Preview
Filing # 139089255 E-Filed 11/23/2021 02:42:35 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN CASE NO.: 502020CA008640XXXXMB
TRUST I, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS LEGAL
TITLE TRUSTEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
QUINTON LLC, ET AL.
Defendants.
/
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COMES NOW the Defendant, QUINTON LLC, by and through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's complaint, and states as
follows:
ANSWER
1. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1
and so the allegations are expressly, directly and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
2. Defendant admits executing a note and mortgage similar to those attached to the
Complaint. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and Defendant
demands strict proof thereof.
3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 and demands strict
proof thereof.
4. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4
we 4 2 at A a a tut. ata a Ne a 4a at
afd SO We aLLeEgauOns are EXpressiy, GITeCuy, ala EXplciuy Genied ana VeLenuant aemlanaus suice
CHEN. DAIAARCACUAAIINTY Cl INCEDU ARDIIV7ZN FLEDY 441991INNN4 NO.A0.25 DNA
PILL. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, FL, JUOL I mDnNueey, ULL, Ieee! ue.te.u9 rivtproof thereof
5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are admitted.
6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and demands strict
proof thereof.
7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 and demands strict
proof thereof.
8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and demands strict
proof thereof.
9. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9
and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 are admitted.
11. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11
and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
i2. Defendant is without knowiedge as to the aliegations contamed in Paragraph 12
and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
13. | Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13
and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
14. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14
and en tha allanatinns ava avnracchy divanthy and avaliaith: daniad and Nafandant damande ateat
GG 50 ule aucgauons aie Caxpressiy, Guecuy, ana Capuciuy Geoiea ana Veicnaane Glinanas Suiceproof thereof.
15. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15
and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
16. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16
and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict
proof thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
As and for Affirmative Defenses, Defendant asserts, and states as follows:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: This Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action inasmuch as Plaintiff has not and cannot establish it is the real
party in interest to enforce the mortgage and note that is the subject of the above styled cause.
Specifically, Plaintiff did not legally own and hold the note and mortgage at issue at the time this
foreclosure action was filed and has not legally come into possession of the note and mortgage at
any time thereatter.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION: This Court lacks subject matter
Jurisdiction over this action inasmuch as Plaintiff has not and cannot establish it is the real party
in interest to enforce the mortgage and note that is the subject of the above styled cause.
Specifically, Plaintiff did not legally own and hold the note and mortgage at issue at the time this
foreclosure action was filed and has not legally come into possession of the note and mortgage at
nn time tharanftar
any ume uicreaner,THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. ILLEGAL CHARGES ADDED TO BALANCE: Plaintiff has charged and/or
collected payments from Defendants for attorney fees, legal fees, foreclosure costs, late charges,
property inspection fees, title search expenses, filing fees, broker price opinions, appraisal fees,
mortgage insurance and other charges and advances, and predatory lending fees and charges that
are not authorized by or in conformity with the terms of the subject note and mortgage which
specifies the waiver of late payments and other collection charges as part of the forbearance and
loan modification default loan servicing. Plaintiff wrongfully added and continues to unilaterally
add these illegal charges to the balance Plaintiff claims is due and owing under the subject note
and mortgage
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. FAILURE OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING: UNFAIR AND
UNACCEPTABLE LOAN SERVICING: Plaintiff intentionally failed to act in good faith or to
deal fairly with the subject Defendants by failing to follow the applicable standards of residential
single-family mortgage servicing as described in these Affirmative Defenses thereby denying
Detendant access to the residential mortgage servicing protocols appitcabie to the subject note
and mortgage
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. UNCLEAN HANDS: The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands and is
prohibited by reason thereof from obtaining the equitable relief of foreclosure from this Court.
The Plaintiff's unclean hands result from the Plaintiff's improvident and predatory intentional
failure to comply with material terms of the mortgage and note; the failure to comply with the
Aafanlt Inan catia: Jramante that annly ta this aan all ac dacarithad havain ahava Aso
Geiauit 1a servicing requirements Ulat appry tO Wiis iOail, au aS GeScrivea Neen above. AS amatter of equity, this Court should refuse to foreclose this mortgage because acceleration of the
note would be inequitable, unjust, and the circumstances of this case render acceleration
unconscionable. This court should refuse the acceleration and deny foreclosure because Plaintiff
has waived the right to acceleration or is estopped from doing so because of misleading conduct
and unfulfilled contractual and equitable conditions precedent.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. LACK OF STANDING: The Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue its claims against
Defendants and lacked standing at the time this action was filed. Specifically, Plaintiff did not
legally own and/or hold the note and mortgage at issue at the time this foreclosure action was
filed and has not legally come into possession of the note and mortgage at any time thereafter
REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND C s
Defendant has retained the undersigned to represent him in this action and will incur
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant seeks reasonable attorney fees and costs from
Plaintiff pursuant to the note and mortgage that are the subject of this action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice
and tor iraud upon the Court, and for her attorneys’ tees and costs and for all other reliet to
which this Court finds Defendant entitled.
MHK LEGAL, PLLC.
11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
Coral Spniigs, rioraa 33076
PHONE: 954-639-9952
FACSIMILE:
EMAIL: service@mhklegal.com
BY: _/s/ Mark H. Klein
Marl I Wain Bon
MAGIK 11. NACI, Sq.
Fla. Bar No. 607347CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal sent via Email
transmission to Thomas Crowder, Esq., at notice@kahaneandassociates.com, Vuth Un, Esq at
vun@ssclawfirm.com and foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com, John J. Pankauski, Esq, at
courtfilings@phflorida.com and David J. Brown, Esq. at djbrownlaw3@gmail.com on this 23“
day of November 2021.
BY: _/s/ Mark H. Klein
Mark H. Kiein, Esq.
Preview
Filing # 139089255 E-Filed 11/23/2021 02:42:35 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN CASE NO.: 502020CA008640XXXXMB TRUST I, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, Plaintiff, vs. QUINTON LLC, ET AL. Defendants. / ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW the Defendant, QUINTON LLC, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's complaint, and states as follows: ANSWER 1. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 and so the allegations are expressly, directly and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 2. Defendant admits executing a note and mortgage similar to those attached to the Complaint. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 and demands strict proof thereof. 4. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 we 4 2 at A a a tut. ata a Ne a 4a at afd SO We aLLeEgauOns are EXpressiy, GITeCuy, ala EXplciuy Genied ana VeLenuant aemlanaus suice CHEN. DAIAARCACUAAIINTY Cl INCEDU ARDIIV7ZN FLEDY 441991INNN4 NO.A0.25 DNA PILL. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, FL, JUOL I mDnNueey, ULL, Ieee! ue.te.u9 rivtproof thereof 5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are admitted. 6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and demands strict proof thereof. 7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 and demands strict proof thereof. 8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and demands strict proof thereof. 9. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 are admitted. 11. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. i2. Defendant is without knowiedge as to the aliegations contamed in Paragraph 12 and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 13. | Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 14. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 and en tha allanatinns ava avnracchy divanthy and avaliaith: daniad and Nafandant damande ateat GG 50 ule aucgauons aie Caxpressiy, Guecuy, ana Capuciuy Geoiea ana Veicnaane Glinanas Suiceproof thereof. 15. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 16. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and so the allegations are expressly, directly, and explicitly denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As and for Affirmative Defenses, Defendant asserts, and states as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION: This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action inasmuch as Plaintiff has not and cannot establish it is the real party in interest to enforce the mortgage and note that is the subject of the above styled cause. Specifically, Plaintiff did not legally own and hold the note and mortgage at issue at the time this foreclosure action was filed and has not legally come into possession of the note and mortgage at any time thereatter. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION: This Court lacks subject matter Jurisdiction over this action inasmuch as Plaintiff has not and cannot establish it is the real party in interest to enforce the mortgage and note that is the subject of the above styled cause. Specifically, Plaintiff did not legally own and hold the note and mortgage at issue at the time this foreclosure action was filed and has not legally come into possession of the note and mortgage at nn time tharanftar any ume uicreaner,THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. ILLEGAL CHARGES ADDED TO BALANCE: Plaintiff has charged and/or collected payments from Defendants for attorney fees, legal fees, foreclosure costs, late charges, property inspection fees, title search expenses, filing fees, broker price opinions, appraisal fees, mortgage insurance and other charges and advances, and predatory lending fees and charges that are not authorized by or in conformity with the terms of the subject note and mortgage which specifies the waiver of late payments and other collection charges as part of the forbearance and loan modification default loan servicing. Plaintiff wrongfully added and continues to unilaterally add these illegal charges to the balance Plaintiff claims is due and owing under the subject note and mortgage FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. FAILURE OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING: UNFAIR AND UNACCEPTABLE LOAN SERVICING: Plaintiff intentionally failed to act in good faith or to deal fairly with the subject Defendants by failing to follow the applicable standards of residential single-family mortgage servicing as described in these Affirmative Defenses thereby denying Detendant access to the residential mortgage servicing protocols appitcabie to the subject note and mortgage FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. UNCLEAN HANDS: The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands and is prohibited by reason thereof from obtaining the equitable relief of foreclosure from this Court. The Plaintiff's unclean hands result from the Plaintiff's improvident and predatory intentional failure to comply with material terms of the mortgage and note; the failure to comply with the Aafanlt Inan catia: Jramante that annly ta this aan all ac dacarithad havain ahava Aso Geiauit 1a servicing requirements Ulat appry tO Wiis iOail, au aS GeScrivea Neen above. AS amatter of equity, this Court should refuse to foreclose this mortgage because acceleration of the note would be inequitable, unjust, and the circumstances of this case render acceleration unconscionable. This court should refuse the acceleration and deny foreclosure because Plaintiff has waived the right to acceleration or is estopped from doing so because of misleading conduct and unfulfilled contractual and equitable conditions precedent. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. LACK OF STANDING: The Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue its claims against Defendants and lacked standing at the time this action was filed. Specifically, Plaintiff did not legally own and/or hold the note and mortgage at issue at the time this foreclosure action was filed and has not legally come into possession of the note and mortgage at any time thereafter REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND C s Defendant has retained the undersigned to represent him in this action and will incur reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant seeks reasonable attorney fees and costs from Plaintiff pursuant to the note and mortgage that are the subject of this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and tor iraud upon the Court, and for her attorneys’ tees and costs and for all other reliet to which this Court finds Defendant entitled. MHK LEGAL, PLLC. 11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Spniigs, rioraa 33076 PHONE: 954-639-9952 FACSIMILE: EMAIL: service@mhklegal.com BY: _/s/ Mark H. Klein Marl I Wain Bon MAGIK 11. NACI, Sq. Fla. Bar No. 607347CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal sent via Email transmission to Thomas Crowder, Esq., at notice@kahaneandassociates.com, Vuth Un, Esq at vun@ssclawfirm.com and foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com, John J. Pankauski, Esq, at courtfilings@phflorida.com and David J. Brown, Esq. at djbrownlaw3@gmail.com on this 23“ day of November 2021. BY: _/s/ Mark H. Klein Mark H. Kiein, Esq.