On November 08, 2012 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bank Of America Na,
Bayview Loan Servicing Llc,
Cp-Srmof Ii 2012-A Trust,,
and
Coral Springs City Of,
Elor, Guyma,
Nicolas, Gephny,
for Real Prop Homestead Res Fore - >$50K - <$250,000
in the District Court of Broward County.
Preview
Filing # 28157929 E-Filed 06/05/2015 03:22:15 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CP-SRMOF 11 2012-A TRUST, BY U.S. BANK
TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN
ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY
AS TRUSTEE
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO.: CACE12031506
GUYMA ELOR, et al.,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiff, CP-SRMOF 11 2012-A TRUST, BY U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE
through their undersigned attorney, hereby files its Response to Request for Admissions by
GUYMA ELOR and GEPHNY NICOLAS.
1. Denied.
2. Denied.
3. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
4. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant to the extent that CP-SRMOf II 2012-A
TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT
SOLELY AS TRUSTEE was not the original Plaintiff in this action and the request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5. Objection, Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
6. Admit.
7. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
8. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Matter # 69064
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 6/5/2015 3:22:15 PM.****10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21
22.
23.
24.
25.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Denied.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Denied.
Admit.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Matter # 6906426. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
27. Objection. Defendant’s request is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
28. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
29. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
30. Objection. Defendant’s request is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the forgoing has been served by U.S. Mail and/ or
e-mail on this 5" day of June, 2015 on the following:
/s/ Sasha Haro,
Sasha Haro (FL Bar No. 843121)
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 523-7008
Facsimile: (954) 523-7009
E-mail: servicecopies@qpwblaw.com
E-mail:sasha.haro@qpwblaw.com
Matter # 69064SERVICE LIST
LAURA L. HOY, ESQ
LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
2150 SOUTH ANDREWS AVE, 2‘? FLOOR
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
2101 W COMMERCIAL BLVD SUITE 5000
FT, LAUDERDALE, FL 33309
EMAIL: FLE@UDREN.COM
UNKNOWN TENANT/OCCUPANT(S)
3773 NORTHWEST 115 AVENUE
CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
Matter # 69064
Document Filed Date
June 05, 2015
Case Filing Date
November 08, 2012
Category
Real Prop Homestead Res Fore - >$50K - <$250,000
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 28157929 E-Filed 06/05/2015 03:22:15 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CP-SRMOF 11 2012-A TRUST, BY U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO.: CACE12031506 GUYMA ELOR, et al., Defendants. / PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Plaintiff, CP-SRMOF 11 2012-A TRUST, BY U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE through their undersigned attorney, hereby files its Response to Request for Admissions by GUYMA ELOR and GEPHNY NICOLAS. 1. Denied. 2. Denied. 3. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant to the extent that CP-SRMOf II 2012-A TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE was not the original Plaintiff in this action and the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Objection, Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Admit. 7. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Matter # 69064 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 6/5/2015 3:22:15 PM.****10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 22. 23. 24. 25. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Denied. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Denied. Admit. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Matter # 6906426. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 27. Objection. Defendant’s request is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 29. Objection. Defendant’s request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 30. Objection. Defendant’s request is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the forgoing has been served by U.S. Mail and/ or e-mail on this 5" day of June, 2015 on the following: /s/ Sasha Haro, Sasha Haro (FL Bar No. 843121) Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322 Telephone: (954) 523-7008 Facsimile: (954) 523-7009 E-mail: servicecopies@qpwblaw.com E-mail:sasha.haro@qpwblaw.com Matter # 69064SERVICE LIST LAURA L. HOY, ESQ LOAN LAWYERS, LLC 2150 SOUTH ANDREWS AVE, 2‘? FLOOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 2101 W COMMERCIAL BLVD SUITE 5000 FT, LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 EMAIL: FLE@UDREN.COM UNKNOWN TENANT/OCCUPANT(S) 3773 NORTHWEST 115 AVENUE CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065 Matter # 69064