I think that would be

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 4

appropriate.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. So,

Ms. Norrow, it's your motion.

MS. NORROW: Thank you, Your Honor. This

is a quiet title case to release a mortgage --

to cancel and release a mortgage.

But the admissions by the plaintiffs, I

need to get out in front first; that they

signed the mortgage, that they received

10 $220,000 to purchase the property, and that the

11 mortgage was granted in favor of Equifirst.

12 The mortgage has been in foreclosure since

13 2008. Judgment was entered in favor of the

14 borrowers on the grounds that plaintiff failed

15 to establish standing at the time the complaint

16 was filed. And that is currently on appeal, so

17 the foreclosure case is still open.

18 The complaint fails to state a cause of

19 action either for declaratory relief releasing

20 the mortgage or for a quiet title action. I'll

21 address the declaratory relief first.

22 The pleading standard, of course, to test

23 the sufficiency of a complaint when it's a

24 declaratory action is whether or not the

25 plaintiff is even entitled to a declaration of

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 5

rights at all. That is, there needs to be some

sort of an ambiguity on the instrument itself

that they are asking the Court to make a

declaration as to. There must be a dispute as

to the construction of the instrument.

None of that has been set forward here.

In fact, there's no ambiguity, no vagueness, no

uncertainly at all alleged with respect to the

mortgage. The amount is undisputed. Execution

10 is undisputed. The property description is

11 undisputed. The address is undisputed. And

12 the mortgage itself is valid.

13 So the only thing that has been alleged in

14 the complaint that could possibly explain the

15 request for release of the mortgage is this

16 prior foreclosure action, which is still going

17 on in the Court of Appeals.

18 But Florida courts have consistently said

19 that an unsuccessful foreclosure action does

20 not render a mortgage invalid. And if that was

21 plaintiff's basis, then the cause of action is

22 premature because the foreclosure action is

23 still going on to begin with.

24 But, as a matter of law, an unsuccessful

25 foreclosure action does not render a mortgage

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 6

unenforceable. And I cited three cases that

support that. And it's 2010-3 SFR Venture, LLC

v. Garcia at 149 So.3d 123. It's a 4th DCA

case which specifically says dismissal of a

prior foreclosure action does not render a

mortgage unenforceable.

The other two cases are Bartram and

Singleton, which are probably very familiar to

this Court. Which is that, it stands for the

10 proposition that each and every payment that's

11 due under a mortgage is a whole separate cause

12 of action. So even if the borrowers were

13 successful in their foreclosure action that's

14 currently pending, they're still subject to

15 about another 359 foreclosure actions, if

16 that's -- if those were the payments that they

17 missed.

18 But the absence of any sort of ambiguity,

19 vagueness, or uncertainly precludes the Court

20 from making any sort of a decision as to

21 declaratory relief. No request for declaratory

22 relief has been sufficiently stated, no cause

23 of action, so the Court cannot issue a default

24 judgment. The Court needs to dismiss the case.

25 As to the quiet title action, the pleading

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 7

standard in general is the plaintiff must have

a claim to title and there must be some sort of

a cloud on title. Cloud on title is an invalid

claim by the defendants. There is no invalid

claim by the defendants at this point, at least

not alleged in this complaint.

Section 65.061 of Florida Statutes says

that grounds for a quiet title case as toa

mortgage requires a defective instrument. And

10 in this case, the borrowers do not allege that

11 the mortgage is defective.

12 So regardless of who was able to enforce

13 the mortgage, which is not in front of the

14 Court today, it's the mortgage itself in this

15 case is not defective, nor is it alleged to be

16 defective, so they cannot establish a quiet

17 title cause of action based on the mortgage.

18 And, in fact, a valid mortgage is not even

19 a cloud on title. That is the Kaan, K-A-A-N,
20 v. Wells Fargo case. That is a Southern

21 District of Florida case from 2013. But it

22 says: Voluntarily dismissal of a mortgage

23 assignee's earlier foreclosure action does not

24 invalidate a note and mortgage. Rather, the

25 note and mortgage remain a valid and

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 8

enforceable lien against the mortgagor's

property and did not constitute a cloud on

title, properly supporting the quiet title

claim. The other case with, basically, the

same holding is the Dorta v. Wilmington Trust

case. That's 2014 WL 1152917 Middle District

of Florida, same thing.

So the existence of the mortgage is not a

cloud on title, a valid mortgage is not a cloud

10 on title, and foreclosure is not a claim to

11 title. Foreclosure not being the claim to

12 title, is set forth in the Roy v. Matheson

13 case, 263 So.2d 604. That is, foreclosure

14 proceedings do not divest a mortgagor of title

15 until the filing of a certificate of title.

16 That is not alleged to have happened in the

17 foreclosure --

18 THE COURT: Ms. Norrow, you've got about a

19 minute. You've got about another minute.

20 MS. NORROW: Okay. The only other

21 allegation in the case is that

22 defendants [sic], you know, have requested

23 the -- have alleged that the defendants have

24 not transacted business in the state of

25 Florida. That's utterly irrelevant, because

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 9

they obviously transacted business at the time

that the mortgage was in effect and -- which is

still in effect. But at the time mortgage was

executed and that's undisputed.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Herman, response?

MS. HERMAN : Thank you, Your Honor. Your

Honor, I filed the quiet title action pursuant

to 65.061. Under section sub 2 for grounds, it

specifically states there's two ways that you

10 can bring a quiet title action. One way is if

11 there is a defect in the mortgage or something

12 of that nature, which Attorney Norrow has just

13 laid out.

14 But the first part of the statute comes

15 from the reach of the Court. When a person or

16 corporation, not the rightful owner of land,

17 has any conveyance or other evidence of title

18 thereto or asserts any claim or pretends to

19 have any right or title thereto which may cast

20 a cloud on the title on the real owner. Or

21 when any person or corporation is the true and

22 equitable owner of the land -- and it goes on

23 to talk about if there's a defect in the actual

24 documents.

25 I'm filing it on the fact that U.S.

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 10

National Bank Association [sic] is one of the

defendants that is pretending to have any

right, title, or claim thereto. In essence of

that, when those grounds are met, there is a

prima facie case of quiet title.

It sounds to me that Attorney Norrow is

stating that they are not pretending to have

any right, but that they do actually have a

right. Because she's claiming that they have a

10 right to foreclose on the actual property based

11 upon the mortgage that is filed.

12 And if that is the fact, then I guess what

13 would happen is U.S. Bank would then file in

14 this court whatever it is they prove to show

15 they are not pretending to have a right, that

16 they actually do have an actual right thereto

17 I believe with all the arguments and the

18 paperwork and the case law that's cited by

19 Counsel, that that action goes in my favor to

20 show the Court that my complaint is pled fine

21 It's understood. It's been argued to and it's

22 argued in defense, as if we're here for summary

23 judgment.

24 So I believe that my complaint does state

25 a cause of action. According to Chapter 65,

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 11

you only need to allege if the owner of the

property feels that there is somebody who is

asserting a claim or pretends to have a claim

to the title thereto that does not have one.

That is what this particular verified complaint

for quiet title is for.

THE COURT: Ms. Herman, the simple

question. So I remember this case quite

vividly. I don't think I've ever had so many,

10 what I'll call, hearings that were actually

11 trials on an issue. I mean, it went on and on

12 and on and on. I remember it quite well.

13 At the end of the day, what I found is

14 that the bank was not able to support their

15 argument of standing based on their failure to

16 either call the right people or to overcome the

17 hearsay exceptions that were claimed at the

18 time of the trial in the case.

19 So as a result, I found that they didn't

20 prove that they had standing and they couldn't

21 foreclose. And that was the final judgment

22 that I entered in that regard.

23 So let's assume that the 5th District

24 Court of Appeal reverses that, for any reason.

25 Like I said, there were four separate trials in

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 12

the case that went on and on. So let's just

assume that they reversed that. How does that

affect your action here to quiet title?

MS. HERMAN: Your Honor, it doesn't affect

my action, because you felt -- you ordered that

because the bank's representative stated that

they did not have any knowledge of the pooling

and servicing agreement and all of that.

That's a separate issue.

10 The issue that's always been before this

11 Court, as my representation of the Bells -- and

12 I'm the second attorney into this case. The

13 first attorney that filed it was Philip Karle.

14 He did make the same argument. And it was --

15 he did not appear at the motion for summary

16 judgment.

17 But that argument was that U.S. Bank --

18 it's not a matter of not having standing. They

19 do not own this note. They did not have the

20 ability to file a lawsuit in the state of

21 Florida in 2008. They only came into this

22 state to conduct business in 2018. There was

23 never any way, shape, or form that they had any

24 type of association to this particular note.

25 It goes beyond just a simple lack of

Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007 305-376-8800
Page 13

standing. They are a stranger to the entire

transaction. That is what has been argued from

the immediate time when the faulty foreclosure

complaint that was filed without an assignment,

without anything that would prove any kind o

Case Info

Judge

FRANCE, CHRISTOPHER A Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 27, 2049

Case Filing Date

May 09, 1982

County

Parties

BELL, ALENA Plaintiff
BELL, KENNETH S Plaintiff
EQUIFIRST CORPORATION Defendant
HARTLEY, ADAM P Attorney for the Defendant
HERMAN, PATRICIA K Attorney for the Plaintiff
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY LLC Defendant
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP Defendant
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TRUSTEE RAMP 2006ECF2 Defendant
Patrick Broderick Attorney
Beth Norrow Attorney
Patricia Kuendig Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for BELL, KENNETH S vs. EQUIFIRST CORPORATION

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties