Preview
Filing # 100032352 E-Filed 12/09/2019 05:05:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
IRIS BEAUGRAND, individually and as
POA for Heidrun Riedner,
Plaintiff,
y. CASE NO; 2017 CA 181
ROBERT O'TOOLE,
Defendant.
/
AFFIDAVIT OF IRIS BEAUGRAND
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF SARASOTA
1, Iris Beaugrand, being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say:
1. Lam over the age of 18 years old.
2. That the facts and matters stated herein are true and of Affiant’s own personal
knowledge.
we
judgment in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court case number 2016 CA 6351, Iris
Beaugrand v. Robert O° Toole (Sarasota case).
The issues between the parties have already been litigated in the pleadings and final
4. See the extensive counterclaim and answer to such (attached hereto) filed by Mr. Robert
O'Toole dealing with the Charlotte property which is at issue in-this case.
5. Further the trial court ruling which included a denial of the very same claims Mr.
O'Toole asserts herein or which could have been asserted, were affirmed in all respects
by the Second District Court of Appeal case number 2D 18-1935, Robert O’ Toole,
appellant y. Iris Beaugrand, appellee.6. The extensive testimony taken in the Sarasota case is filed of record herein and refutes
the position taken by Mr. O’ Toole in his summary judgment motion.
7. As to the Charlotte house at issue herein:
The initial purchase contract was in both Robert O'Toole and my name:
We decided to purchase the house as a rental property:
My mother Heidrun Riedner gave use $45,000 to purchase the property and we
used joint monies to pay the remainder purchase price;
Robert O’ Toole and I decided that the initial deed would be placed in Robert
O’ Toole’s name solely so that I could earn a real estate commission on the
purchase transaction, which real estate commission we jointly used;
We placed the house into our joint name after we purchased the house because
that was our agreement, i.e, to purchase the house jointly as a rental;
Robert O'Toole has not abided by this agreement and has lived in and used the
house despite my ownership in the house and my disagreement with him living in
the house:
Robert O’ Toole claims the house as his homestead but he doesn’t pay the taxes on
the property which | am having to pay so that the property does not get sold as a
tax deed.
All of the issues between the parties as to the Charlotte house were litigated and
decided in the Sarasota trial / case between the parties.FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
ae
AFFIANT: C
geo
state OF _ Flrwdy
COUNTY OF _ 74 ru te &
Swom to and subscribed before me this 9" day of December, 2019 by Iris Beaugrand who is
(NOTARY SEAL)
Type Name of Notary PublicFiling # 56401773 E-Filed 05/14/2017 09:48:25 PM '
TN THE 12°" CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No: 2016.C4 006351 NC
IRIS BEAUGRAND,
Plaintiff
ROBERT O'TOOLE,
Difesidant.
Defendant ROBERT O*TOOLE, by and through undersigned counsel, answers the
complaint in this action as follows:
ANSWER
pitted for
1, The allegations contained in paragraph { of the complaint are
jurisdictional parposes only.
2. The allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the complaint are
adrautted,
3. The allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 7,8, 9, 10 and 12 of the complaint are
denied and strict proof thereof is hescby demanded.
4, With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint
defendant admits that counsel for plaintiff issued a letter to hin making certain demands
concerning the disposition of che property that is the subject of this action (and another
property desctibed day at paragraph 11 of the counterclaim) and that lidgation against him
would commence should he fail to adhere to these demands, Remainder denied.
5, With respect to the allegations contained in. paragraph 11 of the. complaint
defendant admits that the property that is the subject of this action is a rental property the
income from which, in part, funds the costs to maintain it. Remainder denied.
Filed 05/15/2017 08:48 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FLBeaiigrand ». O'Toole
G G16 CA 6I5t NC
6. To within the wherefore clause or
he extent allegations are deemed to ext
praver for relief of the complaint, or are otherwise not mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs or otherwise herein, those allegations are denied,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Asan affirmative defense, defendant asserts that plainuff has failed to atach
che instruments which form the basis of her lawsuit against defendant, to
the deed, note
and mortgage concemning the property that is the subject matter of this. action, in
contravention of Pla R.Civ.P. 1.130(8).
8 As an affitmative defense, defendant further asserts thar the complaint fails
to state a claim far whieh relief can be granted in that plaintiff, in ber-dem and lerter thar
g f
preceded this action, claimed the existence of a partnership with respect tm the property chat
is the subject matter of this action, but there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to
support a cause of action for disassociation, dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the
purported partnership, or an accounting or other relief, as requieed by Horida Stature
Revit
§620.81002 e¢ ed Uniform Partnership Act of 1995),
rs that. the parti
s an affirmarive defense, defendant further asset
able ander a nat
jeinels uted by a morgage that encumbers the property that is the
subject of this action and the forced, premature sale of the property prior to matunty of the
note
contrary tthe best interests of defendant, and would constitute wroagtul
disassociation of defendant as plaintiff's purported parmer for this particular undertaking
violation of Florida Statute §620,8602(b),
10, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the cunyplaint fails
to state a caim apon which relief can be granted to force the sale of the property thar is the
subject of this action; for an accounting; and for payment of plaintiff's legal fess in thar the
complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish a right to do so
11. Ay an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the property is
question: is not occupied by cither party, is an investment property that generaics rental
income, and is not a non-divisible property within the meaning of Chapter 64, Florida
HesBeangrand 1, O'Tvole
Case #2016 $35E NC
Stanutes, nor has plaintiff established a proper basis.or compelling reason to force the sale of
the pruperty tw the detriment of defendant, who is the rightful owner of it,
12, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that defendant owned
the properry in fee simple prior to his relationship with plaintiff, deeding the property to
himself and her with rights of survivorship as a means of estate planning (the parties were
never legally martied to one another) with no financial contribution by plaintiff whaisvever.
She consequently has no present interest in the, property except as a contingent beneficiary
e heri.,
upon the death of defendant (should he predece
13, As an affirmative defense, defendant farther asserts that plaintiff is nor
entitled to seek equitable relief by failing herself to do equity, is estopped from seeking such
reicf, or otherwise may not seck such telief by inducing defendant tw place her on the ttle to
his property on the pretense of her love and affection for him, inducing bim by the same
means tw pay all costs associated with maintaining this property, without any contribution by
dg that ens
plaintiff ro and then by secking in this action to deprive defendant of his
rightfal interest in the property; force the sale of the property; arid cause unnce
and expense, all to the detriment of defendant,
14, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that it would otherwise
be inequitable for plaintiff to be granted the relief demanded in the complaint.
¢ defes
$8, As an affirms , oF by way of set-off of counterclaim, defendant
further ax
serts that plaintiff has nade no faancial contribution to the acquisition of the
pfoperty that is the subject of this action, has made no contribution towards the costs of
maintaining the property, bas made nw contribution towards the management of the
property, and therefore has no right to disbursement of a portion of the proceeds over and
above her contribution, if any, towards the costs and management of the property.
16. Defendant has retained undersigned counsel to represent. him in this cause and
to compensate him is reasonable fashion for his effort
17. To the extent the:
affirmative defenses or answers ate deemed to constitute 4
set-off or counterclaims, or vice versa, defendant prays they be so treated,
31P ageWHEREFORE, defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE prays that the Couct denv alf relief
to plaintiff as against him, or such portion of the relief deemed just and appropriate: enter
judgment in his favor and against plaintiff, either partially or wholly; award to hind an
amount by way of set-off or by way of counterclaim in bis favor and against plainuff for the
amounts justly due to hiny award to bit attorney fees and costs if appropriate, and
otherwise as provided by law; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief.
provided by law and deemed appropriate in the premises,
COUNTERCLAIM
Defeadant/Counterplaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE, sues plaintitf/counterdefendant
IRIS. BEAUGRAND, individually and as attorney in fact under power(s} of attorney for
JERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER, and alleges as follows:
L ‘This is an action for equitable and other appropriate: relief concerning real
and personal property tithed jointly or individually, as the case may be, whercint the amount ut
controversy exceeds $15,000, oxelusive of interests and costs,
2 Coanterphaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE CO'TOC
”) Gs thé owner of
record of certain real and personal property, and has an interest in such properties not of
record, ax mote fully appears herein.
3 Counterdefendant IRIS BEAUGRAND (BEAUGRAND" is the owner of
record of certain real and personal property, and,.as mote fully appe:
rights and an interest in others on behalf of her parents, KLAUSE GOERKE and
HEDDRUN RIEDNER, parsuant to a power(s) of attorney to act on their behalf.
4 At all times material hereto BEAUGRAND was and is.a duly lieensed and
pmeticing Realtor in the See of Morida and bas superior knowled
e and expe
concerning real estate transactions as compared to OFOOLE,
5. Sometime in. approximately 2005. BEAUGRAND and (YTOOLE began a
conmitted relationship with one another and shordy thereafter began to cohabinee in the
real property located ar 1855 Bayshore Drive, Englewood, Florida (BAYSHORE
PROPERTY
HIPs
), which at that time was owned in fee simple absolute by O'TOOLE.PROPERTY the couple moved in to the property located at 616 Pinto Trail, Englewood,
Florda (PINTO TRAIL”), owned by BEACGRAND in fee simple, and continued. to 90
cohabitate until they separated in the suntmer of 2016, .
‘The parties cohabitated at PINTO ‘TRAIL under an agreement whereby they
would equally divide the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses, inchiling mortgage payments,
taxes, insurance and utilities, Living with them ar PINTO TRAIL were the children of
BEAUGRAND), born of a previous relationship.
8 In November, 20
cons!
ideration of the fact that the couple were in a
commutted relationship (and had moved from O'TOOLE’s home and into PINTO TRAIL),
BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a de
the BAYSHORE PROPERTY as
a means of estate planning, whereby they held de to the property as joint wnants with
rights of survivorship. A true and correct copy of the deed to that effect is attached hereto
dmadea part hereof as Exhibit A.
UGRAND -also induced O'TOOLE to execute a note and morgage t0
the BAYSHORE PROPERTY by advising him. (incorrectly) that this would allow the
existing mortgage to be refinanced on more favorable terms, BEAUGRAND further
advised that she would have to appear on the tile to the property in order for her to also
esecute the note and mortgage on the BAYSHORE PROPERTY.
10. BEAUGRAND contributed ne funds towards the acquisition of any interest
in the BAYSHORE PROPERTY and contributed little, if any, towards payment of
mortgage loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property.
ce] In December, 2015, OTOOLE, purchased propery lovated ar 880 Fast 1
Street, Englewood, Florida (880 PROPERTY”), a result. of which BEAUGRAND received
a real estate commission. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of
this property and contributed fittle, if any, towards parment of loan payments, max
insurance, and maintenance for this property,
sissix months before the parties separated}
$2. in January, 2016 (approximate!
’ y SPP 5
BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to exceute a deed to the 880 PROPERTY purportedly
also as a means of estate planning, whereby they would bold tide to the property as joint
tenants with rights of survivorship, as was the case with OTOOLE’s. BAYSHORE
PROPERTY, . A mu and correct copy of the handwritten quit clin deed presumably 10
that effect is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B.
13. The deed to the 88) PROPERTY described in paragraph 12. spr, was
prepared without the assistance of counsel, or by 2 qualified tte agent, ‘The deed, signed
shortly after. the closing (where BEAUGRAND received a cormmiission) fails to contain
words to the effect that title was to be held jointly with rights of survivorship,
14 In the summer. of 2012, O'TOOLE purchased commercial space in the
Gallery Plaza, located. at Unit 5, 3502 North Access Road, Englewood (GALLERY
PLAZA UNIT
*), for his computer repair business, KLAUSE GOERKE loaned the funds
to O'TOOLE for the purchase 830,000) under terms whereby O'TOOLE would make
interest-only payments and pay mxcs.on the property.
15, In June, 2012, eather than having @ propery prepared nore and mortgage
exceuted, KLAUSE GOERRKE and HEIDRUN RIEDINNER took title tw the GALLERY
PLAZA-UNIT joindy in their names with no mention of O'TOOLE.
16. O'TOOLE continued to make Joan and other payments for the GALLERY
PLAZA UNIT until, as more fully appears ffi, BEAUGRAND, pursuant to asserted rights
under a power(s) of attorney, evicted him and his business ftom tie premises,
17, Daring their relationship, the parties jointly acquired other property,
including, Jater ala, a stallion (*Tosso"}, BEAUGRAND also has possession of, other
property belonging to O'TOOLE that she has declined to return to bim, including, drfer phi,
arboat trailer, art, and personal hooks and records.
18, All conditions precedent to this action bave been satistied or waived.Beanprand #, O'Toole
Cite B 2016 351 NC
19. OTFOOLE has remained undersigned counsel to represent him in this cause
and to compensate him in reasonable fashion for his efforts.
COUNT
TED TO BAYSHORE PROPERTY
MS RE!
206, OFOOLE reall
ace as if fully set forth herein,
nd incorporates by re
the preceding paragraphs numbered { through 19. ‘
21. As is more fully sez forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced
CPYTOOLE to execute a deed te the BAYSHORE PROPERTY that purports to grant to her
an interest in the property as a joint tenant with sights to take sole title to the property in the
event O'TOOLE predeceases her. OP FOOLE was induced to enter into this arrangement
as a means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one another) and on
the pretense of BEAUGRAND’s enduring love and affection for him.
22. BEAUGRAND made ‘no financial contribution towards the BAYSHORE
PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE tp place her in title to the property
nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the
mortgage, taxes, insarance and maintenance of the property.
23. BEAUGRAND. has no present interest in the property cxcept as 2
contingent beneficiary upon the death of O'TOOLE (hould he predecease ber} the basis
for which no longer exists (ia that they ate no longer in a commited relationship)
24. BREAUGRAND. olsained any interest she has im the BAYSHORE.
PROPERTY under the promise and. expectation thar she would remain in a committed
relationship with GTOOLE until the first of them were to pass and would share equally in
the expense and management of it; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance. upon. these
express and implied promises; a confidential relationship. existed. at the time hetween.
BEAUGRAND and O'TOOL
and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly enriched were she:
to succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property, +
25. By operation of law and otherwise. the interest of BEAUGRAND. in
O'TOOLE’S property is by way of a constractive or resulting trust,O Taal
357 NC
26, The equities concerning the BAYSHORE PROPERTY militate in favor of
AND.
recognizing the interests of OP TOOLE in the same-to the exclusion of BEAUG
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE. prays that the Court emer a
declaratory judgment finding the equines to be in favor of O'TOOLE) and against
BEAUGRAND concersing any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the
BAYSHORE PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or
resulting irust; ordering a reformation of the deed t reflect the true imerests of the
in this propery; awarding ta him a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the fore
sile of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief provided by
Jaw or in equity, and deemd appropriate in the premises.
COUNT He CLAIMS RELATED TO PINTO TRAIL,
27. OTOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein;
the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19.
28. As set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE entered
into a committed relationship outside of marriage, but cohabitated as such for a substantial
period of time, during which their finances became entangled.
29 Sper
PROPERTY!
share the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses; which O'TOOLE would otherwise not incur
fically, the parties moved out of O'TOOLE's residence (BAYSHORE,
d into PINTO TRAM, under an arrangement whereby they would equally
had. they remained at his own residence.
3h, During the ame the parties cohabitated at PINTO ‘TRAIL, BEAUGRAND
consistently failed tw remit pavment for her share of the bousing expenses, while O'TOOLE,
jusr_ as consistently kept currenr for both parties’ share of those expenses, and also
contributed funds and labor for repairs and maintenance of the property.
M. BEAL
in consideration of their continued relationship with one another, but failed and refused to
AND induced O'TOOLE to deed interests in his property to her(V Teele
NC
Beangrand
Cast & 2016
"
grant any interest in PINTO TRAIL fo him, even while accepting the benefits of finds and
labor be expended to allow her to maintain possession and nile to her property.
32, BEAUGRAND was accordingly unjustly enriched by the funds and labor
expended by Q'TOOLK for her benefit and thar of PINTO TRAIL in violation of the
ageement between the parties that she would bear one-half of those expenses and labor.”
33. In fashioning relief as between the parties, either at iw or in equity,
OPPOOLE is entitled to a credit for the funds and labor. expended by him to the benefic of
BEAUGRAND and her property, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount so
expended by him during the course of their relationship aid cohabitation,
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment finding the equities wm be in favor of O'TOOLE and against
BEAUGRAND concerning the funds expended by him for ber benetit ix connection with
the PINTO PROPERTY; finding thar he is entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable
lien conceming the same; awarding to him judgment for the vareimburscd amounts
expended by him either by way of damages or in quantum meruit, and that the Court grant
such additional and further relief deemd appropriate in the premises,
COUNT Ik CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 886 PROPERTY
34. OMFOOLE rcalleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth he
the preceding paragraphs numbered { through 19.
35, As is more fally set forth hercin and. otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced
O'TOOLE to execute a deed to bis 880 PROPERTY that purports to grant to her an
interest: in the property as a joint tenant. O'TOOLE was induced to enter into this
arrangement. 28.2 means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one
another) and on the pretense of BEAUGRAND’S enduring love and affection for him.
36. BEAUGRAND made no
PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE to place her in tile to the property
contribution towards the 880and 2, Teele
HCA NC
nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the
s, insurance and maintence of the property.
mortgage, t
37, Despite the fact thar the deed to the property was inarefully drawn,
BEAUGRAND has no present interest in the property except as a contingent beneficiary
upon the death of OPTOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which no longer
1s {in that they are no longer in a commited relationship).
38. BEALGRAND obtained any interest she hag in the 880 PROPERTY vader
the promise and expectation that she would remain in a committed relationship with
OTOO!
unnl the firsi of them were to pass and would share equally in the expense and
management of i; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied
time berweon BEAUGRAND and
promises; a confidential reladonship existed at d
OMFOOLE, and BEAUGRAND would be ounjustly enriched wore she to succeed in
depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property.
39, By operation of law and otherwise. the interest of BEAUGRAND in
OPFOOL
S property is by way of a constructive or resulting rast,
‘The equities conecening the 880 PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing
of O'TOOLE in the same tothe exclusion of BEAUGRA,
WHEREFORE, coumtrplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a
declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of OFOOLE and against
BEAUGRAND concerning any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the 880
PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or resulting trust:
ordering a reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the patties in this propery;
awarding 10 hint a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the property;
and that the Court grant suck additional and tuether relief provided by law ot in equity, and
deemed appropriate in the premises.ad 8. Toole
Cage #2038 C4 6351 NC
COUNT IV: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE GALLERY PLAZA UNIT
4f. OPTOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein,
she preecding paragraphs numbered { through 19,
42, As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, O'TOOLE entered into an
agreement with KLAUSE GOERKE whereby the later loaned the sam of $50,000 towards
she acquisition of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, where O'TOOLE, is celainace on this
arranagement, relocated his computer repair business.
43. Tide w the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT became vested in KLAUSE
GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER (BEAUGRAND’s parents) to the exclusion of
CTOOLE and without x properly recorded mortgage feflecting the true arrangements
etwoen the parties concerning the loan nude by GORRIKE to O'TOOLE.
the later
44, Pursuant to 2 course of dealing berveen GOERKE and O'TOOLE
continued 10 make loan paymenes and other payments in conncetion with the GALLERY
PLAZ:
UNET in reliance upon the validity of the agreement berween them,
AND and O'TOOLE, the former,
43. Subsequent to the separation of BEAUG
acting on behalf of her parents pursuant t.a power(s) of attorney, terminated the agreement
as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, falsely alleged that the panties in faer had entered
into a “fease” of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, and forced the cjecrment of O'TOOLE
and his business from the premises on extremely short notice,
46. The termination of the agreement benween GOERKE and CTOOLE
caused direct and consequential damages to O'TOOLE, was inequitable, aud caused anjust
‘yf us 3 i
enrichment 16 BEAVGRAND and bert parents.
47, In fashioning relief as benween the parties, cither at law or in equity,
O'TOOLE ts entitled to a credit for the losses he sustained as a result of the wrongful
termination of the agreement as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, or judgment for
money damages equal to the amount of that loss,WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE pra
es to be in favor of O'TOOLE, and: against
A UNIT; finding thar he is
we the cay
BEAUGRAND in connection with the GALLERY PL
dechiratory judgment findi
entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable fien concerning the same; awarding to hin
judgment for his losses coneersing the termination of the loan agreement and wrongtul
ay
eiectment cither as a judgment for damages or by way of promissory estoppel; and that the
Court grant such additional and further relief deemed appropnate in the premises.
COUNY Vi CLAIMS RE
TED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY
48, O'TOOLE rwalleges and incorporates by reference as if fully ser forth bercin,
the preceding paragraphs numbered t through 19.
49. As more fully set forth herein and otherwise, the pardes obtained joint aitle
06, inter aks, a stallion Fosse”) and other property.
50. Pursuant to Horida Statutes $64.091, in addition to real property, porsonalty
is also subject to the partition process. ‘
51, BEAUGRAND also has possession of other property belonging to
O'TOOLE that she has declined te return to him, including, ir afia, a boat trailer, art, and
personal books and weords,
OPOOL
entitled be reimbursed for the amounts paid by him towards
the acquisition of jointly owned property or for the sale of the same with the proceeds
equitably divided between the parties, and for the rerum of the items of personal property
UGRAND
belonging to him still in the possession of BE
WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays thar the Court enter a
declaratory judgment equitably dividing personal property jointly owned by the parties and
for the partition and sale of the same, if necessary; ordering BEAUGRAND to return
personal property in hee possession and control thar belongs t O'TOOLE; otderiig an
accounting of the personal property joinily owned or in which cach has a special clin of
DiPageright or equity; and that the Court grant such additional and farther relict provided by taw or
is equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises.
1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a tee and correct copy of the foregoing was
caused to be served by electronic mail on May 14, 2017, upon Stocle T. Willams, Esquire,
STEEI
{TP WILLIAMS, PA, attorney for plaintiff, Pineapple Place, 1381 MeAnsh Square,
Sarasota, Morida, 34236; Steck’ Wil:
Respectfully submitted,
BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA
PO BOX 1133
Englewood, Florida 34295
Tel: (941) 404-4704
BretClark@ We ewer, Com
(Bret ark .
Bret Clark, Esquire FB #384038
Atiorney for Defendant/Counterplaintif?
Robert O'Toole
{EXHIBITS ON FOLLOWING PAGES}Becdsgrand ». O'Toole
Case #2016 C4 6351 NC
a
redieete
fae
DOS aC Kaud
Eigiewnin Harts 8
Resede TROP
General Warranty Deed.
‘Ma tos Novesiber 2b 2097 AD, By Rabert OES, atop mak wlone abies YESS Bayne Dr Knylrwacd, FL, BD
aie ile gm, ee Beaagnd and Robert 7 Fowle jou tevavt with fal righte a sarivors. wine pt ck
sakes ARS Bapabce Dest, Emgbowesd, FL METS berecner ced te greats
tue wet ane hs spe Se gene arden ne Be fe pO ne
iS ne Sh aang leaped
Witness, see gona, fovea genders ot of Ta Oo, (10.0) at oer caer compat,
sce bene i Sereby ach ade ey prams, Bair. ll allen, vert, eae, eae ad Suni at re,
bel carla ed wate Sonate Canty, Mid ie
Lat 983, Rnglenoad Gardens, DiS as ger plat thefant, ersoried te Pit Bow 4, Page 72 and 78 f tie
Public Recor of Saranota Conaty, Fic *
“bye tase re cu jem, covets es es yl easement
raed Rr B.2.9082
‘eter ss worm tees a apiece tts eying os cane agar
‘Toiave and ta Hold, se seme wa fee seeps focrves,
Anh avs ey seas it aes a emer cw ae of aN ne np le ie
$a goed itd ny eal sey ad ans pra ay oly waa i ep od a i ed
{8 wen apis hoe cae wt ges ome, eet el aH ew pe NE Me,
sstirgab droenbe 28
J Witneae Where ss guy hs ig nd see te prc Bday nd yt ae i
Sigted, fea ad dolore in oie posers
ee Pa Sc
oe fd
jetty Poe qe Lede Paired
Soot Bods
Caan aero .
‘fee rma ns acne bebe en Newer 25, 2607, by Rebet OFTosis age man, who ike peso
Imma eone of abstastuvepeadees Fray. de. ee se demesten
ate ware seat
ean Wines Dae Lapse
Se SeceCHARLOTTE COUNTY CLERK OF CIRCUIT CORT OR BOOK: ANG, POS: 2083, PADE: POF 1
INSTH # 20966 Doe Types D, Revered: H322006 af HSL ASL
Reg. Foe: RECORDING StK50 B DOCTAN PB 56.28 Cashier By: AMANDAD
Preparedy:
parry re _
Pk ees: Ge cana
4T CLAIM DEED.
” Sleumred PE MARS
e
OBE 14 Sheet:
_ Prone pralnge's Batert
aaa aa ema m
ay 01 7 .
iy dfiess party)
Rowert 3. O'Toole,
Tee teow fe. co (pint bia
This Reauarond aud Rdoert | OM teole a er"
‘Whase post office address is_{ol Punto Th, Enalero ad FUR QOS
(wrherover wied berein the terns “frst party" aud “cecubd party" an je vingalar aie! ploral, heirs,
‘eget repecsentatives and assigns of individuals, andl she successors and assis of corporstioas, wherever the coaieM
‘scradinits oF roqutoer
‘Witesseth, That the said first party, for aod in consideration of the mam ofS (87 sim
‘asd paid by the said second party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby
remise, release and quit-cixin unto the said second party forever, all the right, ttle, interest, claim
and deosand which the said first party has in and to the following deseribed lot, pice or parcel
land, situate, tying and being ia the County of Cvgrigtic _. Stateof
a To Wi:
Bok garkes unll Own property
aS oink fenauds,
To have and to hokd the same together with oll oad stagular the appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in enywise appertaining, and wil the eatute , right, title, interest, tien, equity and claim:
whatsoever for the said first party, cither is law: ‘oF equity, te the only proper use, benefit und
bichoof of the said second party forever,
In Witness Whereof, the said first party has signed and sented these presents the day and year first
above written,
eoBeaugrand vr. O'Toole
HG CASI NC
OR BOOK: #46, PAGE NUMBER, 2083 INSTRI ZUN00G PAGAL: 2 OF 2
Signed, sealed and delivered ig the presence of: A
Po é ae
Siguaiove of Firs Party
abel PINTO.
Fon Gitte Address
‘Witness Sgaistare 9 ie Co Fai Hary (if ay)
Printed Noime
‘Witness Rgnmiors as to Co-Fivat Pars tae
Printed Namie
STATE OF FLORIDA-COUNTY OF aot
‘The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3.9. day of
PAIAS {Wie shy hayece Cel .
who ix persounlly kinawn to me or has produced oe
Preview
Filing # 100032352 E-Filed 12/09/2019 05:05:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION IRIS BEAUGRAND, individually and as POA for Heidrun Riedner, Plaintiff, y. CASE NO; 2017 CA 181 ROBERT O'TOOLE, Defendant. / AFFIDAVIT OF IRIS BEAUGRAND STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SARASOTA 1, Iris Beaugrand, being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say: 1. Lam over the age of 18 years old. 2. That the facts and matters stated herein are true and of Affiant’s own personal knowledge. we judgment in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court case number 2016 CA 6351, Iris Beaugrand v. Robert O° Toole (Sarasota case). The issues between the parties have already been litigated in the pleadings and final 4. See the extensive counterclaim and answer to such (attached hereto) filed by Mr. Robert O'Toole dealing with the Charlotte property which is at issue in-this case. 5. Further the trial court ruling which included a denial of the very same claims Mr. O'Toole asserts herein or which could have been asserted, were affirmed in all respects by the Second District Court of Appeal case number 2D 18-1935, Robert O’ Toole, appellant y. Iris Beaugrand, appellee.6. The extensive testimony taken in the Sarasota case is filed of record herein and refutes the position taken by Mr. O’ Toole in his summary judgment motion. 7. As to the Charlotte house at issue herein: The initial purchase contract was in both Robert O'Toole and my name: We decided to purchase the house as a rental property: My mother Heidrun Riedner gave use $45,000 to purchase the property and we used joint monies to pay the remainder purchase price; Robert O’ Toole and I decided that the initial deed would be placed in Robert O’ Toole’s name solely so that I could earn a real estate commission on the purchase transaction, which real estate commission we jointly used; We placed the house into our joint name after we purchased the house because that was our agreement, i.e, to purchase the house jointly as a rental; Robert O'Toole has not abided by this agreement and has lived in and used the house despite my ownership in the house and my disagreement with him living in the house: Robert O’ Toole claims the house as his homestead but he doesn’t pay the taxes on the property which | am having to pay so that the property does not get sold as a tax deed. All of the issues between the parties as to the Charlotte house were litigated and decided in the Sarasota trial / case between the parties.FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. ae AFFIANT: C geo state OF _ Flrwdy COUNTY OF _ 74 ru te & Swom to and subscribed before me this 9" day of December, 2019 by Iris Beaugrand who is (NOTARY SEAL) Type Name of Notary PublicFiling # 56401773 E-Filed 05/14/2017 09:48:25 PM ' TN THE 12°" CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 2016.C4 006351 NC IRIS BEAUGRAND, Plaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE, Difesidant. Defendant ROBERT O*TOOLE, by and through undersigned counsel, answers the complaint in this action as follows: ANSWER pitted for 1, The allegations contained in paragraph { of the complaint are jurisdictional parposes only. 2. The allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the complaint are adrautted, 3. The allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 7,8, 9, 10 and 12 of the complaint are denied and strict proof thereof is hescby demanded. 4, With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint defendant admits that counsel for plaintiff issued a letter to hin making certain demands concerning the disposition of che property that is the subject of this action (and another property desctibed day at paragraph 11 of the counterclaim) and that lidgation against him would commence should he fail to adhere to these demands, Remainder denied. 5, With respect to the allegations contained in. paragraph 11 of the. complaint defendant admits that the property that is the subject of this action is a rental property the income from which, in part, funds the costs to maintain it. Remainder denied. Filed 05/15/2017 08:48 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FLBeaiigrand ». O'Toole G G16 CA 6I5t NC 6. To within the wherefore clause or he extent allegations are deemed to ext praver for relief of the complaint, or are otherwise not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs or otherwise herein, those allegations are denied, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Asan affirmative defense, defendant asserts that plainuff has failed to atach che instruments which form the basis of her lawsuit against defendant, to the deed, note and mortgage concemning the property that is the subject matter of this. action, in contravention of Pla R.Civ.P. 1.130(8). 8 As an affitmative defense, defendant further asserts thar the complaint fails to state a claim far whieh relief can be granted in that plaintiff, in ber-dem and lerter thar g f preceded this action, claimed the existence of a partnership with respect tm the property chat is the subject matter of this action, but there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to support a cause of action for disassociation, dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the purported partnership, or an accounting or other relief, as requieed by Horida Stature Revit §620.81002 e¢ ed Uniform Partnership Act of 1995), rs that. the parti s an affirmarive defense, defendant further asset able ander a nat jeinels uted by a morgage that encumbers the property that is the subject of this action and the forced, premature sale of the property prior to matunty of the note contrary tthe best interests of defendant, and would constitute wroagtul disassociation of defendant as plaintiff's purported parmer for this particular undertaking violation of Florida Statute §620,8602(b), 10, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the cunyplaint fails to state a caim apon which relief can be granted to force the sale of the property thar is the subject of this action; for an accounting; and for payment of plaintiff's legal fess in thar the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish a right to do so 11. Ay an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that the property is question: is not occupied by cither party, is an investment property that generaics rental income, and is not a non-divisible property within the meaning of Chapter 64, Florida HesBeangrand 1, O'Tvole Case #2016 $35E NC Stanutes, nor has plaintiff established a proper basis.or compelling reason to force the sale of the pruperty tw the detriment of defendant, who is the rightful owner of it, 12, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that defendant owned the properry in fee simple prior to his relationship with plaintiff, deeding the property to himself and her with rights of survivorship as a means of estate planning (the parties were never legally martied to one another) with no financial contribution by plaintiff whaisvever. She consequently has no present interest in the, property except as a contingent beneficiary e heri., upon the death of defendant (should he predece 13, As an affirmative defense, defendant farther asserts that plaintiff is nor entitled to seek equitable relief by failing herself to do equity, is estopped from seeking such reicf, or otherwise may not seck such telief by inducing defendant tw place her on the ttle to his property on the pretense of her love and affection for him, inducing bim by the same means tw pay all costs associated with maintaining this property, without any contribution by dg that ens plaintiff ro and then by secking in this action to deprive defendant of his rightfal interest in the property; force the sale of the property; arid cause unnce and expense, all to the detriment of defendant, 14, As an affirmative defense, defendant further asserts that it would otherwise be inequitable for plaintiff to be granted the relief demanded in the complaint. ¢ defes $8, As an affirms , oF by way of set-off of counterclaim, defendant further ax serts that plaintiff has nade no faancial contribution to the acquisition of the pfoperty that is the subject of this action, has made no contribution towards the costs of maintaining the property, bas made nw contribution towards the management of the property, and therefore has no right to disbursement of a portion of the proceeds over and above her contribution, if any, towards the costs and management of the property. 16. Defendant has retained undersigned counsel to represent. him in this cause and to compensate him is reasonable fashion for his effort 17. To the extent the: affirmative defenses or answers ate deemed to constitute 4 set-off or counterclaims, or vice versa, defendant prays they be so treated, 31P ageWHEREFORE, defendant ROBERT O'TOOLE prays that the Couct denv alf relief to plaintiff as against him, or such portion of the relief deemed just and appropriate: enter judgment in his favor and against plaintiff, either partially or wholly; award to hind an amount by way of set-off or by way of counterclaim in bis favor and against plainuff for the amounts justly due to hiny award to bit attorney fees and costs if appropriate, and otherwise as provided by law; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief. provided by law and deemed appropriate in the premises, COUNTERCLAIM Defeadant/Counterplaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE, sues plaintitf/counterdefendant IRIS. BEAUGRAND, individually and as attorney in fact under power(s} of attorney for JERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER, and alleges as follows: L ‘This is an action for equitable and other appropriate: relief concerning real and personal property tithed jointly or individually, as the case may be, whercint the amount ut controversy exceeds $15,000, oxelusive of interests and costs, 2 Coanterphaintiff ROBERT O'TOOLE CO'TOC ”) Gs thé owner of record of certain real and personal property, and has an interest in such properties not of record, ax mote fully appears herein. 3 Counterdefendant IRIS BEAUGRAND (BEAUGRAND" is the owner of record of certain real and personal property, and,.as mote fully appe: rights and an interest in others on behalf of her parents, KLAUSE GOERKE and HEDDRUN RIEDNER, parsuant to a power(s) of attorney to act on their behalf. 4 At all times material hereto BEAUGRAND was and is.a duly lieensed and pmeticing Realtor in the See of Morida and bas superior knowled e and expe concerning real estate transactions as compared to OFOOLE, 5. Sometime in. approximately 2005. BEAUGRAND and (YTOOLE began a conmitted relationship with one another and shordy thereafter began to cohabinee in the real property located ar 1855 Bayshore Drive, Englewood, Florida (BAYSHORE PROPERTY HIPs ), which at that time was owned in fee simple absolute by O'TOOLE.PROPERTY the couple moved in to the property located at 616 Pinto Trail, Englewood, Florda (PINTO TRAIL”), owned by BEACGRAND in fee simple, and continued. to 90 cohabitate until they separated in the suntmer of 2016, . ‘The parties cohabitated at PINTO ‘TRAIL under an agreement whereby they would equally divide the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses, inchiling mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities, Living with them ar PINTO TRAIL were the children of BEAUGRAND), born of a previous relationship. 8 In November, 20 cons! ideration of the fact that the couple were in a commutted relationship (and had moved from O'TOOLE’s home and into PINTO TRAIL), BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a de the BAYSHORE PROPERTY as a means of estate planning, whereby they held de to the property as joint wnants with rights of survivorship. A true and correct copy of the deed to that effect is attached hereto dmadea part hereof as Exhibit A. UGRAND -also induced O'TOOLE to execute a note and morgage t0 the BAYSHORE PROPERTY by advising him. (incorrectly) that this would allow the existing mortgage to be refinanced on more favorable terms, BEAUGRAND further advised that she would have to appear on the tile to the property in order for her to also esecute the note and mortgage on the BAYSHORE PROPERTY. 10. BEAUGRAND contributed ne funds towards the acquisition of any interest in the BAYSHORE PROPERTY and contributed little, if any, towards payment of mortgage loan payments, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for this property. ce] In December, 2015, OTOOLE, purchased propery lovated ar 880 Fast 1 Street, Englewood, Florida (880 PROPERTY”), a result. of which BEAUGRAND received a real estate commission. BEAUGRAND contributed no funds towards the acquisition of this property and contributed fittle, if any, towards parment of loan payments, max insurance, and maintenance for this property, sissix months before the parties separated} $2. in January, 2016 (approximate! ’ y SPP 5 BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to exceute a deed to the 880 PROPERTY purportedly also as a means of estate planning, whereby they would bold tide to the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, as was the case with OTOOLE’s. BAYSHORE PROPERTY, . A mu and correct copy of the handwritten quit clin deed presumably 10 that effect is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. 13. The deed to the 88) PROPERTY described in paragraph 12. spr, was prepared without the assistance of counsel, or by 2 qualified tte agent, ‘The deed, signed shortly after. the closing (where BEAUGRAND received a cormmiission) fails to contain words to the effect that title was to be held jointly with rights of survivorship, 14 In the summer. of 2012, O'TOOLE purchased commercial space in the Gallery Plaza, located. at Unit 5, 3502 North Access Road, Englewood (GALLERY PLAZA UNIT *), for his computer repair business, KLAUSE GOERKE loaned the funds to O'TOOLE for the purchase 830,000) under terms whereby O'TOOLE would make interest-only payments and pay mxcs.on the property. 15, In June, 2012, eather than having @ propery prepared nore and mortgage exceuted, KLAUSE GOERRKE and HEIDRUN RIEDINNER took title tw the GALLERY PLAZA-UNIT joindy in their names with no mention of O'TOOLE. 16. O'TOOLE continued to make Joan and other payments for the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT until, as more fully appears ffi, BEAUGRAND, pursuant to asserted rights under a power(s) of attorney, evicted him and his business ftom tie premises, 17, Daring their relationship, the parties jointly acquired other property, including, Jater ala, a stallion (*Tosso"}, BEAUGRAND also has possession of, other property belonging to O'TOOLE that she has declined to return to bim, including, drfer phi, arboat trailer, art, and personal hooks and records. 18, All conditions precedent to this action bave been satistied or waived.Beanprand #, O'Toole Cite B 2016 351 NC 19. OTFOOLE has remained undersigned counsel to represent him in this cause and to compensate him in reasonable fashion for his efforts. COUNT TED TO BAYSHORE PROPERTY MS RE! 206, OFOOLE reall ace as if fully set forth herein, nd incorporates by re the preceding paragraphs numbered { through 19. ‘ 21. As is more fully sez forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced CPYTOOLE to execute a deed te the BAYSHORE PROPERTY that purports to grant to her an interest in the property as a joint tenant with sights to take sole title to the property in the event O'TOOLE predeceases her. OP FOOLE was induced to enter into this arrangement as a means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one another) and on the pretense of BEAUGRAND’s enduring love and affection for him. 22. BEAUGRAND made ‘no financial contribution towards the BAYSHORE PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE tp place her in title to the property nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the mortgage, taxes, insarance and maintenance of the property. 23. BEAUGRAND. has no present interest in the property cxcept as 2 contingent beneficiary upon the death of O'TOOLE (hould he predecease ber} the basis for which no longer exists (ia that they ate no longer in a commited relationship) 24. BREAUGRAND. olsained any interest she has im the BAYSHORE. PROPERTY under the promise and. expectation thar she would remain in a committed relationship with GTOOLE until the first of them were to pass and would share equally in the expense and management of it; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance. upon. these express and implied promises; a confidential relationship. existed. at the time hetween. BEAUGRAND and O'TOOL and BEAUGRAND would be unjustly enriched were she: to succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property, + 25. By operation of law and otherwise. the interest of BEAUGRAND. in O'TOOLE’S property is by way of a constractive or resulting trust,O Taal 357 NC 26, The equities concerning the BAYSHORE PROPERTY militate in favor of AND. recognizing the interests of OP TOOLE in the same-to the exclusion of BEAUG WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE. prays that the Court emer a declaratory judgment finding the equines to be in favor of O'TOOLE) and against BEAUGRAND concersing any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the BAYSHORE PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or resulting irust; ordering a reformation of the deed t reflect the true imerests of the in this propery; awarding ta him a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the fore sile of the property; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief provided by Jaw or in equity, and deemd appropriate in the premises. COUNT He CLAIMS RELATED TO PINTO TRAIL, 27. OTOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein; the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 through 19. 28. As set forth herein and otherwise, BEAUGRAND and O'TOOLE entered into a committed relationship outside of marriage, but cohabitated as such for a substantial period of time, during which their finances became entangled. 29 Sper PROPERTY! share the PINTO TRAIL housing expenses; which O'TOOLE would otherwise not incur fically, the parties moved out of O'TOOLE's residence (BAYSHORE, d into PINTO TRAM, under an arrangement whereby they would equally had. they remained at his own residence. 3h, During the ame the parties cohabitated at PINTO ‘TRAIL, BEAUGRAND consistently failed tw remit pavment for her share of the bousing expenses, while O'TOOLE, jusr_ as consistently kept currenr for both parties’ share of those expenses, and also contributed funds and labor for repairs and maintenance of the property. M. BEAL in consideration of their continued relationship with one another, but failed and refused to AND induced O'TOOLE to deed interests in his property to her(V Teele NC Beangrand Cast & 2016 " grant any interest in PINTO TRAIL fo him, even while accepting the benefits of finds and labor be expended to allow her to maintain possession and nile to her property. 32, BEAUGRAND was accordingly unjustly enriched by the funds and labor expended by Q'TOOLK for her benefit and thar of PINTO TRAIL in violation of the ageement between the parties that she would bear one-half of those expenses and labor.” 33. In fashioning relief as between the parties, either at iw or in equity, OPPOOLE is entitled to a credit for the funds and labor. expended by him to the benefic of BEAUGRAND and her property, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount so expended by him during the course of their relationship aid cohabitation, WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the equities wm be in favor of O'TOOLE and against BEAUGRAND concerning the funds expended by him for ber benetit ix connection with the PINTO PROPERTY; finding thar he is entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable lien conceming the same; awarding to him judgment for the vareimburscd amounts expended by him either by way of damages or in quantum meruit, and that the Court grant such additional and further relief deemd appropriate in the premises, COUNT Ik CLAIMS RELATED TO THE 886 PROPERTY 34. OMFOOLE rcalleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth he the preceding paragraphs numbered { through 19. 35, As is more fally set forth hercin and. otherwise, BEAUGRAND induced O'TOOLE to execute a deed to bis 880 PROPERTY that purports to grant to her an interest: in the property as a joint tenant. O'TOOLE was induced to enter into this arrangement. 28.2 means of estate planning (the parties were never legally married to one another) and on the pretense of BEAUGRAND’S enduring love and affection for him. 36. BEAUGRAND made no PROPERTY cither at the time she induced O'TOOLE to place her in tile to the property contribution towards the 880and 2, Teele HCA NC nor in the years subsequent thereto, during which O'TOOLE made payments for the s, insurance and maintence of the property. mortgage, t 37, Despite the fact thar the deed to the property was inarefully drawn, BEAUGRAND has no present interest in the property except as a contingent beneficiary upon the death of OPTOOLE (should he predecease her) the basis for which no longer 1s {in that they are no longer in a commited relationship). 38. BEALGRAND obtained any interest she hag in the 880 PROPERTY vader the promise and expectation that she would remain in a committed relationship with OTOO! unnl the firsi of them were to pass and would share equally in the expense and management of i; O'TOOLE executed the deed in reliance upon those express and implied time berweon BEAUGRAND and promises; a confidential reladonship existed at d OMFOOLE, and BEAUGRAND would be ounjustly enriched wore she to succeed in depriving O'TOOLE of ownership of this property. 39, By operation of law and otherwise. the interest of BEAUGRAND in OPFOOL S property is by way of a constructive or resulting rast, ‘The equities conecening the 880 PROPERTY militate in favor of recognizing of O'TOOLE in the same tothe exclusion of BEAUGRA, WHEREFORE, coumtrplaintiff O'TOOLE prays that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the equities to be in favor of OFOOLE and against BEAUGRAND concerning any rights or interest she may otherwise have in and to the 880 PROPERTY; finding that her interests are in the nature of a constructive or resulting trust: ordering a reformation of the deed to reflect the true interests of the patties in this propery; awarding 10 hint a special equity in any and all proceeds upon the forced sale of the property; and that the Court grant suck additional and tuether relief provided by law ot in equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises.ad 8. Toole Cage #2038 C4 6351 NC COUNT IV: CLAIMS RELATED TO THE GALLERY PLAZA UNIT 4f. OPTOOLE tealleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, she preecding paragraphs numbered { through 19, 42, As is more fully set forth herein and otherwise, O'TOOLE entered into an agreement with KLAUSE GOERKE whereby the later loaned the sam of $50,000 towards she acquisition of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, where O'TOOLE, is celainace on this arranagement, relocated his computer repair business. 43. Tide w the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT became vested in KLAUSE GOERKE and HEIDRUN RIEDNER (BEAUGRAND’s parents) to the exclusion of CTOOLE and without x properly recorded mortgage feflecting the true arrangements etwoen the parties concerning the loan nude by GORRIKE to O'TOOLE. the later 44, Pursuant to 2 course of dealing berveen GOERKE and O'TOOLE continued 10 make loan paymenes and other payments in conncetion with the GALLERY PLAZ: UNET in reliance upon the validity of the agreement berween them, AND and O'TOOLE, the former, 43. Subsequent to the separation of BEAUG acting on behalf of her parents pursuant t.a power(s) of attorney, terminated the agreement as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, falsely alleged that the panties in faer had entered into a “fease” of the GALLERY PLAZA UNIT, and forced the cjecrment of O'TOOLE and his business from the premises on extremely short notice, 46. The termination of the agreement benween GOERKE and CTOOLE caused direct and consequential damages to O'TOOLE, was inequitable, aud caused anjust ‘yf us 3 i enrichment 16 BEAVGRAND and bert parents. 47, In fashioning relief as benween the parties, cither at law or in equity, O'TOOLE ts entitled to a credit for the losses he sustained as a result of the wrongful termination of the agreement as between GOERKE and O'TOOLE, or judgment for money damages equal to the amount of that loss,WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE pra es to be in favor of O'TOOLE, and: against A UNIT; finding thar he is we the cay BEAUGRAND in connection with the GALLERY PL dechiratory judgment findi entitled to a special equity, credit or equitable fien concerning the same; awarding to hin judgment for his losses coneersing the termination of the loan agreement and wrongtul ay eiectment cither as a judgment for damages or by way of promissory estoppel; and that the Court grant such additional and further relief deemed appropnate in the premises. COUNY Vi CLAIMS RE TED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY 48, O'TOOLE rwalleges and incorporates by reference as if fully ser forth bercin, the preceding paragraphs numbered t through 19. 49. As more fully set forth herein and otherwise, the pardes obtained joint aitle 06, inter aks, a stallion Fosse”) and other property. 50. Pursuant to Horida Statutes $64.091, in addition to real property, porsonalty is also subject to the partition process. ‘ 51, BEAUGRAND also has possession of other property belonging to O'TOOLE that she has declined te return to him, including, ir afia, a boat trailer, art, and personal books and weords, OPOOL entitled be reimbursed for the amounts paid by him towards the acquisition of jointly owned property or for the sale of the same with the proceeds equitably divided between the parties, and for the rerum of the items of personal property UGRAND belonging to him still in the possession of BE WHEREFORE, counterplaintiff O'TOOLE prays thar the Court enter a declaratory judgment equitably dividing personal property jointly owned by the parties and for the partition and sale of the same, if necessary; ordering BEAUGRAND to return personal property in hee possession and control thar belongs t O'TOOLE; otderiig an accounting of the personal property joinily owned or in which cach has a special clin of DiPageright or equity; and that the Court grant such additional and farther relict provided by taw or is equity, and deemed appropriate in the premises. 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a tee and correct copy of the foregoing was caused to be served by electronic mail on May 14, 2017, upon Stocle T. Willams, Esquire, STEEI {TP WILLIAMS, PA, attorney for plaintiff, Pineapple Place, 1381 MeAnsh Square, Sarasota, Morida, 34236; Steck’ Wil: Respectfully submitted, BRET SHAWN CLARK, PA PO BOX 1133 Englewood, Florida 34295 Tel: (941) 404-4704 BretClark@ We ewer, Com (Bret ark . Bret Clark, Esquire FB #384038 Atiorney for Defendant/Counterplaintif? Robert O'Toole {EXHIBITS ON FOLLOWING PAGES}Becdsgrand ». O'Toole Case #2016 C4 6351 NC a redieete fae DOS aC Kaud Eigiewnin Harts 8 Resede TROP General Warranty Deed. ‘Ma tos Novesiber 2b 2097 AD, By Rabert OES, atop mak wlone abies YESS Bayne Dr Knylrwacd, FL, BD aie ile gm, ee Beaagnd and Robert 7 Fowle jou tevavt with fal righte a sarivors. wine pt ck sakes ARS Bapabce Dest, Emgbowesd, FL METS berecner ced te greats tue wet ane hs spe Se gene arden ne Be fe pO ne iS ne Sh aang leaped Witness, see gona, fovea genders ot of Ta Oo, (10.0) at oer caer compat, sce bene i Sereby ach ade ey prams, Bair. ll allen, vert, eae, eae ad Suni at re, bel carla ed wate Sonate Canty, Mid ie Lat 983, Rnglenoad Gardens, DiS as ger plat thefant, ersoried te Pit Bow 4, Page 72 and 78 f tie Public Recor of Saranota Conaty, Fic * “bye tase re cu jem, covets es es yl easement raed Rr B.2.9082 ‘eter ss worm tees a apiece tts eying os cane agar ‘Toiave and ta Hold, se seme wa fee seeps focrves, Anh avs ey seas it aes a emer cw ae of aN ne np le ie $a goed itd ny eal sey ad ans pra ay oly waa i ep od a i ed {8 wen apis hoe cae wt ges ome, eet el aH ew pe NE Me, sstirgab droenbe 28 J Witneae Where ss guy hs ig nd see te prc Bday nd yt ae i Sigted, fea ad dolore in oie posers ee Pa Sc oe fd jetty Poe qe Lede Paired Soot Bods Caan aero . ‘fee rma ns acne bebe en Newer 25, 2607, by Rebet OFTosis age man, who ike peso Imma eone of abstastuvepeadees Fray. de. ee se demesten ate ware seat ean Wines Dae Lapse Se SeceCHARLOTTE COUNTY CLERK OF CIRCUIT CORT OR BOOK: ANG, POS: 2083, PADE: POF 1 INSTH # 20966 Doe Types D, Revered: H322006 af HSL ASL Reg. Foe: RECORDING StK50 B DOCTAN PB 56.28 Cashier By: AMANDAD Preparedy: parry re _ Pk ees: Ge cana 4T CLAIM DEED. ” Sleumred PE MARS e OBE 14 Sheet: _ Prone pralnge's Batert aaa aa ema m ay 01 7 . iy dfiess party) Rowert 3. O'Toole, Tee teow fe. co (pint bia This Reauarond aud Rdoert | OM teole a er" ‘Whase post office address is_{ol Punto Th, Enalero ad FUR QOS (wrherover wied berein the terns “frst party" aud “cecubd party" an je vingalar aie! ploral, heirs, ‘eget repecsentatives and assigns of individuals, andl she successors and assis of corporstioas, wherever the coaieM ‘scradinits oF roqutoer ‘Witesseth, That the said first party, for aod in consideration of the mam ofS (87 sim ‘asd paid by the said second party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quit-cixin unto the said second party forever, all the right, ttle, interest, claim and deosand which the said first party has in and to the following deseribed lot, pice or parcel land, situate, tying and being ia the County of Cvgrigtic _. Stateof a To Wi: Bok garkes unll Own property aS oink fenauds, To have and to hokd the same together with oll oad stagular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in enywise appertaining, and wil the eatute , right, title, interest, tien, equity and claim: whatsoever for the said first party, cither is law: ‘oF equity, te the only proper use, benefit und bichoof of the said second party forever, In Witness Whereof, the said first party has signed and sented these presents the day and year first above written, eoBeaugrand vr. O'Toole HG CASI NC OR BOOK: #46, PAGE NUMBER, 2083 INSTRI ZUN00G PAGAL: 2 OF 2 Signed, sealed and delivered ig the presence of: A Po é ae Siguaiove of Firs Party abel PINTO. Fon Gitte Address ‘Witness Sgaistare 9 ie Co Fai Hary (if ay) Printed Noime ‘Witness Rgnmiors as to Co-Fivat Pars tae Printed Namie STATE OF FLORIDA-COUNTY OF aot ‘The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3.9. day of PAIAS {Wie shy hayece Cel . who ix persounlly kinawn to me or has produced oe