Preview
Filing # 142080023 E-Filed 01/17/2022 10:59:52 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2018-CA-003041-MF
MICHAEL R. PARKEY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS’ ANNOTATED OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS
1. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Certificate of Possession dated 8/10/18.
Defendants object on the following grounds: Defendants object to the Certificate and any
copies of the Note coming into evidence on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, and Best Evidence Rule. Defendants also object to any Note
coming into evidence that differs from the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint on
grounds that said Exhibit is Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover,
Defendants also object to the extent documentary tax stamps have not been paid for each
transfer or assignment of the subject note in accord with Fla. Stat. 201.08.
2. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Promissory Note.
Defendants object on the following grounds: Defendants object to any copies coming into
evidence of the purported Note on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, and Best Evidence Rule. Defendants also object to any Note
coming into evidence that differs from the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint on
grounds that said Exhibit is Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover,
Defendants also object to the extent documentary tax stamps have not been paid for each
transfer or assignment of the subject note in accord with Fla. Stat. 201.08.
3. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Mortgage.
Defendants object to any copies coming into evidence of the purported Mortgage on the
following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, and Best Evidence
Rule. Moreover, Defendants also object to the extent documentary tax stamps have not
been paid for each transfer or assignment of the subject mortgage in accord with Fla. Stat.
201.08.
4. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Assignments.
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, said Assignments are a nullity and do not
transfer the Note, Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendants
object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or
in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
5. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Demand Letter
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover,
Defendants object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in
discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
6. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Proof of Mailing Demand Letter
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover,
Defendants object to these Exhibits since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in
discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
7. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Face-to-Face Interview Solicitation Letters
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the
Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits
since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the
Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
8. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Certified Mailing Receipts for Face-to-Face Interview
Solicitation Letters
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the
Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits
since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the
Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
9. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Hello Letter
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the
Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to this Exhibit
since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the
Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
10. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Payment History.
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover,
Defendant objects to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in
discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
11. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Origination File.
Defendants object on the following grounds: Vague, Ambiguous, Inadmissible Hearsay
within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant and Outside the
Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendants object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not
provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a
timely manner.
12. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Prior Servicer Collection Comments.
Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the
Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits
since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the
Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner.
13. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Judgment Figures.
Defendant objects on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in
anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay,
Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the
Pleadings. Moreover, Defendant objects to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this
documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely
manner.
/s/ ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq.
ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 67221
Primary E-mail: anthonylegendre@live.com
Secondary E-mail: Anthony@Law-Legends.com
Secondary E-mail: Ronald@Law-legends.com
Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC
P.O. Box 948599
Maitland, FL 32794-8599
(407) 460-8525
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by email through the E-portal to Attorneys for Plaintiff, at (flmail@raslg.com), on this 17th day
of January, 2022.
/s/ ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq.
ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 67221
Primary E-mail: anthonylegendre@live.com
Secondary E-mail: Anthony@Law-Legends.com
Secondary E-mail: Ronald@Law-legends.com
Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC
P.O. Box 948599
Maitland, FL 32794-8599
(407) 460-8525
Preview
Filing # 142080023 E-Filed 01/17/2022 10:59:52 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2018-CA-003041-MF MICHAEL R. PARKEY, et al., Defendants. / DEFENDANTS’ ANNOTATED OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS 1. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Certificate of Possession dated 8/10/18. Defendants object on the following grounds: Defendants object to the Certificate and any copies of the Note coming into evidence on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, and Best Evidence Rule. Defendants also object to any Note coming into evidence that differs from the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint on grounds that said Exhibit is Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendants also object to the extent documentary tax stamps have not been paid for each transfer or assignment of the subject note in accord with Fla. Stat. 201.08. 2. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Promissory Note. Defendants object on the following grounds: Defendants object to any copies coming into evidence of the purported Note on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, and Best Evidence Rule. Defendants also object to any Note coming into evidence that differs from the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint on grounds that said Exhibit is Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendants also object to the extent documentary tax stamps have not been paid for each transfer or assignment of the subject note in accord with Fla. Stat. 201.08. 3. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Mortgage. Defendants object to any copies coming into evidence of the purported Mortgage on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, and Best Evidence Rule. Moreover, Defendants also object to the extent documentary tax stamps have not been paid for each transfer or assignment of the subject mortgage in accord with Fla. Stat. 201.08. 4. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Assignments. Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, said Assignments are a nullity and do not transfer the Note, Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendants object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 5. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Demand Letter Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 6. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Proof of Mailing Demand Letter Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 7. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Face-to-Face Interview Solicitation Letters Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 8. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Certified Mailing Receipts for Face-to-Face Interview Solicitation Letters Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 9. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Hello Letter Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 10. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Payment History. Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendant objects to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 11. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Origination File. Defendants object on the following grounds: Vague, Ambiguous, Inadmissible Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendants object to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 12. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Prior Servicer Collection Comments. Defendants object on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant, Outside the Scope of the Pleadings and Sword and Shield Doctrine. Moreover, Defendants object to these Exhibits since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. 13. Description of Plaintiff’s Exhibit: Judgment Figures. Defendant objects on the following grounds: Inadmissible Hearsay that was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is inherently untrustworthy, Hearsay within Hearsay, Authentication Lacking, Best Evidence Rule, Irrelevant and Outside the Scope of the Pleadings. Moreover, Defendant objects to this Exhibit since Plaintiff did not provide this documentation in discovery and/or in accord with the Court’s Trial Order in a timely manner. /s/ ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq. ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 67221 Primary E-mail: anthonylegendre@live.com Secondary E-mail: Anthony@Law-Legends.com Secondary E-mail: Ronald@Law-legends.com Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC P.O. Box 948599 Maitland, FL 32794-8599 (407) 460-8525 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by email through the E-portal to Attorneys for Plaintiff, at (flmail@raslg.com), on this 17th day of January, 2022. /s/ ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq. ANTHONY N. LEGENDRE, II, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 67221 Primary E-mail: anthonylegendre@live.com Secondary E-mail: Anthony@Law-Legends.com Secondary E-mail: Ronald@Law-legends.com Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC P.O. Box 948599 Maitland, FL 32794-8599 (407) 460-8525