Preview
Filing # 102598410 E-Filed 01/31/2020 06:31:53 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY
ABS CAPITAL I INC TRUST 2006-NC3,
Plaintiff,
Case: CACE 13-21846
v.
AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN,
THEODORE DENAULT, LYDIA DENAULT
NEA RICHARDSON AND R.P. FUNDING, INC.
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant (s).
/
DEFENDANT NEA RICHARDSON MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT OR
ALTERNATIVELY GRANT A NEW TRIAL
(Amended certificate of service)
Comes now, Defendant, NEA RICHARSON (hereinafter “Defendants,”), pursuant to the
Florida Rule of Civil procedure 1.480 (b) and 1.530 timely files this motion to set aside the verdict
and enter judgment with the directed verdict in favor of the Defendant, Or alternatively moves this
Court for a new trial and in support thereof states as follows:
1. This cause was considered by the Court by way of a Jury Trial on January 21, 2020.
2. The defendant moves for a directed verdict stating that even assuming all of the evidence
is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that evidence favor the plaintiff, the
plaintiff failed to prove its case as a matter of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that evidence. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d
1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge v. Walt Disney World Co., 999 So.2d 669, 672
(Fla. 5 DCA 2008) (“In other words, a motion for directed verdict shall be granted only
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 01/31/2020 06:31:53 PM.****if no view of the evidence could support a verdict for the non-moving party and that the
trial court therefore determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for that
party.”)
This is best explained by the Florida Supreme Court:
“A party moving for a directed verdict admits the truth of all facts in
evidence and every reasonable conclusion or inference which can be drawn
from such evidence favorable to the non-moving party. A directed verdict is
proper when the evidence and all inferences from the evidence, considered
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party [plaintiff or party
putting on evidence in support of their claim], support the movant’s case as
a matter of law and there is no evidence to rebut it.”
Wald, 64 So.3d at 1205 (Fla. 2011) (citations omitted).
. The testimony for the plaintiff consisted of Jeffery Schbile, the Plaintiff, Diana Flores,
and a property appraiser.
. This action was a SEVEN COUNT complaint. Count I rescission of quit claim deed and
“corrective quit claim deed against AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN; COUNT II
rescission of warranty deed against THEODORE AND LYDIA DENAULT; COUNT III
QUIET TITLE AGAINST AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN, THEODORE AND
LYDIA DENAULT, AND RP FUNDING, INC.; COUNT IV Ejectment against
THEODORE AND LYDIA DENAULT; COUNT V conversion against AUDLEY
LIVINGSTON BROWN; VIOALTION OF 817.535. FLORIDA STATUTES; COUNT
VI Negligence of Notary against NEA RICHARDSON on January 16, 2018.
. The Plaintiff Amended the Complaint on April 16, 2018.
. All of the defendants settled their claims by way of a confidential settle except for Nea
Richardson, the Defendant, who is the subject matter of this motion.10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The count VI, negligence of notary against Nea Richardson, a notary, alleges a signature
to a Quit Claim Deed executed on February 9, 2015 (se Paragraph 57 to Complaint) was
forged and the Defendant was negligent in her duties as a notary, with the filing of a
mortgage foreclosure complaint and Notice of Lis Pendis by JEFFREY SCHEIBLE AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANICE JOHNSON
(hereinafter “Estate’’) as Plaintiffs on January 16, 2018 .
The Defendant, was present for trial were represented by the undersigned counsel and
did testify after close of the Plaintiff's case in chief.
At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case, the Defendant moved for a directed verdict and
the court denied the motion.
On June 28, 2018, the Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and affirmative
defenses, among them, an “Intervening/superseding causes” due to the conduct of other
parties beyond her control.
In this case there were two deeds both purported originals but recorded on different
dates.
One deed was an original quit claim deed executed on February 9, 2015 recorded on July
8, 2015 and was admitted in evidence.
The second deed was a “Corrective” Quit Claim Deed recorded on July 28, 2015 and
was admitted in evidence as well.
The Defendant testified as to what she did with respect to the execution of the deed by
the purported Grantor, the late Janice Johnson, and her signature and notary stamp was
affixed to the quit claim deed.
. After closing argument, the Jury was given instructions, deliberated and entered a17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $247,000.00.
There are three reasons the Defendant could not be the proximate cause to the damages
suffered by the plaintiff.
First, the first deed executed on February 5, 2015 had an incomplete legal description,
which rendered the deed void. See Connelly v Smith, 97 So. 2d 865 (3DCA 1957) held
an insufficient legal description to a deed is void.
Second, the Corrective deed, which was altered voided the original deed regardless of
whether the original deed had a correct legal description. See Connelly. In Connelly “the
grantee's voluntary inclusion in the description in the deed, after its execution and
delivery, of a section, township and range, and re-recording of the deed thus altered,
furnished a basis and need for the defendant--counterclaimant to be granted the relief
prayed for in the counterclaim. See Connelly v. Smith, 97 So.2d 865 870 (3 DCA
1957). As here, an altered, rerecorded deed, to add a complete legal description is
material and ineffectual to pass title.
In Mann v Mann, 677 So.2d 62 (1‘t DCA 1996) the Court held an altered deed was
ineffective to convey any joint interest in the property to Former Husband and Former
Wife. See generally 19 Fla. Jur.2d Deeds § 12 (1980)("With respect to the legal
requisites of a deed, it must indicate who is granting the property, to whom it is granted,
and what the property is."); id. at § 99 ("Any alteration of the deed by erasure or
substitution of the name of the grantee is a material alteration and forgery ... [and] is
absolutely void and wholly ineffectual to pass title...."). Id at 63.
Third, the corrective deed required a new execution due to the altered document and
additional exhibit “A” attached to it that bore the complete legal description and22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
therefore voided the notarization and at no point was the re-recording of the “corrective”
deed within the control of the Defendant, Nea Richardson.
According to the The Fund Notes TN 10.03.03 Corrective Deeds. The question is
whether a deed rerecorded to correct an erroneous description is sufficient. Unless the
corrective deed has been re-executed and acknowledged by the original grantor, it should
not be relied on to correct the errors in the descriptions, because the corrections would
not be binding on the grantors. See Connelly.
The Corrective Deed stood as Nullity.
There is no evidence Nea Richardson did anything but notarize the first deed on
February 5, 2015. She did not draft any deed and when it was altered by way of an
altered “corrective” deed, did not play any role in the conduct of the refiling or attaching
the complete legal description, which was the proximate cause to the subsequent transfer
to Theodore and Lydia Denault thus damaging the plaintiff.
Whomever, conducted a closing in transferring the property from Mr. Brown to the
Denaults is the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff, not Nea Richardson.
Therefore, in considering all of the evidence, no reasonable jury could render a verdict
for the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, NEA RICHARDSON, respectfully requests this Honorable
Court set aside the verdict and grant a directed verdict and enter a Judgment in favor of the
Defendant to go forth hence without delay or in the alternative grant a new trial.Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Samuel D. Lopez
Samuel D. Lopez, P.A.
Attomey for Defendants
Flamingo Falls Professional Center
1806 N Flamingo Road, Suite 331
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028
Tel: (954) 523-8565
Fax:(954) 523-0850
Email: sam@samlopezpa.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Attorney for the
Plaintiff, Stabinski & Funt, P.A., Daniel Caine, Esq.; and Attorneys for the Defendants, William
Beamer, Esq. Krinzman, Huss, et. al., LLP Joseph J. Huss, Esq. and Benny A Ortiz, Esq. and
Etchevery Harrison, LLP Steve Kerbel, Esq., all by Eportal on this 31% day of January, 2020.
By: /S/ Samuel D. Lopez
Samuel Lopez, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 102458
Preview
Filing # 102598410 E-Filed 01/31/2020 06:31:53 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC TRUST 2006-NC3, Plaintiff, Case: CACE 13-21846 v. AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN, THEODORE DENAULT, LYDIA DENAULT NEA RICHARDSON AND R.P. FUNDING, INC. a Florida Corporation, Defendant (s). / DEFENDANT NEA RICHARDSON MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT OR ALTERNATIVELY GRANT A NEW TRIAL (Amended certificate of service) Comes now, Defendant, NEA RICHARSON (hereinafter “Defendants,”), pursuant to the Florida Rule of Civil procedure 1.480 (b) and 1.530 timely files this motion to set aside the verdict and enter judgment with the directed verdict in favor of the Defendant, Or alternatively moves this Court for a new trial and in support thereof states as follows: 1. This cause was considered by the Court by way of a Jury Trial on January 21, 2020. 2. The defendant moves for a directed verdict stating that even assuming all of the evidence is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that evidence favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to prove its case as a matter of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that evidence. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge v. Walt Disney World Co., 999 So.2d 669, 672 (Fla. 5 DCA 2008) (“In other words, a motion for directed verdict shall be granted only *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 01/31/2020 06:31:53 PM.****if no view of the evidence could support a verdict for the non-moving party and that the trial court therefore determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for that party.”) This is best explained by the Florida Supreme Court: “A party moving for a directed verdict admits the truth of all facts in evidence and every reasonable conclusion or inference which can be drawn from such evidence favorable to the non-moving party. A directed verdict is proper when the evidence and all inferences from the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party [plaintiff or party putting on evidence in support of their claim], support the movant’s case as a matter of law and there is no evidence to rebut it.” Wald, 64 So.3d at 1205 (Fla. 2011) (citations omitted). . The testimony for the plaintiff consisted of Jeffery Schbile, the Plaintiff, Diana Flores, and a property appraiser. . This action was a SEVEN COUNT complaint. Count I rescission of quit claim deed and “corrective quit claim deed against AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN; COUNT II rescission of warranty deed against THEODORE AND LYDIA DENAULT; COUNT III QUIET TITLE AGAINST AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN, THEODORE AND LYDIA DENAULT, AND RP FUNDING, INC.; COUNT IV Ejectment against THEODORE AND LYDIA DENAULT; COUNT V conversion against AUDLEY LIVINGSTON BROWN; VIOALTION OF 817.535. FLORIDA STATUTES; COUNT VI Negligence of Notary against NEA RICHARDSON on January 16, 2018. . The Plaintiff Amended the Complaint on April 16, 2018. . All of the defendants settled their claims by way of a confidential settle except for Nea Richardson, the Defendant, who is the subject matter of this motion.10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The count VI, negligence of notary against Nea Richardson, a notary, alleges a signature to a Quit Claim Deed executed on February 9, 2015 (se Paragraph 57 to Complaint) was forged and the Defendant was negligent in her duties as a notary, with the filing of a mortgage foreclosure complaint and Notice of Lis Pendis by JEFFREY SCHEIBLE AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANICE JOHNSON (hereinafter “Estate’’) as Plaintiffs on January 16, 2018 . The Defendant, was present for trial were represented by the undersigned counsel and did testify after close of the Plaintiff's case in chief. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case, the Defendant moved for a directed verdict and the court denied the motion. On June 28, 2018, the Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and affirmative defenses, among them, an “Intervening/superseding causes” due to the conduct of other parties beyond her control. In this case there were two deeds both purported originals but recorded on different dates. One deed was an original quit claim deed executed on February 9, 2015 recorded on July 8, 2015 and was admitted in evidence. The second deed was a “Corrective” Quit Claim Deed recorded on July 28, 2015 and was admitted in evidence as well. The Defendant testified as to what she did with respect to the execution of the deed by the purported Grantor, the late Janice Johnson, and her signature and notary stamp was affixed to the quit claim deed. . After closing argument, the Jury was given instructions, deliberated and entered a17. 18. 19. 20. 21. verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $247,000.00. There are three reasons the Defendant could not be the proximate cause to the damages suffered by the plaintiff. First, the first deed executed on February 5, 2015 had an incomplete legal description, which rendered the deed void. See Connelly v Smith, 97 So. 2d 865 (3DCA 1957) held an insufficient legal description to a deed is void. Second, the Corrective deed, which was altered voided the original deed regardless of whether the original deed had a correct legal description. See Connelly. In Connelly “the grantee's voluntary inclusion in the description in the deed, after its execution and delivery, of a section, township and range, and re-recording of the deed thus altered, furnished a basis and need for the defendant--counterclaimant to be granted the relief prayed for in the counterclaim. See Connelly v. Smith, 97 So.2d 865 870 (3 DCA 1957). As here, an altered, rerecorded deed, to add a complete legal description is material and ineffectual to pass title. In Mann v Mann, 677 So.2d 62 (1‘t DCA 1996) the Court held an altered deed was ineffective to convey any joint interest in the property to Former Husband and Former Wife. See generally 19 Fla. Jur.2d Deeds § 12 (1980)("With respect to the legal requisites of a deed, it must indicate who is granting the property, to whom it is granted, and what the property is."); id. at § 99 ("Any alteration of the deed by erasure or substitution of the name of the grantee is a material alteration and forgery ... [and] is absolutely void and wholly ineffectual to pass title...."). Id at 63. Third, the corrective deed required a new execution due to the altered document and additional exhibit “A” attached to it that bore the complete legal description and22. 23. 24. 25. 26. therefore voided the notarization and at no point was the re-recording of the “corrective” deed within the control of the Defendant, Nea Richardson. According to the The Fund Notes TN 10.03.03 Corrective Deeds. The question is whether a deed rerecorded to correct an erroneous description is sufficient. Unless the corrective deed has been re-executed and acknowledged by the original grantor, it should not be relied on to correct the errors in the descriptions, because the corrections would not be binding on the grantors. See Connelly. The Corrective Deed stood as Nullity. There is no evidence Nea Richardson did anything but notarize the first deed on February 5, 2015. She did not draft any deed and when it was altered by way of an altered “corrective” deed, did not play any role in the conduct of the refiling or attaching the complete legal description, which was the proximate cause to the subsequent transfer to Theodore and Lydia Denault thus damaging the plaintiff. Whomever, conducted a closing in transferring the property from Mr. Brown to the Denaults is the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff, not Nea Richardson. Therefore, in considering all of the evidence, no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, NEA RICHARDSON, respectfully requests this Honorable Court set aside the verdict and grant a directed verdict and enter a Judgment in favor of the Defendant to go forth hence without delay or in the alternative grant a new trial.Respectfully submitted, /s/ Samuel D. Lopez Samuel D. Lopez, P.A. Attomey for Defendants Flamingo Falls Professional Center 1806 N Flamingo Road, Suite 331 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028 Tel: (954) 523-8565 Fax:(954) 523-0850 Email: sam@samlopezpa.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Attorney for the Plaintiff, Stabinski & Funt, P.A., Daniel Caine, Esq.; and Attorneys for the Defendants, William Beamer, Esq. Krinzman, Huss, et. al., LLP Joseph J. Huss, Esq. and Benny A Ortiz, Esq. and Etchevery Harrison, LLP Steve Kerbel, Esq., all by Eportal on this 31% day of January, 2020. By: /S/ Samuel D. Lopez Samuel Lopez, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 102458