Preview
Filing # 74066071 E-Filed 06/25/2018 04:44:52 PM
INTHE 11™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 17-014524 CA 01
CIT BANK, N.A.
Plaintiff,
vs.
HELEN V. ROLLE, et al.,
Defendant(s)
|
DEFENDANT'S VERIFIED* ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT
(*Verified By Defendant’s Son Through Valid Power of Attorney)
COMES NOW, the Defendant, HELEN V. ROLLE [Hereinafter, “Defendant” and/or
“ROLLE”], by and through the undersigned attorney, and files this Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the Verified Complaint (“Complaint”), and Answers as follows:
ANSWER TO COUNT I-MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
1. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1
of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must
therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2
of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must
therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.10.
11.
12.
13.
Defendant ADMITS that part as to the demise of ROBERT A. ROLLE, but DENIES
the balance of the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.
Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
ADMITS.
Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10
of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must
therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10
of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must
therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10
of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must
Page 2 of 10therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Defendant DENIES the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and
demands strict proof thereof.
[Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that it prays
for in the “Wherefore” clause found in Count I of the Plaintiffs Complaint].
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, HELEN V. ROLLE, having fully answered
the Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, prays that this Honorable Court enters a judgment of
dismissal with prejudice, enters an award of a reasonable attorney fee and costs, as
well as any further and additional relief this Honorable Court deems just and necessary.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Facts Common To The Affirmative Defenses
A. The property in question is Defendant’s principal, primary and homestead
property.
B. On March 20, 2006, Robert A. Rolle Sr., and Helen V. Rolle, gave a reverse
mortgage to Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, a subsidiary of Indymac
Bank, F.S.B. On April 26, 2017, Robert A. Rolle Sr., died and the property has since
remained as Defendant's principal residence and homestead.
Cc. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit with an undated blank endorsement from Financial
Freedom Senior Funding Corporation as subsidiary of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. In fact,
some time during August 2008, IndyMac Bank filed for bankruptcy protection and
relief. Based on the stamp that appears on the copy of the promissory note that
Page 3 of 10appears as an exhibit to Plaintiff's complaint, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff obtained
the loan (via transfer) prior to IndyMac Bank’s filing for bankruptcy or while IndyMac
Bank was already in bankruptcy proceedings. The Plaintiff has failed to prove its
standing, even though a blank stamp endorsement is attached to this complaint.
Normally that stamp would be sufficient to confer standing but in the case of IndyMac
Bank, Plaintiff needs to prove when it acquired the loan and the mortgage from
IndyMac Bank.
D. Defendant’ son, Robert Rolle, as authorized agent and attorney in fact for Helen
V. Rolle, has been in contact with the Servicer of this loan regarding the force-placed
insurance put on the property by Plaintiff while Defendant carried insurance coverage
on the property for which monthly premiums were being paid in prompt and timely
fashion. In fact, in order to avoid any potential problems with the Servicer regarding
the subject loadn, Defendant made voluntary payments with the Servicer to pay the
insurance premium that Servicer claimed to have been advanced by it. However, the
Servicer refused the payments.
E. In addition, based on independent research, the blank endorsement stamped on
the note is not valid because a home equity conversion type of loan must be
transferred by way of a written assignment.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant, HELEN V. ROLLE, asserts the following
affirmative defenses:
1. As a first and further affirmative defense, the Defendant states the Plaintiff
Page 4 of 10has failed to state a cause of action to which relief can be granted. Plaintiff
claims that there was a “default” on July 28, 2016, but Plaintiff is barred from
enforcing any breach because it has unclean hands. Plaintiff force placed
insurance on the property, which was already properly and fully insured.
Defendant would make monthly insurance premium payments. Plaintiff
interfered with Defendant's insurance contract. It forced her to pay for Plaintiff’s
force-placed insurance policy without providing Defendant any monthly financing
opportunities. Defendant had enjoyed the benefit of monthly financing payments
before with her prior insurance company with whom she did business with and
which provided identical coverage. Plaintiff not only illegally force-placed
insurance, it demanded Defendant pay for this more expensive policy in one
lump sum, which Defendant could not afford.
As a second and further affirmative defense, Defendant would state that
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. No cause of action is stated since the
Plaintiff's unclean hands and bad faith dealings are the cause in fact of this
dispute and the Plaintiff is barred or estopped from suing in order to benefit
from its own misconduct.
As a third and further affirmative defense, Defendant states that Plaintiff is
required to file the original mortgage and promissory note instruments with the
registry of the Court. Upon filing the original note with the Clerk of Court, the
Defendant reserves the right to inspect the Note for authenticity and to amend
Page 5 of 10its Answer And Affirmative Defenses after inspection of said Note.
As a fourth and further affirmative defense, Defendant would state and
show that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. In order to have proper
standing, the Plaintiff must demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence
that Plaintiff acquired the loan which is the subject of the instant foreclosure
action prior to filing of the Complaint and that Plaintiff, as Trustee, has the rights
to enforce the loan as alleged.
No Florida case holds that a separate entity can maintain suit on a note payable
to another entity unless the requirements of Rule 1.210 (a) of the Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure and applicable Florida laws are met. Corcoran v. Brody, 347
So.2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).The Plaintiff’s lack of ownership of the note goes
to the heart of its claim of standing, permeates the entire proceeding and
subverts the integrity of the action. Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736
So.2d 794 (Fla. 3" DCA 1999), Plaintiff admits to be a Trustee for another entity
but has not provided any proof of transfer of ownership of the loan from the
original lender to that entity.
As a fifth and further affirmative defense, the Defendant would show that
the Plaintiff owes the Defendant an accounting as to the reverse mortgage loan
account since the Defendant carried the insurance coverage that was required of
her under the subject loan and a payment history demonstrates that Defendant
carried valid and adequate insurance at all material times as required under the
Page 6 of 10loan.
As a sixth and further affirmative defense, Defendant would state a copy of
the Note attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiffs Verified Complaint bears the
signature of the Decedent, Robert A. Rolle, that needs to be verified and
authenticated. Defendant does not believe that the signature appearing on the
copy of note is that the Decedent, Robert A. Rolle. Furthermore, Fla. Stats.
§673.3081(1), states as follows: “In an action with respect to an instrument, the
authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is
admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature
is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person
claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and
authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported
signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of the trial of
the issue of validity of the signature.” [Bold emphasis added]. In the
present case, Defendant, Robert A. Rolle, is deceased. Thus, the signature of
Robert A. Rolle that is on the Note is not presumed to be authentic and
authorized.
As a seventh and further additional affirmative defense, Defendant would
challenge the Plaintiff's legal standing and right to foreclose. The proper party
with standing to foreclose a Note and Mortgage is the holder of the Note and
Mortgage or the holder’s representative. See BAC Funding Consortium Inc.
Page 7 of 10ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010).
Defendant directly challenges Plaintiff’s legal standing to foreclose on his
mortgage. From the start of the litigation, there are valid and reasonable doubts
about Plaintiff's standing since Defendant's Note has been subject to a transfer
without any explanation as to when or by whom such transfer occurred,
especially considering that the original lender on the subject promissory note has
been in bankruptcy proceedings for a significant period of time. Plaintiff is
required to present evidence that it owned and held the subject Note and
Mortgage at the time Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order to establish its right
of standing so as to be able to proceed properly with the instant foreclosure
action. See Mazine v. M&d Bank, 67 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), citing
Servidio v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 46 So.3d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Tf Plaintiff fails to offer any proof of Plaintiff's ownership or possession of
the Note, it will have failed to meet the elements of a viable mortgage foreclosure
action as a matter of law. See Servedio v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n, 46 So.3d 1105,
1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), holding, in relevant part, that:
“The party seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it owns and holds the
Note and Mortgage in question in order to proceed with a foreclosure action.”
Lizio v. McCullom, 36 So.3d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
As an eighth and further affirmative defenses, Defendant would show that
Plaintiff has not met all conditions precedent to filing this action since Plaintiff
Page 8 of 10failed to provide notices as per Florida Statutes.
9. As a ninth and further affirmative defenses, Defendant would show that
Plaintiff has not complied with the verification requirements of Florida Statues §
702.10. To proceed with this expedited action, Plaintiff must submit an Affidavit
Of Amounts Due And Owing, the Payment History, and a Verification by the
Affiant as to the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations. The Verification
Requirements of Fla. Stats. § 702.10, do not permit the verification statement to
be made “upon information and belief”, which is what the Plaintiff has in fact
done. The applicable statutory requirements mandate that the verification
contain an affirmative statement that it is “true and correct”.
[Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer And Affirmative Defenses and/or to
interpose new and additional affirmative defenses as it may deem necessary based on
anticipated discovery that is to be undertaken.]
WHEREFORE, Defendant asks this Honorable Court to:
1. Dismiss the Verified Complaint involuntarily.
2. Award Defendant reasonable litigation-related defense costs.
3. Award Defendant reasonable attorneys’ fees to which it is entitled.
4. Grant such other relief as is appropriate and retain jurisdiction over the cause and
parties in order to award such other relief if necessary.
Page 9 of 10CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof was e-mailed to: Sean M. Swartz, Esq.,
Robert, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L.; e-address: mail@rasflaw.com, on this 25". day of
June , 2018.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES JEAN-FRANCOIS, P.A.
Duty Free Americas, Suite 211
6100 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33024
Telephone: (954)987-8832
Telecopier: (954)987-2622
e-address: jamesjeanfrancoisesqg@hotmail.com
jjonlaw@hotmail.com
/s/ James Jean-Francois
By:
JAMES JEAN-FRANCOIS, ESQ.
FBN: 0495115
Attorney for Defendant, ROLLE
Page 10 of 10
Preview
Filing # 74066071 E-Filed 06/25/2018 04:44:52 PM INTHE 11™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: 17-014524 CA 01 CIT BANK, N.A. Plaintiff, vs. HELEN V. ROLLE, et al., Defendant(s) | DEFENDANT'S VERIFIED* ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT (*Verified By Defendant’s Son Through Valid Power of Attorney) COMES NOW, the Defendant, HELEN V. ROLLE [Hereinafter, “Defendant” and/or “ROLLE”], by and through the undersigned attorney, and files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Verified Complaint (“Complaint”), and Answers as follows: ANSWER TO COUNT I-MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE 1. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.10. 11. 12. 13. Defendant ADMITS that part as to the demise of ROBERT A. ROLLE, but DENIES the balance of the allegations and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. ADMITS. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. Defendant DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and is unable to admit or deny said allegations, and must Page 2 of 10therefore deny said allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 14. Defendant DENIES the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. [Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that it prays for in the “Wherefore” clause found in Count I of the Plaintiffs Complaint]. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, HELEN V. ROLLE, having fully answered the Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, prays that this Honorable Court enters a judgment of dismissal with prejudice, enters an award of a reasonable attorney fee and costs, as well as any further and additional relief this Honorable Court deems just and necessary. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Facts Common To The Affirmative Defenses A. The property in question is Defendant’s principal, primary and homestead property. B. On March 20, 2006, Robert A. Rolle Sr., and Helen V. Rolle, gave a reverse mortgage to Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, a subsidiary of Indymac Bank, F.S.B. On April 26, 2017, Robert A. Rolle Sr., died and the property has since remained as Defendant's principal residence and homestead. Cc. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit with an undated blank endorsement from Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation as subsidiary of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. In fact, some time during August 2008, IndyMac Bank filed for bankruptcy protection and relief. Based on the stamp that appears on the copy of the promissory note that Page 3 of 10appears as an exhibit to Plaintiff's complaint, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff obtained the loan (via transfer) prior to IndyMac Bank’s filing for bankruptcy or while IndyMac Bank was already in bankruptcy proceedings. The Plaintiff has failed to prove its standing, even though a blank stamp endorsement is attached to this complaint. Normally that stamp would be sufficient to confer standing but in the case of IndyMac Bank, Plaintiff needs to prove when it acquired the loan and the mortgage from IndyMac Bank. D. Defendant’ son, Robert Rolle, as authorized agent and attorney in fact for Helen V. Rolle, has been in contact with the Servicer of this loan regarding the force-placed insurance put on the property by Plaintiff while Defendant carried insurance coverage on the property for which monthly premiums were being paid in prompt and timely fashion. In fact, in order to avoid any potential problems with the Servicer regarding the subject loadn, Defendant made voluntary payments with the Servicer to pay the insurance premium that Servicer claimed to have been advanced by it. However, the Servicer refused the payments. E. In addition, based on independent research, the blank endorsement stamped on the note is not valid because a home equity conversion type of loan must be transferred by way of a written assignment. Based on the foregoing, Defendant, HELEN V. ROLLE, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. As a first and further affirmative defense, the Defendant states the Plaintiff Page 4 of 10has failed to state a cause of action to which relief can be granted. Plaintiff claims that there was a “default” on July 28, 2016, but Plaintiff is barred from enforcing any breach because it has unclean hands. Plaintiff force placed insurance on the property, which was already properly and fully insured. Defendant would make monthly insurance premium payments. Plaintiff interfered with Defendant's insurance contract. It forced her to pay for Plaintiff’s force-placed insurance policy without providing Defendant any monthly financing opportunities. Defendant had enjoyed the benefit of monthly financing payments before with her prior insurance company with whom she did business with and which provided identical coverage. Plaintiff not only illegally force-placed insurance, it demanded Defendant pay for this more expensive policy in one lump sum, which Defendant could not afford. As a second and further affirmative defense, Defendant would state that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. No cause of action is stated since the Plaintiff's unclean hands and bad faith dealings are the cause in fact of this dispute and the Plaintiff is barred or estopped from suing in order to benefit from its own misconduct. As a third and further affirmative defense, Defendant states that Plaintiff is required to file the original mortgage and promissory note instruments with the registry of the Court. Upon filing the original note with the Clerk of Court, the Defendant reserves the right to inspect the Note for authenticity and to amend Page 5 of 10its Answer And Affirmative Defenses after inspection of said Note. As a fourth and further affirmative defense, Defendant would state and show that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. In order to have proper standing, the Plaintiff must demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that Plaintiff acquired the loan which is the subject of the instant foreclosure action prior to filing of the Complaint and that Plaintiff, as Trustee, has the rights to enforce the loan as alleged. No Florida case holds that a separate entity can maintain suit on a note payable to another entity unless the requirements of Rule 1.210 (a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Florida laws are met. Corcoran v. Brody, 347 So.2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).The Plaintiff’s lack of ownership of the note goes to the heart of its claim of standing, permeates the entire proceeding and subverts the integrity of the action. Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3" DCA 1999), Plaintiff admits to be a Trustee for another entity but has not provided any proof of transfer of ownership of the loan from the original lender to that entity. As a fifth and further affirmative defense, the Defendant would show that the Plaintiff owes the Defendant an accounting as to the reverse mortgage loan account since the Defendant carried the insurance coverage that was required of her under the subject loan and a payment history demonstrates that Defendant carried valid and adequate insurance at all material times as required under the Page 6 of 10loan. As a sixth and further affirmative defense, Defendant would state a copy of the Note attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiffs Verified Complaint bears the signature of the Decedent, Robert A. Rolle, that needs to be verified and authenticated. Defendant does not believe that the signature appearing on the copy of note is that the Decedent, Robert A. Rolle. Furthermore, Fla. Stats. §673.3081(1), states as follows: “In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of the trial of the issue of validity of the signature.” [Bold emphasis added]. In the present case, Defendant, Robert A. Rolle, is deceased. Thus, the signature of Robert A. Rolle that is on the Note is not presumed to be authentic and authorized. As a seventh and further additional affirmative defense, Defendant would challenge the Plaintiff's legal standing and right to foreclose. The proper party with standing to foreclose a Note and Mortgage is the holder of the Note and Mortgage or the holder’s representative. See BAC Funding Consortium Inc. Page 7 of 10ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010). Defendant directly challenges Plaintiff’s legal standing to foreclose on his mortgage. From the start of the litigation, there are valid and reasonable doubts about Plaintiff's standing since Defendant's Note has been subject to a transfer without any explanation as to when or by whom such transfer occurred, especially considering that the original lender on the subject promissory note has been in bankruptcy proceedings for a significant period of time. Plaintiff is required to present evidence that it owned and held the subject Note and Mortgage at the time Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order to establish its right of standing so as to be able to proceed properly with the instant foreclosure action. See Mazine v. M&d Bank, 67 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), citing Servidio v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 46 So.3d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Tf Plaintiff fails to offer any proof of Plaintiff's ownership or possession of the Note, it will have failed to meet the elements of a viable mortgage foreclosure action as a matter of law. See Servedio v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n, 46 So.3d 1105, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), holding, in relevant part, that: “The party seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it owns and holds the Note and Mortgage in question in order to proceed with a foreclosure action.” Lizio v. McCullom, 36 So.3d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As an eighth and further affirmative defenses, Defendant would show that Plaintiff has not met all conditions precedent to filing this action since Plaintiff Page 8 of 10failed to provide notices as per Florida Statutes. 9. As a ninth and further affirmative defenses, Defendant would show that Plaintiff has not complied with the verification requirements of Florida Statues § 702.10. To proceed with this expedited action, Plaintiff must submit an Affidavit Of Amounts Due And Owing, the Payment History, and a Verification by the Affiant as to the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations. The Verification Requirements of Fla. Stats. § 702.10, do not permit the verification statement to be made “upon information and belief”, which is what the Plaintiff has in fact done. The applicable statutory requirements mandate that the verification contain an affirmative statement that it is “true and correct”. [Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer And Affirmative Defenses and/or to interpose new and additional affirmative defenses as it may deem necessary based on anticipated discovery that is to be undertaken.] WHEREFORE, Defendant asks this Honorable Court to: 1. Dismiss the Verified Complaint involuntarily. 2. Award Defendant reasonable litigation-related defense costs. 3. Award Defendant reasonable attorneys’ fees to which it is entitled. 4. Grant such other relief as is appropriate and retain jurisdiction over the cause and parties in order to award such other relief if necessary. Page 9 of 10CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof was e-mailed to: Sean M. Swartz, Esq., Robert, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L.; e-address: mail@rasflaw.com, on this 25". day of June , 2018. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES JEAN-FRANCOIS, P.A. Duty Free Americas, Suite 211 6100 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33024 Telephone: (954)987-8832 Telecopier: (954)987-2622 e-address: jamesjeanfrancoisesqg@hotmail.com jjonlaw@hotmail.com /s/ James Jean-Francois By: JAMES JEAN-FRANCOIS, ESQ. FBN: 0495115 Attorney for Defendant, ROLLE Page 10 of 10