Motion for Summary Judgment in FIRST FEDERAL BANK vs CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER et al| Trellis.Law

On January 13, 2022 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between First Federal Bank, and Chambers, Christopher, Dashawn Williams, Andrea, Lindsay, Yvette M, Unknown Heirs Beneficiaries De, Unknown Tenant 1, Unknown Tenant 2, for Circuit Civil 3-C in the District Court of Hamilton County.

Preview
Filing # MMM E-Filed 05/02/2023 05:24:55 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST FEDERAL BANK,

Plaintiff, CASE NO; 2022CA000005
-Vs-

UNKNOWN = HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES,
DEVISEES, CREDITORS, GRANTEES,
ASSIGNEES, LIENORS, TRUSTEES AND
ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING AN
INTEREST BY, THROUGH, UNDER OR
AGAINST THE ESTATE OF
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, DECEASED,
ETAL.,

Defendant(s)

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FIRST FEDERAL BANK, by and through its undersigned
counsel, pursuant to Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and files this Amended Motion
for Summary Final Judgment of Foreclosure and Reformation of Loan Modification Agreement in a

the above-styled action on the following grounds:

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.510 states that summary judgment should be granted to
a movant who shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Florida amended its Summary Judgment standard as of
May 1, 2021, by explicitly adopting the Federal standard (See Rule 1.510(a): “The summary a
judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the
federal summary judgment standard.”), As such, to understand the application of the new Rule
1.510, the Court must look to the Federal rules and its related case law. The Federal summary
judgment rules is found in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 which holds that summary
judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 USS. 317, 322 (1986) (see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). The parties may support their positions
by citation to the record, including, depositions, documents, affidavits, or declarations. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is genuine if “a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the
non-moving party.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 516 F. 3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir,
2008) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)); Burgos v. Chertoff,
274 F, App’x 839, 841 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted), A fact is material if it “might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 516 F. 3d at 1243
(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48; Burgos, 274 F, App’x at 841 (citation omitted), The movant

shoulders the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See
Shiver y. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir, 2008). A movant must present evidence
demonstrating that it can establish the basic elements of its claim. Celofex, 477 U.S. at 322.).
Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-movant must “go beyond the pleadings”
and show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Jd. at 324; see also Fed. R. Civ, Pro. 56(c)(1). The
inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
party opposing the motion. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970). To
avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (emphasis added). Further, “a ‘judge’s function’ at summary
judgment is not ‘to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine
whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (per curiam)
(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249); Gross v. S. Ry. Co., 414 F.2d 292, 297 (Sth Cir. 1969).6 The
Court, however, is not required to accept all of the non-movant’s factual characterizations and legal
arguments. Beal v, Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454, 458-59 (11th Cir. 1994), Ifa genuine
issue of fact exists for trial, summary judgment should not be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a).

1 The material facts are uncontroverted:
a. On 11/24/2010, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, deceased (hereinafter
“defendants”), made, executed and delivered a Note and CHRISTOPHER

WILLIAMS, deceased made, executed and delivered a Mortgage to the payee
named thereon.
Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
b. The Note and Mortgage were assigned to Plaintiff as described in the Complaint.
c, The property secured by the Mortgage is that described in the Complaint, and more
particularly described as:

PART OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, AND PART OF
THE SOUTH 332.24 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 WEST OF SOUTHEAST 144TH AVENUE, ALL BEING IN SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FOR POINT
OF BEGINNING, COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH
1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 15 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTHEAST 144TH AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF
115.76 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 28 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 58
SECONDS EAST LONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE
OF 246.17 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4;

THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 34 SECONDS WEST
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHEAST 1/4, A DISTANCE OF 775.03 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 0 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
332.22 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 26
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 332.04 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 0
DEGREES 49 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 74.23 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 88 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE RUN SOUTH 0 DEGREES 49
MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF
74.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
Property Address: 9509 SOUTHEAST 144TH AVENUE, WHITE SPRINGS, FL 32096

Plaintiff holds the note and mortgage and is entitled to enforce the Note and
Mortgage, pursuant to F.S. § 673.3011.
There is a default under the terms and conditions of the Note and Mortgage.
Plaintiff has declared Defendants to be in default under the Note and Mortgage,
accelerated the entire indebtedness evidenced by the Note and Mortgage, and
declares that amount to be immediately due and payable.

Matter No,; FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
g. The obligor has made no valid tender of payment of the subject note and mortgage
nor has the obligor reinstated the subject Note and Mortgage.
Plaintiff's Mortgage constitutes a valid lien on the subject property which is
superior to any right, title interest or claim of all said Defendant(s) and all persons
or entities claiming by, through or under them.
Plaintiff has also included a Count II to reform the Loan Modification Agreement
due to a mutual mistake concerning a minor error in the legal description.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover its principal, interest, late charges, advancements, costs,
attorneys’ fees and other expenses.
Plaintiff has retained counsel in connection with the foreclosure on the above-described
property and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee, plus costs advanced.
Because of the above grounds, Plaintiff is entitled to summary final judgment as a matter
of law.
The substantial matters of law to be argued in support of this motion are as follows:
a. The basic purpose of a foreclosure of a lien is to subject the security to payment of
the obligation. Bobby Jones Garden Apartments v. Connecticut Mutual Life
Insurance, 202 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
Under Florida law, when a mortgage contains an acceleration clause, upon breach
of mortgagor's covenant to make the required payments and/or to comply with any
other covenant such as the payment of real property taxes, insurance or liens,
mortgagee may sue to foreclose the mortgage before the due date. Van Huss v.
Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 123 Fla. 20, 165 So, 896 (Fla. 1936); Treb
Trading Companyv. Green, 102 Fla. 238, 135 So. 510 (Fla, 1931).
The institution of a foreclosure suit is the exercise of a mortgagee's option to declare
the remaining principal sum and interest due thereon. Kreiss Potassium Phosphate
Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004, 124 So. 751 (Fla. 1929).
All persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject matter
of a foreclosure suit, and who would be directly affected by an adjudication therein,
are necessary parties to the suit and any person who has or claims an interest
adverse to plaintiff is a proper party. Degge v. First State Bank of Eustis, 199 So.

Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
564 (Fla. 1941).
The interest of the owner of record of the property being foreclosed is inferior and
subordinate to the interest of plaintiff. Jordan v. Sayre, 24 Fla. 1, 3 So. 329 (1888).
The pleadings filed herein establish that the mortgage is in default and that
Plaintiff's mortgage is a purchase money mortgage or was recorded prior to the
recording of the instruments creating the liens in favor of those Defendants who
claim an interest in the real property encumbered by the mortgage. Therefore, any
such interest which may be vested in the aforesaid Defendants is subordinate and
inferior to the lien in plaintiff’s mortgage. Sarmiento v. Stockton, Whatley, Davin &
Co., Inc. 399 So.2d 1057 (Fla.3" DCA 1984). United States v. First Federal Savings
and Loan Association of St. Petersburg, 155 So.2d 192 (Fla. 2™ DCA 1963).
The lien of plaintiff's mortgage takes priority over any and all other subsequent
claims or liens attaching to the property, recorded or unrecorded, through the
mortgagor, its successors, assigns and tenants, Bullard v, Fender, 140 Fla. 448, 192
So. 167 (Fla. 1939).
Asa matter of law and pursuant to the mortgage and security agreement instruments
securing the promissory note, plaintiff is entitled to collect costs and attorneys’ fees
incident to the foreclosure of its lien and any sums advanced to prevent the
impairment of its security, American Securities Co. v, Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 104, 67
So. 862 (Fla. 1911); Raskin v, Otten, 273 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973).
As a matter of law and cooperation clauses in the loan documents, plaintiff is
entitled to reformation of the Loan Modification in an instance of mutual mistake
“so long as the rights of any bona fide and innocent purchasers will not be
prejudiced.” Nall v. Raybon, 451 So.2d 923, 924 (Fla. 1" DCA 1984) (citing to
Burleson v. Brogdon, 364 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1 DCA 1978) and Hardaway Timber Co.
v. Hansford, 245 S.2d 911 (Fla. 1 DCA 1971) which held that when there is no
prejudice to bona fide and innocent purchasers or injure rights of any intervening
parties reformation was proper.)
6. Based on the pleadings filed in the instant case, together with Affidavits which will be filed
hereinafter, there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and Plaintiff is entitled to summary

Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
final judgment as a matter of law.
The Plaintiff requests that this court find that the Loan Modification recorded on November
16, 2017, in Official Records Book 808, at Page 414, Instrument Number 201724002434
of the Public Records of Hamilton County, Florida, contains an incorrect legal description
due to mutual mistake and shall be reformed to reflect the correct legal description as
follows, with the corrected portion underlined:

PART OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, AND PART OF
THE SOUTH 332.24 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4
WEST OF SOUTHEAST 144TH AVENUE, ALL BEING IN SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FOR POINT OF
BEGINNING, COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH 1/2
OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE RUN SOUTH
15 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SOUTHEAST 144TH AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 115.76 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 28 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST LONG
SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 246.17 FEET TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4;

THENCE RUN SOUTH 88 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 34 SECONDS WEST
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4, A DISTANCE OF 775.03 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 0 DEGREES 49
MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 332,22 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 88 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 26 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
332.04 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 0 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 08 SECONDS
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 74.23 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 88 DEGREES 22
MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 300,00 FEET TO THE EAST
LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 0 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST
LINE, A DISTANCE OF 74.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING

WHEREFORE, the pleadings, incorporated exhibits, and affidavits filed herewith show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law, Therefore, Plaintiff moves this Court to enter Summary Final
Judgment of foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff, foreclosing all interests of the Defendants, ordering
an accounting, and setting a time for the property foreclosed to be sold to satisfy Plaintiffs

Matter No.; FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
claim. If amounts due are not paid within the time period set by the Court, awarding a deficiency
judgment for any sum remaining unpaid after the foreclosure sale or reserving jurisdiction to make
such an award. Ifa Federal Bankruptcy action has been filed and a discharge has been entered, no
deficiency judgment or personal judgment will be sought and the Plaintiff requests that an In Rem
Judgment be entered as to the real property title owners.

Dated this 2" day of May, 2023.

‘s/ Brandi Wilson, Esq.
Brandi Wilson, Esq. (FL Bar No. 0099226)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the forgoing has been served by U.S. Mail and/or e-
mail on this 2" day of May, 2023 on the following:

UNKNOWN HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES, DEVISEES, CREDITORS, GRANTEES,
ASSIGNEES, LIENORS, TRUSTEES AND ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING AN
INTEREST BY, THROUGH, UNDER OR AGAINST THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAMS, DECEASED
9509 SOUTHEAST 144TH AVENUE
WHITE SPRINGS, FL 32096

YVETTE M. LINDSAY A/K/A YVETTE LINDSAY A/K/A SAIDAH LINDSAY
1775 BRANCH ROAD
YORK, SC 29745

CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS
1629 ELAINE STREET
PHILADELPHIA PA 19150

1809 W CHAMPLOST ST
PHILADELPHIA PA 19141 1317
Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
ANDREA DASHAWN WILLIAMS
2151 CUMBERLAND PKWY S.E. APT 1428
ATLANTA GA 30339

/sf Brandi Wilson, Esq.
Brandi Wilson, Esq. (FL Bar No. 0099226)
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
1410 N. Westshore Bivd., Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
(855) 287-0240
(855) 287-0211 Facsimile
Email: servicecopies@qpwblaw.com
2nd Email: brandi.wilson@qpwblaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.:2022CA000005
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST FEDERAL BANK,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 2022CA000005
-VS-

UNKNOWN HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES,
DEVISEES, CREDITORS, GRANTEES,
ASSIGNEES, LIENORS, TRUSTEES AND
ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING AN
INTEREST BY, THROUGH, UNDER OR
AGAINST THE ESTATE OF
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, DECEASED,
ET AL.,

Defendant(s)

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF COSTS
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Brandi Wilson, who is
personally known, after being first duly sworn, states that:

1 I am counsel for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause. 1 am over the age of 21 and have
personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. I am competent to testify to all matters
stated herein,

Tam an attorney duly licensed and authorized to practice in the State of Florida, and | am
a member of the law firm of QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A., Attorneys
for Plaintiff in the above-styled action,

3. Plaintiff
has incurred the following court costs:
$998.78
Complaint Filing Fees
Lis Pendens Recording Fe $25,00
Service of Process $1,389.10
Service of Process via Publication $314.30

Matter No.; FL-000102-21
Case No.: 2022CA000005
Heir Search Costs $1,032.25
Sale Publication $511,36
Court Filing Fees $277.00
$4,547.79
TOTAL COSTS

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Dated this 26" day of April , 2023.

Braonl. Obl ro-~
Brandi Wilson, Esq.

Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by means of C1 physical presence or online
notarization, this_7 '" day of nf , 2023, by Brandi Wilson, Esquire, who
is personally known to me,

Chu i
Notary Public
ALEXIA’ ROSE RIVERA
Notary Public - State of Florida
Commission # HH 102297.
ay Comm, Expires Mat 9, 2025
dee through Wational Notary Assn.

Matter No.; FL-000102-21
Case No.: 2022CA000005
_ - _ EXPENSE - — _ 7
meson si0n2s cas sions ont Her seme Cost
ymnon soon a $9078 Cost-Cenptint Fee
reson $1200 exaus 51800 cert Record UF Cont
ane 130820 cate fiass0 ort Sere Come
saya ‘na30 xs $034.30 cot tictce of tony est
upipon 198 seat $5175 flees ‘cu fina Fee
isn $7000 cxaise ime Keen Cea firs Fe
syayros $5105 enn $2125 Cont ‘Gout fg Fee
yspons $51.5 ane 55175 cont cout ng fee
2niep2078 suas arse sane cost Se fubNeaonCont
BIpoes $51.5 cxaies $5475 fees Coun FEna er
sy9p023 $120 pisos S209 Coat Pacorsl eat
sae
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST FEDERAL BANK,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 2022CA000005
“ys=

UNKNOWN HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES,
DEVISEES, CREDITORS, GRANTEES,
ASSIGNEES, LIENORS, TRUSTEES AND
ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING AN
INTEREST BY, THROUGH, UNDER OR
AGAINST THE ESTATE OF
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, DECEASED,
ETAL.,

Defendant(s)

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Brandi Wilson, who is
personally known, after being first duly sworn, states that:

1 I am counsel for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause. I am over the age of 21 and
have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, | am competent to testify
to all matters stated herein.
This is an uncontested residential mortgage foreclosure action. In an uncontested
foreclosure action, our firm will perform, at minimum the following legal services:
a. Review of all loan documents, letters, prepare demand letter.
b Examine title work, determine necessary parties to the action,
c, Prepare and review the complaint, summons, civil cover sheet, value claim form
and lis pendens.
d Perform diligent search and inquiry in attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of
the Defendants and whether or not they are in active military service, including
if applicable, alias summons and publication.
Review returns of service.
Prepare and file Motions for Default where appropriate.
Prepare and file Motion for Summary Judgment and Affidavits in Support of
Judgment.
Preparation for and attendance at hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment.
Preparation of Certificate of Sale, Certificate of Title and Certificate of

Matter No.: FL-000102-21
Case No.: 2022CA000005
Disbursements where appropriate.
No contemporaneous time records are kept by the attorneys for Plaintiff unless a
foreclosure case becomes contested.
The Plaintiff has agreed to pay its attorneys a flat fee of $4,100.00 to handle an
uncontested foreclosure case. However, under applicable law, Plaintiff's counsel is
entitled to recover a reasonable fee in excess of the agreed flat fee.
Attached hereto are the business records kept by Plaintiffs counsel in the ordinary
course of business. The amounts charged are fair and reasonable at 1.0 hours of
litigation at $250.00 per hour, 6.75 hours of litigation at $300.00 per hour for the total
sum of$2,275.00.
Affiant has considered and evaluated the factors set forth in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Dated this 26" day of ___April__, 2023.

Bronk. Vfilro~~
Brandi Wilson, Esq.

Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by means of O1 physical presence or online
notarization, this_7¢% day of _ APA 2023, by Brandi Wilson, Esquire, who
is personally known to me.

Notary Public
¢ He ALEXIA ROSE RIVERA
ay Notary Public - State of Fioride
Commission # Hi 102297
oF dy Comm, Exeires Mar 9, 2025
jonded through National ‘Notary Assn.

Matter No.: FI.-000102-21
Case No.: 2022CA000005
TIME
iC zie CHEE crinines
iopifon asd ‘90000 Relea ce
apap. sse000
as
oes
exist
82090
$0000
te
uty
Grant tied
Fea FC Heatly Fee] RECOMRRRGLE DEAT RAWHT 5 HOTCE OF ACTON PACKAGE
gnpont sso000 Hoy Fee- FC HoutFae/ DRAFT KOTKE DRA? OF ACTION FACKAGEMORON
FOR SERVE VA 9URLICATION.
anne $3000 as ous 333009 Nowy Fee Resour fee PLAINISE'S FOR EXTEISION OF HVE FO PERTECT SRE, ORDER ON
aspen s1s000 cetsss $2500 SIME AND ALITER TO AGE
snonon siamo aan S4yei090 Fee Fe Seetce Compe
weno $1800 cane "8000 cut Fea FC ot Fee PREPARE AED ATTEND CASE ANACOMINT CONFERERCE
snore 02s a3550 350 ‘out Fee FC Hout Fee /Draltchatntate raya efor neue company good Seoush WASH ecoreb')
sso ssr200 cago sm00 Fee FC Judgment trased
npn $3000 as oxen? 4348009 Nowy Fee= Fe Hou Fee ost Alloway Fee (Recovers Aterey Revewand Regent
nys0n $0000 cate HeuteFee FC Moar Fe / Moat arse Fee Recovers) Brat ar deaf, All ites und ROL
$821809
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST FEDERAL BANK,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 2022CA000005
-vs-

UNKNOWN HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES,
DEVISEES, CREDITORS, GRANTEES,
ASSIGNEES, LIENORS, TRUSTEES AND
ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING AN
INTEREST BY, THROUGH, UNDER OR
AGAINST THE ESTATE OF
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, DECEASED,
ET AL.,

Defendant(s)

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Michael A. Paasch who is
personally known, after being first duly sworn, states that:
1 Tam over the age of 21 and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. I am
attorney admitted to the Florida Bar and have been practicing in the State of Florida since
1990,
As a licensed and practicing attorney in Florida, 1 am familiar with the customary and
standard practice in Florida for handling residential mortgage foreclosures, As such, lam
familiar with the time and labor that must be reasonably expended, and the skill required
to properly perform the foreclosure of a residential mortgage. I know that a residential
foreclosure action will require at minimum, the following legal services to be performed:
a. Review all loan documents, letters, prepare demand letter.
b. Examine title work, determine necessary parties to the action.
c. Prepare and review the complaint, summons, civil cover sheet, value claim form
and lis pendens.
d Perform diligent search and inquiry in attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of
the Defendants and whether or not they are in active military service, including if
applicable, alias summonses and publication.
e. Review returns of service.
f. Prepare and file defaults where appropriate,
Prey pare and file Motion for Summary Judgment and Affidavits in Support of Judgment,
h. Preparation for and attendance at hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment.

Matter No,: FL-000102-21
Case No.: 2022CA000005
Preparation of Certificate of Sale, Certificate of Title and Certificate of Disbursements
where appropriate.
The above itemized services set forth the minimum legal services performed in a typical
uncontested residential foreclosure action.
In this action, Plaintiff has agreed to pay QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER,
PA. (hereinafter referred to as “QP WB”) a flat fee of $4,100.00.
I am aware that additional legal services may be required to be performed outside of the
flat fee in certain circumstances. In this action, QPWB did perform additional legal
Services,
I have reviewed the pleadings, motions, and entire contents of the file of Plaintiff’
attorneys, QPWB.
J am familiar with the subject matter of this lawsuit and am personally familiar with the
rate customarily charged for similar legal matters in this area.
It is my opinion that the time and services rendered by QPWB, were reasonable and
necessary to represent adequately and appropriately Plaintiff in this cause.
Jam familiar with Rule 4-1.5(b) of the Rule Regulating the Florida Bar and have taken into
consideration the factors set forth in such Rule for the determination of reasonable
attomey's fees.
10. 1 am also familiar with and have considered the dictates of the Florida Supreme Court in
the case of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund y, Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985) for the
determination of reasonable attorney's fees.
11, In arriving at my opinion of the value of reasonable attomey's fees in this action, I have
utilized and considered the following criteria:
i ‘The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,
and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly.
i The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
iii The fee customarily in the locality for similar legal services.
iv. The amount involved and the results obtained.
v, The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
Vi The nature and tength of the professional relationship with the client
vii. The experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
services.
viii. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent,
12. In my opinion, based upon the foregoing, that the flat rate of $4,100.00 is reasonable and is
within the prevailing rate charged in Florida by lawyers or reasonably comparable skill,
experience and reputation for similar services.

Matter No: FL-000102-21
Case No.: 2022CA000005
13. Additionally, in my opinion, the amount in additional attorneys fees for 1.0 hours of
litigation at $250.00 per hour, 6.75 hours of litigation at $300,00 per hour for the total sum
of $2,275.00 is reasonable and is within the prevailing rate charged in Florida by lawyers or
reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation for similar services.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
-
Dated this _ of day of 23.

MithiaelA faasch, Esquire

Sworn fo (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by means of physical a or a online
a
notarization, this 227 day of We , 2023, by Mi , who
is personally known to me. —_——.
lle.
< cag

oni “ny
ot wo fh.eneDA, Ny %
$
=
oeeR, %

Matter No.; FL-000102-21
Case No,; 2022CA000005
TIME
TAOS cI COUT ai
jony/2003 $1000 AR $1000 rs us rad.
wipe sst009 casts 452009 Ir Seve Te
emp 30000 as eaasi2 345000 eu fH fea RECOPARE DEAT PATS HOTT ROTO PRG
wnapon $0000 as cast $5000 oe. suyce/ACTROTET Or ACTEM PACYAGEFOR RUC WA
~ TebowFea /REVERRE DUA PLMTATS HORT FOR TATENTON OF MIE TO PERTCT SRE, ORDERON
wisp 25000 cess 23000 ‘uve nsoutrTn To weae
spaopoiz s1aro0 exasrs S100 Fee. HeseveeCorete
eeior ‘35000 xan 523000 out Fee- Fe Hoa Fe PREPAREAID ATTESO CASE WANACENEN CONTERUNEE
anyon 02s x830 $7500 Aieudl Fee FC ion Fee Dil cent itated pol kt lo surance company oad sou 125/22 (Recor)
sport $2000 et snoce Tea FCdudaneal tered
pene $300.00 as cxeer $4000 Neat Fea FC Moat Fee touty Attorer Fee thecoverabe Morne Rese
appro $3000 arent ea Fee FE Mout ee outa rey Fee Recrerb') ences ate eA
$6215.00

Case Info

Judge

KOBERLEIN JR Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 02, 2023

Case Filing Date

January 13, 2022

County

Parties

BRYAN, PAUL SPURGIN Judge At Disposition
CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER Defendant
CHURCH, KELLEY LOUISE Attorney for the Plaintiff
DASHAWN WILLIAMS, ANDREA Defendant
FIRST FEDERAL BANK Plaintiff
LINDSAY, YVETTE M Defendant
UNKNOWN HEIRS BENEFICIARIES DE Defendant
UNKNOWN TENANT 1 Defendant
UNKNOWN TENANT 2 Defendant
Michelle De Leon Attorney
Brandi Wilson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Paasch Attorney
Susan Sparks Attorney
Michelle Delancy Attorney

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

Motion,Ex Parte: FIRST FEDERAL BANK vs CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties