Preview
Filing # 63509115 E-Filed 10/30/2017 04:38:40 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY REAL
ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC, CASE NO: 17000587CA
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILFREDO MILAN; LISSETTE
REIGOSA, et al.,
Defendant(s).
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff, FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC, by and
through the undersigned counsel, hereby serves its response to Defendants’, WILFREDO
MILAN and LISSETTE REIGOSA’s, First Set of Interrogatories on Plaintiff numbered 1
through 15.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These responses have been prepared from information obtained from expected and
reasonably available sources by Plaintiff through reasonably diligent inquiry. To the extent that
any of these interrogatories purport to require more, however, Plaintiff objects to each of them
on the ground that it imposes undue burden or expense.
The information provided in these responses is based upon such information as is
reasonably available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff expressly reserves the right, without assuming
any duty of disclosure not required under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or order of this
Court, to revise, amend, correct, add or clarify any of these responses if and when additional
information or documentation comes to its attention.
Whether responding to each interrogatory by answer or objection, Plaintiff does not
concede the evidentiary relevance, materiality, or admissibility of any of these interrogatories,
the responses thereto, or the subject matter to which they relate.
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First InterrogatoriesPlaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement or amend these objections and
responses upon, among other things: further investigation; discovery of additional facts;
discovery of persons with knowledge of relevant information; and developments in this action
or in any other proceedings.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Without in any way limiting the force or application of the Preliminary Statement,
Plaintiff asserts the following general objections (hereinafter referred to as “General
Objections”):
1,
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information
that constitutes attorney work product or that was prepared in anticipation of legal
action and thus protected by attorney-client privilege.
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants require Plaintiff
to provide information not within the scope of discovery permitted by the Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek
information, documents, or responses to matters that are not asserted in the
pleadings on the grounds that the information is not relevant to any issue
legitimately raised in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information
that is not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control and/or is uniquely within
the knowledge of Defendants or other third parties with knowledge relevant to this
action.
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information
that is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, vexatious,
or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS
Without in any way limiting the force or application of the Preliminary Statement and
General Objections, Plaintiff asserts these specific objections (hereinafter referred to as
17-029998
Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories“Specific Objections”) and responds to the correspondingly numbered Interrogatory requests,
as follows:
1. What is the name and address, job title, employer, business address and phone number of
the person answering these interrogatories and explain in detail the relationship of the
person answering these interrogatories to the Plaintiff in this case.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as overly broad, unduly burdensome, it is irrelevant,
immaterial, appears calculated to harass, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the
scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. Subject to and without waiving
these objections, please see signature line below. In addition, counsel of record has
assisted with the preparation of the Responses to Defendant’s interrogatories.
2. Please state all details known by Plaintiff to support the statement in Plaintiff's
Certification Regarding Original Promissory Note of the CERTIFICATION OF
POSSESSION PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. 702.015(4), “On June 21, 2017, I obtained
the original Note document at 5:18 p.m. and personally verified that the law firm of Tripp
Scott, P.A. is in possession of the Note on Behalf of the Plaintiff.”.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as overly broad, unduly burdensome, it is irrelevant,
immaterial, appears calculated to harass, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the
scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. Subject to and without waiving
these objections, Plaintiff sent the original Note to its counsel and counsel certified
that he received and reviewed the actual original note, prior to filing the Complaint.
3. Please state all details known by Plaintiff regarding the indorsement, placed on the original
Note in question. Include the date said indorsement was placed on the Note, who
authorized the indorser to place the indorsement on the note, what authority the indorser
had to make the indorsement, and whether any subsequent indorsements were placed on
the note.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla, 2100) (“any requests
for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. Ist DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with
the Complaint.
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories4. Please state all details known by Plaintiff regarding how it first received possession of the
note. Include when Plaintiff received the note, who delivered the note to Plaintiff, who
received the note, whether Plaintiff only received certain rights in the note, if so, what
rights, the location the note was stored prior to this action, etc.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests
for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. Ist DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
5. Please state all details regarding the custodian of the note in question. Include, when the
custodian was in possession of the note, on whose behalf the custodian was in possession
of the note, who deposited the note with the custodian, etc.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for
information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
6. How did Plaintiff first receive the original Note in question? Was it endorsed when
Plaintiff received the document? Where did this happen, when did it happen, who
received the Note (name of the employee who received it), was any consideration paid for
the Note, is there any evidence of that consideration, and are there any contracts which
memorialize this transfer? Include specific details, not generalities such as “Plaintiff is the
holder and entitled to enforce.”
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al,
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatoriesfor information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
7. Please provide all details that Plaintiff knows regarding the owner of the note and
mortgage. State the name of the entity who owns the note and mortgage, how it authorized
the servicer to bring this action, how long has it owned the note and mortgage for, is it the
equitable or legal holder of the note and mortgage, ete.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Ciy. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for
information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v,
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
8. Please explain and describe for the subject mortgage loan: the relationships among parties
(including the Plaintiff, any servicer, any owner, all trustees past and present, any investor,
any custodian, any depository, any special purpose vehicle or special purpose entity); the
structure of the securities offer (including the flow of funds or any subordination features);
and any other material features of any transaction concerning the sale, transfer or
assignment of the mortgage loan at any time between the making of same and the
Plaintiff's filing of the action at issue herein.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests
for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC y. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories10.
ll.
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
Please state all for the history of the mortgage loan on whose behalf mortgage payments
were collected, specifying the applicable dates collection was made for each such person
or entity and specifying the name, current address, current phone number, current
employer, and employer at the time, and the current address of any and all employers, of
each such person or entity.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla, 2100) (“any requests
for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc,, 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
Please explain whether Plaintiff or its predecessors in interest has, since the inception of
the loan, sent any notices to Defendant pursuant to paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Ifthe
answer to this question is yes, please provide the exact date said notices were prepared, the
name of the person who prepared such notices, the person or entities to which the notices
were sent to, and a brief summarization of the content of said notices.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff sent a Notice of
Default and Intent to Accelerate and Foreclosure, to the Defendant. A copy of the
Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate and Foreclosure, was filed with the
Complaint.
If this mortgage and note are held in a securitization trust, including but not limited to a
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae trust, explain all associations with said trust,
please specifically identify any relevant mortgage loan schedule which should include the
Mortgagor’s name, loan identification number, the property address, etc.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, the subject note and
mortgage are not held in a securitization trust.
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v, Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories12. Describe and identify the computer system(s) which hold, process, creates documents,
prepares data, maintain, analysis, and otherwise contain the documents, information, data
compilations, codes, and records of Defendant’s purported mortgage, note, payment
history, indebtedness, lender placed insurance, hazard insurance, late charges, appraisal,
property inspections, brokers price opinions, title charges, title updates, etc. When
identifying a system, please include the name of the system, the date of the system was
created, who maintains the system, who developed the system, what tasks the system
performs, who has access to this system, how often the system is audited for accuracy,
how information is boarded or input into the system, who boards the information into the
system, and where the server to the system is located.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280.
13. Please describe any and all bailee letters or other documents or data compilations which
show who owned, held, serviced, or otherwise had any rights to enforce the note or
mortgage at issue in this action.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests
for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are
irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will
not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v.
Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is
not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into
Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A
copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the
Complaint.
14. Please specifically describe how the servicer has been authorized to act on behalf of the
holder of the note. When was this authorization given, what documents memorialize this
authorization, what is the extent of the servicer’s authorization to act on behalf of the
holder.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and
holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff.
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC y. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories15. Please list all entities who currently service or have serviced this loan on behalf of
Plaintiff. For each entity, please specify the name of the entity, the address of the entity,
the period of time for which the entity serviced the loan, and what obligations, duties, and
authority each entity had to act on behalf of the Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this
foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and
holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff.
[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First InterrogatoriesFLORIDA OPPORPUNITY, REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC
Signature:
Print Name: He ane ial AS
ritle: Sle monde
Date: (0/99] i
hile of _ Floude
eunlg of Halon Beach
SUBSCRIBED and okN to before me on. this x day of October, 2017, by
NaStywe Wha _— , O known to me (tf or satisfactorily proven to me
through pr oduction of Driver Lecmgs as identification) to be the person(s) who
appeared before me,
(seal Qentitay,,
Se Bonny
Notary Public, State of
Commission No.: Eg
My Commission tapiee
AS to objections,
TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
110 SE Sixth Street, 15th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954.625
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First InterrogatoriesCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant’s First Interrogatories was furnished this BO day of October, 2017 via mail or
electronic mail, as appropriate, to the parties on the service list below.
JACQULYN MACK-MAJKA, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
110 S.E. Sixth St., 15th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone (954) 525-7501
Facsimile (954) 761-847
By:
H. 'Michael Solloa, Ji.,
Fla. Bar No. 37854
mxs@trippscott.com
nds@trippscott.com
Esq.
SERVICE LIST
Case Number: 17000587CA
WILFREDO MILAN & LISSETTE REIGOSA
MACK LAW FIRM CHARTERED
2022 PLACIDA ROAD
ENGLEWOOD, FL 34224
eservice] @macklawfirm.org
eservice2@macklawfirm.org
CURRENT TENANT(S)
3063 PELLAM BLVD.
PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33952
17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al.
Case no.: 17000587CA
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories
Preview
Filing # 63509115 E-Filed 10/30/2017 04:38:40 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC, CASE NO: 17000587CA Plaintiff, vs. WILFREDO MILAN; LISSETTE REIGOSA, et al., Defendant(s). PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, FLORIDA OPPORTUNITY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby serves its response to Defendants’, WILFREDO MILAN and LISSETTE REIGOSA’s, First Set of Interrogatories on Plaintiff numbered 1 through 15. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses have been prepared from information obtained from expected and reasonably available sources by Plaintiff through reasonably diligent inquiry. To the extent that any of these interrogatories purport to require more, however, Plaintiff objects to each of them on the ground that it imposes undue burden or expense. The information provided in these responses is based upon such information as is reasonably available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff expressly reserves the right, without assuming any duty of disclosure not required under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or order of this Court, to revise, amend, correct, add or clarify any of these responses if and when additional information or documentation comes to its attention. Whether responding to each interrogatory by answer or objection, Plaintiff does not concede the evidentiary relevance, materiality, or admissibility of any of these interrogatories, the responses thereto, or the subject matter to which they relate. 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First InterrogatoriesPlaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement or amend these objections and responses upon, among other things: further investigation; discovery of additional facts; discovery of persons with knowledge of relevant information; and developments in this action or in any other proceedings. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Without in any way limiting the force or application of the Preliminary Statement, Plaintiff asserts the following general objections (hereinafter referred to as “General Objections”): 1, Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information that constitutes attorney work product or that was prepared in anticipation of legal action and thus protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants require Plaintiff to provide information not within the scope of discovery permitted by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information, documents, or responses to matters that are not asserted in the pleadings on the grounds that the information is not relevant to any issue legitimately raised in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information that is not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control and/or is uniquely within the knowledge of Defendants or other third parties with knowledge relevant to this action. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that Defendants seek information that is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, vexatious, or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS Without in any way limiting the force or application of the Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Plaintiff asserts these specific objections (hereinafter referred to as 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories“Specific Objections”) and responds to the correspondingly numbered Interrogatory requests, as follows: 1. What is the name and address, job title, employer, business address and phone number of the person answering these interrogatories and explain in detail the relationship of the person answering these interrogatories to the Plaintiff in this case. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as overly broad, unduly burdensome, it is irrelevant, immaterial, appears calculated to harass, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. Subject to and without waiving these objections, please see signature line below. In addition, counsel of record has assisted with the preparation of the Responses to Defendant’s interrogatories. 2. Please state all details known by Plaintiff to support the statement in Plaintiff's Certification Regarding Original Promissory Note of the CERTIFICATION OF POSSESSION PURSUANT TO FLA. STAT. 702.015(4), “On June 21, 2017, I obtained the original Note document at 5:18 p.m. and personally verified that the law firm of Tripp Scott, P.A. is in possession of the Note on Behalf of the Plaintiff.”. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as overly broad, unduly burdensome, it is irrelevant, immaterial, appears calculated to harass, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff sent the original Note to its counsel and counsel certified that he received and reviewed the actual original note, prior to filing the Complaint. 3. Please state all details known by Plaintiff regarding the indorsement, placed on the original Note in question. Include the date said indorsement was placed on the Note, who authorized the indorser to place the indorsement on the note, what authority the indorser had to make the indorsement, and whether any subsequent indorsements were placed on the note. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla, 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. Ist DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories4. Please state all details known by Plaintiff regarding how it first received possession of the note. Include when Plaintiff received the note, who delivered the note to Plaintiff, who received the note, whether Plaintiff only received certain rights in the note, if so, what rights, the location the note was stored prior to this action, etc. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. Ist DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. 5. Please state all details regarding the custodian of the note in question. Include, when the custodian was in possession of the note, on whose behalf the custodian was in possession of the note, who deposited the note with the custodian, etc. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. 6. How did Plaintiff first receive the original Note in question? Was it endorsed when Plaintiff received the document? Where did this happen, when did it happen, who received the Note (name of the employee who received it), was any consideration paid for the Note, is there any evidence of that consideration, and are there any contracts which memorialize this transfer? Include specific details, not generalities such as “Plaintiff is the holder and entitled to enforce.” ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al, Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatoriesfor information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. 7. Please provide all details that Plaintiff knows regarding the owner of the note and mortgage. State the name of the entity who owns the note and mortgage, how it authorized the servicer to bring this action, how long has it owned the note and mortgage for, is it the equitable or legal holder of the note and mortgage, ete. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Ciy. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v, Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. 8. Please explain and describe for the subject mortgage loan: the relationships among parties (including the Plaintiff, any servicer, any owner, all trustees past and present, any investor, any custodian, any depository, any special purpose vehicle or special purpose entity); the structure of the securities offer (including the flow of funds or any subordination features); and any other material features of any transaction concerning the sale, transfer or assignment of the mortgage loan at any time between the making of same and the Plaintiff's filing of the action at issue herein. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC y. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories10. ll. copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. Please state all for the history of the mortgage loan on whose behalf mortgage payments were collected, specifying the applicable dates collection was made for each such person or entity and specifying the name, current address, current phone number, current employer, and employer at the time, and the current address of any and all employers, of each such person or entity. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla, 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc,, 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. Please explain whether Plaintiff or its predecessors in interest has, since the inception of the loan, sent any notices to Defendant pursuant to paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Ifthe answer to this question is yes, please provide the exact date said notices were prepared, the name of the person who prepared such notices, the person or entities to which the notices were sent to, and a brief summarization of the content of said notices. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff sent a Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate and Foreclosure, to the Defendant. A copy of the Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate and Foreclosure, was filed with the Complaint. If this mortgage and note are held in a securitization trust, including but not limited to a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae trust, explain all associations with said trust, please specifically identify any relevant mortgage loan schedule which should include the Mortgagor’s name, loan identification number, the property address, etc. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, the subject note and mortgage are not held in a securitization trust. 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v, Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories12. Describe and identify the computer system(s) which hold, process, creates documents, prepares data, maintain, analysis, and otherwise contain the documents, information, data compilations, codes, and records of Defendant’s purported mortgage, note, payment history, indebtedness, lender placed insurance, hazard insurance, late charges, appraisal, property inspections, brokers price opinions, title charges, title updates, etc. When identifying a system, please include the name of the system, the date of the system was created, who maintains the system, who developed the system, what tasks the system performs, who has access to this system, how often the system is audited for accuracy, how information is boarded or input into the system, who boards the information into the system, and where the server to the system is located. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. 13. Please describe any and all bailee letters or other documents or data compilations which show who owned, held, serviced, or otherwise had any rights to enforce the note or mortgage at issue in this action. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. In re Balderrama, 451 B.R. 185, 187 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2100) (“any requests for information regarding the prior ownership history of the note or mortgage are irrelevant and overbroad under Florida law.”). Pursuant to Florida law, Courts will not look beyond the holder of the Note to identify the proper Plaintiff. Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the note and mortgage on or about June 7, 2012. A copy of the Note, Mortgage and Assignments of Mortgage were filed with the Complaint. 14. Please specifically describe how the servicer has been authorized to act on behalf of the holder of the note. When was this authorization given, what documents memorialize this authorization, what is the extent of the servicer’s authorization to act on behalf of the holder. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC y. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories15. Please list all entities who currently service or have serviced this loan on behalf of Plaintiff. For each entity, please specify the name of the entity, the address of the entity, the period of time for which the entity serviced the loan, and what obligations, duties, and authority each entity had to act on behalf of the Plaintiff. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the basis that this is irrelevant, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence in this foreclosure action, and not within the scope of discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. To the extent this Interrogatory is not objectionable, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the Note, indorsed into Plaintiff. [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First InterrogatoriesFLORIDA OPPORPUNITY, REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC Signature: Print Name: He ane ial AS ritle: Sle monde Date: (0/99] i hile of _ Floude eunlg of Halon Beach SUBSCRIBED and okN to before me on. this x day of October, 2017, by NaStywe Wha _— , O known to me (tf or satisfactorily proven to me through pr oduction of Driver Lecmgs as identification) to be the person(s) who appeared before me, (seal Qentitay,, Se Bonny Notary Public, State of Commission No.: Eg My Commission tapiee AS to objections, TRIPP SCOTT, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 110 SE Sixth Street, 15th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954.625 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First InterrogatoriesCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s First Interrogatories was furnished this BO day of October, 2017 via mail or electronic mail, as appropriate, to the parties on the service list below. JACQULYN MACK-MAJKA, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS TRIPP SCOTT, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 110 S.E. Sixth St., 15th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone (954) 525-7501 Facsimile (954) 761-847 By: H. 'Michael Solloa, Ji., Fla. Bar No. 37854 mxs@trippscott.com nds@trippscott.com Esq. SERVICE LIST Case Number: 17000587CA WILFREDO MILAN & LISSETTE REIGOSA MACK LAW FIRM CHARTERED 2022 PLACIDA ROAD ENGLEWOOD, FL 34224 eservice] @macklawfirm.org eservice2@macklawfirm.org CURRENT TENANT(S) 3063 PELLAM BLVD. PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33952 17-029998 Florida Opportunity Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Wilfredo Milan; Lissette Reigosa, et al. Case no.: 17000587CA Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories