Preview
Filing # 188425697 E-Filed 12/20/2023 01:14:49 PM
MRLP
ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI
CALIFORNIA NEVADA
CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY
FLORIDA NEW YORK
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC GEORGIA OREGON
225 East Robinson Street, Suite 155 ILLINOIS TEXAS:
Orlando, FL 32801
T. (407) 674-1850 MAINE WASHINGTON
www.mecalla.com
December 20, 2023
The Honorable Christine E. Arendas
Circuit Judge
Osceola County Courthouse
2 Courthouse Square
Kissimmee, FL 34741
Re: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC vs. Ian Michael Jamieson, et al.
Case No. 2023CA003 118MF
Our File No. 22-01827FL
Your Honor.
I represent the Plaintiff in the above referenced foreclosure case. Enclosed please find a copy of Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Judicial Default and a proposed Order. Please note that Plaintiffs Motion also is a
Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Court has already
denied Defendants Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore, the enclosed Order only addresses Plaintiff s
Renewed Motion for Judicial Default. If approved, please execute the enclosed Order. If Your Honor
determines a hearing is required, please contact me or my paralegal at Nicholas. Vanhook@mcecalla.com
and/or Pamela. Tillison@mccalla.com.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicholas J. Vanhook
Nicholas J Vanhook, Esq.
ce: deidral4wills@gmail.com
Enclosures
22-01827FL
Filing # 186067509 E-Filed 11/14/2023 10:30:12 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND
FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY
Gl SRAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 2023CA003118MF
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IAN MICHAEL JAMIESON, et al.,
_ Defendant. et
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND PLAINTIFE’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through its undersigned counsel and hereby files this Response
in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration and Renewed Motion for Judicial Default
against Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills (hereinafter “Defendants”) and in
support thereof states:
Statement of Facts/Procedural Ilistory:
On or about April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action to foreclose a mortgage.
On or about June 1, 2023, although mistakenly labeled on the Clerk of Courts docket as an
Answer, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.
On August 14, 2023, a hearing took place regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants.
Defendants Wills failed to appear at the August 14, 2023 hearing.
At the conclusion of said hearing, this Honorable Court denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants, On or about August 21, 2023, this Honorable Court entered an Order reflecting its
August 14, 2023 ruling.
Pursuant to said Order, Defendants were to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint
withing thirty (30) days of said Order being executed. More specifically, Defendants Answer
was due on or before September 20, 2023 Additionally, pursuant to said Order, should
Defendants fail to file an Answer in violation of said Order, a Judicial Default may be entered
against Defendants. See Exhibit “A.”
On or about September 15, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to State Findings of Fact and
22-01827FL
Conclusions of Law as it related to denial of Defendants Motion to Dismiss. On October 5, 2023,
this Honorbale Court entered an Order effectviely granting Defendants Motion to State Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Said Order elaborated further regarding the denial of Defendants
Motion to Dismiss.
On or about September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judicial Default against Defendants
for their failure to comply with this Honorable Courts August 21, 2023 Order requiring an Answer
to be filed on or before September 20, 2023.
On or about October 11, 2023, Defendants file a Motion for Reconsideration as to the August 21,
2023 Order requiring an Answer to be filed on or before September 20, 2023.
9 On October 31, 2023, a hearing took place before this Honorable Court regarding Plainti
Motion for Judicial Default. Afier hearing arguments from the parties, this Honorable Court
denied Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Default, without prejudice, and instructed the undersigned
to email a copy of the October 5, 2023 Order to Defendants. Immediatley after the conclusion of
siad hearing, the undersigned complied with this Honorable Courts instructions. See Exhibit “B.”
This Honorable Court also denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants on October
11, 2023 and ordered Defendants to file an Answer within five (5) days of an Order being entered
reflecting said ruling. Finally, this Honorable Court stated at the October 31, 2023 hearing that
if Defendants failed to file timely file an Answer, Plaintiff could file a Renewed Motion for
Judicial Default and said Motion would be considered in chambers without the necessity of a
hearing. An Order reflecting this Honorable Courts ruling was entered on November 1, 2023
See Exhibit “C.”
10 On or about November 7, 2023, Defendants filed another Motion for Reconsideration as it relates
to denial of Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration:
11 The purpose ofa Motion for Reconsideration is intended to call the attention of the court any
error, omission, or oversight that may have been committed in the first ruling Motions for
reconsideration are based on the trial court’s “inherent authority to reconsider and, if deemed
appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or
order terminating an action.” Silverstrone v. Edell, 721 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998). Said
inherent authority is discretionary in nature. Bettez v, City of Miami, 510 So. 2d 1242, 1242-43
(Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1987)
22-01827FL
122 In Defendants most recent Motion for Reconsideration filed on November 7, 2023, Defendants
attempt to make the same arguments as made at hearing on October 31, 2023. At said hearing
this Honorable Court conside od said arguments and ultimately rejected them. Defendants
November 7" Motion for Reconsideration raises no new argument nor discusses any facts or law
this Honorable Court already failed to consider. Furthermore, there were no errors, omissions, or
oversight in this Honorable Courts initial ruling denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
Defendants are simply displeased with this Honorable Courts ruling and now asks this Honorable
Court to reexamine its previous argument. This is wholly insufficient to support a motion for
reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Judicial Default:
13 This Honorable Court provided Defendants a “second chance” to comply with its ruling which
denied Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Initially Defendants were ordered to file an Answer on or
before September 20, 2023.
14 Two months later, Defendants are still disregarding this Honorable Courts Orders even after
Defendants were provided another opportunity to comply after the October 31, 2023 hearing.
<
1S As indicated in the Order reflecting its October 31, 2023 ruling, this Honorable Court indicated
that it would consider a Renewed Motion for Judicial Default in chambers.
16 Therefore, Plaintiff requests a judicial default be entered against Defendants Ian Michael
Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills without the necessity of an additional hearing.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order Denying the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills on
November 7, 2023, and to grant Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Judicial Default as to Defendants lan
Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
CE) TIFICATE OF SERVICE
THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was: [check all used]
22-01827FL
@ E-mailed () Mailed this IY day of Ni VE Ube 2023, to al arty on the attac ‘d service
list.
Nicholas' Vanhook, Esq.
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pieree, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
225 East Robinson Street, Suite 155
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 674-1850
Fax: (321) 248-0420
Email: MRService@mecalla.com
Fla. Bar No.: 37881
22-01827FL
Filing # 180112570 E-Filed 08/21/2023 12:27:32 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR
OSCEOLA COUNTY
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 2023CA003118MF
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IAN MICHAEL JAMIESON, et al.,
Defendant._
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE came before this Honorable Court at hearing on August 14, 2023, regarding the Motion to
Dismiss filed on June 1, 2023, by Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills. After hearing
arguments from the partics and with this Honorable Court being fully advised in the premises, this Honorable
Court hereby finds that:
1 Although titled an Answer on the docket for the Osccola County Clerk of Court, the response filed on
June 1, 2023, by Defendants lan Michacl Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills, is a Motion to Dismiss.
Additionally, it is hereby ORDERED that:
2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
3 Defendants, Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Jance Wills, shall have thirty (30) days from
the date of this order to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint.
Should Defendants fail to file an Answer in violation of the instant Order, a Judicial Default may be entered
against Defendants.
Plaintiff's counsel shall;within five (5) days of the date of this Order, serve all parties who are not registered
with c-service through the cPortal with a copy of this Order and file a certificate of service verifying same
DONE AND ORDERED at Osceola County, Florida, this day of , 2023.
L-~
f
Signed by/ALVARO, CHAD in 2023 CA 003118 MF
on 08/21/2023 12:24:28 hYLCL3MI
Honorable Chad K. Alvaro
CIRCUIT JUDGE
—
22-01827FL
EXHIBIT |
Nicholas J. Vanhook
Subject: FW: Defendants Motion and Notice of Intent- Case 2023CA003118MF
Attachments: Previously entered Order.odf
From: NicholasJ. Vanhook
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:39 AM
To: Deidra Wills
Ce: Pamela L. Tillison
Subject: RE: Defendants Motion and Notice of Intent- Case 2023CA003118MF
Ms. Willis — pursuant to the Courts instructions at todays hearing, see the attached Order that was entered back on
October 5" that my office mailed to you on the same day.
Nicholas Vanhook, Esq.
Partner
3 LiL igation
[) MeCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
225 E Robinson St Suite 155 Orlando, FL 32801
a Office: (407) 674-1661 / Ext. 51661
Met Mobile: (407) 267 - 6594
McC Raymer Leibert erce, LLC Fax: 1-407-904-5856
Nichola fanhoo! dmccaila.com
M ary me tr
Alabama « California » Connecticut + Florida « Georgia « Illinois « Kentucky +» Mi: sissippi + Nevada + New Jersey « New
York + Ohio + Oregon + Te: + Washington
“Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you are advised that this
office may be deemed to be a debt collector and any information obtained may be used
for that purpose."
Disclaimer
Thi email any fil trans with it ai confide alnd intended solely for ise of the individual o: ity to whom they
addr sed you have re email in error, pleas y th stste nang lease note that views or opinions pr din
this email a 2 solely those o e author and do not neces ly rep! eth eof the. mpany Finally, the r ient should this ef
any atl meni r the en of viruses, mp a ts bilit y f ny dar cau! virus tran: ted by
ail
EXHIBIT
Filing # 185249264 E-Filed 11/01/2023 02:14:11 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND
FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 2023CA003118MF
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IAN MICHAEL JAMIESON, et al.,
Defendant. a
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER TO FILE AN ANSWER
THIS CAUSE came before this Honorable Court at hearing on October 31, 2023, regarding the
Motion for Judicial Default filed on September 27, 2023, by Plaintiff and the Motion to Reconsider Order
to File an Answer filed on October 11, 2023, by Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee
Wills. After hearing arguments from the parties and with this HonorableCourt being fully advised in the
premises, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1 Plaintiffs Motion for Judicial Default is hereby DENIED,
RNAI WITHOUT PREIUVICE.
VEE PREJUDICE
2. Defendants Motion to Reconsider Order to File an Answer is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff shall send to Defendants, via email, a copy of the Order entered by this Honorable Court
on October 5, 2023, in response to the Motion to State Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
filed on September 15, 2023, by Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills.
Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills shall have five (5) days from the date
of this Order to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint.
22-01827FL
EXHIBIT (C
5. Should Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills fail to file an Answer within
five (5) days of the date of this Order, this Honorable Court will consider a Renewed Motion for
Judicial Default in chambers and without the necessity of a hearing.
Plaintiff's counsel shall, within five (5) days of the date this Order, serve all parties who are not registered
with c-service through the ePortal with a copy of this Order and file a certificate of service verifying same
DONE AND ORDERED at Osceola County, Florida, this day of _, 2023,
(a /
ned b} y
‘
LVARO, CHAD in 2023 CA 003118 MF
on 11/01/2023 14:13:59 DmU+rZMt
Honorable Chad K. Alvaro
—
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies to parties on the attached service list
22-01827FL
SERVICE LI
Tan Michael Jamieson
5634 Western Sun Dr
Saint Cloud, FL 34771
deidral4wills@gmail.com
Deidra Janee Wills
5634 Western Sun Dr
Saint Cloud, FL 34771
deidral4wills@gmail.com
22-01827FL
Preview
Filing # 188425697 E-Filed 12/20/2023 01:14:49 PM MRLP ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY FLORIDA NEW YORK McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC GEORGIA OREGON 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 155 ILLINOIS TEXAS: Orlando, FL 32801 T. (407) 674-1850 MAINE WASHINGTON www.mecalla.com December 20, 2023 The Honorable Christine E. Arendas Circuit Judge Osceola County Courthouse 2 Courthouse Square Kissimmee, FL 34741 Re: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC vs. Ian Michael Jamieson, et al. Case No. 2023CA003 118MF Our File No. 22-01827FL Your Honor. I represent the Plaintiff in the above referenced foreclosure case. Enclosed please find a copy of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Judicial Default and a proposed Order. Please note that Plaintiffs Motion also is a Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Court has already denied Defendants Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore, the enclosed Order only addresses Plaintiff s Renewed Motion for Judicial Default. If approved, please execute the enclosed Order. If Your Honor determines a hearing is required, please contact me or my paralegal at Nicholas. Vanhook@mcecalla.com and/or Pamela. Tillison@mccalla.com. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas J. Vanhook Nicholas J Vanhook, Esq. ce: deidral4wills@gmail.com Enclosures 22-01827FL Filing # 186067509 E-Filed 11/14/2023 10:30:12 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY Gl SRAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2023CA003118MF PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. IAN MICHAEL JAMIESON, et al., _ Defendant. et PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PLAINTIFE’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through its undersigned counsel and hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration and Renewed Motion for Judicial Default against Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills (hereinafter “Defendants”) and in support thereof states: Statement of Facts/Procedural Ilistory: On or about April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action to foreclose a mortgage. On or about June 1, 2023, although mistakenly labeled on the Clerk of Courts docket as an Answer, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. On August 14, 2023, a hearing took place regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. Defendants Wills failed to appear at the August 14, 2023 hearing. At the conclusion of said hearing, this Honorable Court denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, On or about August 21, 2023, this Honorable Court entered an Order reflecting its August 14, 2023 ruling. Pursuant to said Order, Defendants were to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint withing thirty (30) days of said Order being executed. More specifically, Defendants Answer was due on or before September 20, 2023 Additionally, pursuant to said Order, should Defendants fail to file an Answer in violation of said Order, a Judicial Default may be entered against Defendants. See Exhibit “A.” On or about September 15, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to State Findings of Fact and 22-01827FL Conclusions of Law as it related to denial of Defendants Motion to Dismiss. On October 5, 2023, this Honorbale Court entered an Order effectviely granting Defendants Motion to State Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Said Order elaborated further regarding the denial of Defendants Motion to Dismiss. On or about September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judicial Default against Defendants for their failure to comply with this Honorable Courts August 21, 2023 Order requiring an Answer to be filed on or before September 20, 2023. On or about October 11, 2023, Defendants file a Motion for Reconsideration as to the August 21, 2023 Order requiring an Answer to be filed on or before September 20, 2023. 9 On October 31, 2023, a hearing took place before this Honorable Court regarding Plainti Motion for Judicial Default. Afier hearing arguments from the parties, this Honorable Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Default, without prejudice, and instructed the undersigned to email a copy of the October 5, 2023 Order to Defendants. Immediatley after the conclusion of siad hearing, the undersigned complied with this Honorable Courts instructions. See Exhibit “B.” This Honorable Court also denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants on October 11, 2023 and ordered Defendants to file an Answer within five (5) days of an Order being entered reflecting said ruling. Finally, this Honorable Court stated at the October 31, 2023 hearing that if Defendants failed to file timely file an Answer, Plaintiff could file a Renewed Motion for Judicial Default and said Motion would be considered in chambers without the necessity of a hearing. An Order reflecting this Honorable Courts ruling was entered on November 1, 2023 See Exhibit “C.” 10 On or about November 7, 2023, Defendants filed another Motion for Reconsideration as it relates to denial of Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration: 11 The purpose ofa Motion for Reconsideration is intended to call the attention of the court any error, omission, or oversight that may have been committed in the first ruling Motions for reconsideration are based on the trial court’s “inherent authority to reconsider and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or order terminating an action.” Silverstrone v. Edell, 721 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998). Said inherent authority is discretionary in nature. Bettez v, City of Miami, 510 So. 2d 1242, 1242-43 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1987) 22-01827FL 122 In Defendants most recent Motion for Reconsideration filed on November 7, 2023, Defendants attempt to make the same arguments as made at hearing on October 31, 2023. At said hearing this Honorable Court conside od said arguments and ultimately rejected them. Defendants November 7" Motion for Reconsideration raises no new argument nor discusses any facts or law this Honorable Court already failed to consider. Furthermore, there were no errors, omissions, or oversight in this Honorable Courts initial ruling denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Defendants are simply displeased with this Honorable Courts ruling and now asks this Honorable Court to reexamine its previous argument. This is wholly insufficient to support a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Judicial Default: 13 This Honorable Court provided Defendants a “second chance” to comply with its ruling which denied Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Initially Defendants were ordered to file an Answer on or before September 20, 2023. 14 Two months later, Defendants are still disregarding this Honorable Courts Orders even after Defendants were provided another opportunity to comply after the October 31, 2023 hearing. < 1S As indicated in the Order reflecting its October 31, 2023 ruling, this Honorable Court indicated that it would consider a Renewed Motion for Judicial Default in chambers. 16 Therefore, Plaintiff requests a judicial default be entered against Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills without the necessity of an additional hearing. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order Denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills on November 7, 2023, and to grant Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Judicial Default as to Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. CE) TIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was: [check all used] 22-01827FL @ E-mailed () Mailed this IY day of Ni VE Ube 2023, to al arty on the attac ‘d service list. Nicholas' Vanhook, Esq. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pieree, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 155 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 674-1850 Fax: (321) 248-0420 Email: MRService@mecalla.com Fla. Bar No.: 37881 22-01827FL Filing # 180112570 E-Filed 08/21/2023 12:27:32 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2023CA003118MF PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. IAN MICHAEL JAMIESON, et al., Defendant._ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE came before this Honorable Court at hearing on August 14, 2023, regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed on June 1, 2023, by Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills. After hearing arguments from the partics and with this Honorable Court being fully advised in the premises, this Honorable Court hereby finds that: 1 Although titled an Answer on the docket for the Osccola County Clerk of Court, the response filed on June 1, 2023, by Defendants lan Michacl Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills, is a Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. 3 Defendants, Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Jance Wills, shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. Should Defendants fail to file an Answer in violation of the instant Order, a Judicial Default may be entered against Defendants. Plaintiff's counsel shall;within five (5) days of the date of this Order, serve all parties who are not registered with c-service through the cPortal with a copy of this Order and file a certificate of service verifying same DONE AND ORDERED at Osceola County, Florida, this day of , 2023. L-~ f Signed by/ALVARO, CHAD in 2023 CA 003118 MF on 08/21/2023 12:24:28 hYLCL3MI Honorable Chad K. Alvaro CIRCUIT JUDGE — 22-01827FL EXHIBIT | Nicholas J. Vanhook Subject: FW: Defendants Motion and Notice of Intent- Case 2023CA003118MF Attachments: Previously entered Order.odf From: NicholasJ. Vanhook Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:39 AM To: Deidra Wills Ce: Pamela L. Tillison Subject: RE: Defendants Motion and Notice of Intent- Case 2023CA003118MF Ms. Willis — pursuant to the Courts instructions at todays hearing, see the attached Order that was entered back on October 5" that my office mailed to you on the same day. Nicholas Vanhook, Esq. Partner 3 LiL igation [) MeCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC 225 E Robinson St Suite 155 Orlando, FL 32801 a Office: (407) 674-1661 / Ext. 51661 Met Mobile: (407) 267 - 6594 McC Raymer Leibert erce, LLC Fax: 1-407-904-5856 Nichola fanhoo! dmccaila.com M ary me tr Alabama « California » Connecticut + Florida « Georgia « Illinois « Kentucky +» Mi: sissippi + Nevada + New Jersey « New York + Ohio + Oregon + Te: + Washington “Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you are advised that this office may be deemed to be a debt collector and any information obtained may be used for that purpose." Disclaimer Thi email any fil trans with it ai confide alnd intended solely for ise of the individual o: ity to whom they addr sed you have re email in error, pleas y th stste nang lease note that views or opinions pr din this email a 2 solely those o e author and do not neces ly rep! eth eof the. mpany Finally, the r ient should this ef any atl meni r the en of viruses, mp a ts bilit y f ny dar cau! virus tran: ted by ail EXHIBIT Filing # 185249264 E-Filed 11/01/2023 02:14:11 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2023CA003118MF PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. IAN MICHAEL JAMIESON, et al., Defendant. a ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DEFAULT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER TO FILE AN ANSWER THIS CAUSE came before this Honorable Court at hearing on October 31, 2023, regarding the Motion for Judicial Default filed on September 27, 2023, by Plaintiff and the Motion to Reconsider Order to File an Answer filed on October 11, 2023, by Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills. After hearing arguments from the parties and with this HonorableCourt being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1 Plaintiffs Motion for Judicial Default is hereby DENIED, RNAI WITHOUT PREIUVICE. VEE PREJUDICE 2. Defendants Motion to Reconsider Order to File an Answer is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff shall send to Defendants, via email, a copy of the Order entered by this Honorable Court on October 5, 2023, in response to the Motion to State Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed on September 15, 2023, by Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills. Defendants lan Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills shall have five (5) days from the date of this Order to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. 22-01827FL EXHIBIT (C 5. Should Defendants Ian Michael Jamieson and Deidra Janee Wills fail to file an Answer within five (5) days of the date of this Order, this Honorable Court will consider a Renewed Motion for Judicial Default in chambers and without the necessity of a hearing. Plaintiff's counsel shall, within five (5) days of the date this Order, serve all parties who are not registered with c-service through the ePortal with a copy of this Order and file a certificate of service verifying same DONE AND ORDERED at Osceola County, Florida, this day of _, 2023, (a / ned b} y ‘ LVARO, CHAD in 2023 CA 003118 MF on 11/01/2023 14:13:59 DmU+rZMt Honorable Chad K. Alvaro — CIRCUIT JUDGE Copies to parties on the attached service list 22-01827FL SERVICE LI Tan Michael Jamieson 5634 Western Sun Dr Saint Cloud, FL 34771 deidral4wills@gmail.com Deidra Janee Wills 5634 Western Sun Dr Saint Cloud, FL 34771 deidral4wills@gmail.com 22-01827FL