Preview
Filing # 58631203 E-Filed 07/06/2017 12:19:14 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
TIFFANY CASTILLE,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 2017-CA-004411-O
KATHLEEN STEWART,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, KATHLEEN STEWART (hereinafter referred to as the "Homeowner"),
by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her Answer and Affirmative Defenses,
and states as follows:
1. Admitted solely for jurisdictional purposes; Homeowner denies that she has
acted in a manner to proximately cause damages to the Plaintiff in excess of this Court’s
threshold jurisdictional amount, and denies further that plaintiff is entitled to recover any
attorney’s fees and/or costs in this action.
2. Admitted solely for venue purposes; Homeowner denies that she has acted in
a manner to proximately cause damages to the Plaintiff in excess of this Court’s threshold
jurisdictional amount.
3. Admitted that the Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18 years;
Homeowner is without sufficient knowledge, and therefore can neither admit nor deny, the
allegation pertaining to Plaintiff’s residency. Answering further, homeowner denies that
Plaintiff is a “private figure” for purposes of this action.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied that Homeowner has published tortious and defamatory statements
concerning the Plaintiff to unnamed residents of the La Costa Brava Lakeside #45
Condominium Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association"). Answering further,
Homeowner denies that she has published defamatory comments on Facebook posts
regarding Plaintiff or that she has published defamatory comments regarding the Plaintiff to
unnamed individuals and associations that do business with Plaintiff’s employer.
6. Homeowner denies that in communications to other residents of the
Association, she falsely alleged that Plaintiff is not licensed to perform community
association management work and that Plaintiff is participating in efforts to steal from the
Association assessment funds. Answering further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff
unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department
of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus
created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff
lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida.
7. Homeowner is without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the
allegation that Plaintiff is an employee of Ferdinandsen Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a World of
Homes. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she personally published any false
allegations relating to the Plaintiff.
8. Homeowner denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
9. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 9
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice.
10. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 10
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice.
11. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 11
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice.
12. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 12
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering
further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida.
13. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 13
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering
further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida.
14. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 14
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering
further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida.
15. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 15
of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering
further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida.
16. Homeowner denies the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 16 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
17. Homeowner denies the allegations that characterize her statements to others in
paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Answering further, Homeowner denies that any of the
allegations attributed to her in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or
were published with actual malice.
18. Homeowner restates her answers to paragraphs 1 through 17 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
19. Homeowner denies the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 19 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.
20. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
21. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed
Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice.
Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida.
22. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed
Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice.
Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida.
23. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed
Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice.
Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida. Lastly, Homeowner states that the communication of her
concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited
communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in
receiving, reasonably vetting and acting upon that information for themselves.
24. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed
Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice.
Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida. Lastly, Homeowner states that the communication of her
concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited
communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in
receiving, reasonably vetting and acting upon that information for themselves.
25. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed
Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice.
Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for
approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any
inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community
association manager in Florida. Lastly, Homeowner states that the communication of her
concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited
communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in
receiving, reasonably vetting and acting upon that information for themselves.
26. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
27. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
and demands strict proof thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
28. As her First Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that any allegations she
made against Plaintiff proceeded from good faith, with a reasonable belief in the integrity of
the information conveyed, and not with actual malice.
29. As her Second Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the
communication of her concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff
constituted private, limited communications to others who all had with a vested personal
and/or financial interest in receiving, vetting and acting upon that information for themselves.
30. As her Third Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the filing of the
instant action by Plaintiff amounts to a SLAAP suit expressly prohibited by Section
718.1224, Fla. Stat.
31. As her Fourth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the filing of the
instant action by Plaintiff amounts to a SLAAP suit expressly prohibited by Florida public
policy.
32. As her Fifth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the Plaintiff’s
conduct in this matter amounting to “unclean hands,” i.e., her attempts to recover sums from
Homeowner that the Plaintiff knows are not authorized by law, her false allegations of
having sustained damages in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional threshold, and her bad faith
in proceeding with this litigation for the principal purpose of chilling the exercise by
Homeowner of her freedom to speak on matters of genuine concern and interest to the
owner-members and residents of the subject community.
33. As her Sixth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that even assuming
purely arguendo that Homeowner has published defamatory allegations with respect to the
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has failed to sustain damages in an amount in excess of this Court’s
jurisdictional threshold.
34. As her Seventh Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that even assuming
purely arguendo that Homeowner has published defamatory allegations with respect to the
Plaintiff and that Plaintiff can show that she has sustained damages in an amount in excess of
this Court’s jurisdictional threshold, any such damages claimed were brought on by
Plaintiff’s own unreasonable and conscious failure – over a period of approximately 5 years -
- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname
due to marriage, thereby creating the logical impression to any inquiring member of the
general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida.
35. As her Eighth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that even assuming
purely arguendo that Homeowner has published defamatory allegations with respect to the
Plaintiff and that Plaintiff can show that she has sustained damages in an amount in excess of
this Court’s jurisdictional threshold, Plaintiff has failed to reasonably act to mitigate such
damages by, inter alia, communicating herself with the owner-members and residents of the
subject community to dispel any unwarranted allegations made by Homeowner against her.
36. Homeowner hereby reserves the right to file a counter-claim in this action
should this matter be allowed to proceed, and demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
WHEREFORE, now having fully answered the Plaintiff’s Complaint in this cause,
Homeowner respectfully requests that:
(a) judgment in this action be entered in favor of Homeowner, that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that Homeowner be discharged therefrom;
(b) judgment be entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of Homeowner for all
costs of this action;
(c) judgment be entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of Homeowner for her
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of this action pursuant to Section 718.1224,
Fla. Stat, and/or other Florida law; and
(d) this Court award Homeowner such other and further relief as may be deemed
just and proper under the circumstances of this case.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2017.
/s/ James A. Gustino
Florida Bar No. 612499
James A. Gustino, P.A.
P.O. Box 784959
Winter Garden, Florida 34778-4959
(407) 625-6700 / telephone
jgustino@gustinolaw.com – primary email
gustinolaw@protonmail.com – secondary email
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
KATHLEEN STEWART
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been filed
th
this 5 day of July, 2017 with the Clerk of the Court via the Florida Courts eFiling Portal,
which shall send an electronic notice and copy of same to all counsel of record.
/s/ James A. Gustino
Preview
Filing # 58631203 E-Filed 07/06/2017 12:19:14 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION TIFFANY CASTILLE, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 2017-CA-004411-O KATHLEEN STEWART, Defendant. _______________________________/ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant, KATHLEEN STEWART (hereinafter referred to as the "Homeowner"), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and states as follows: 1. Admitted solely for jurisdictional purposes; Homeowner denies that she has acted in a manner to proximately cause damages to the Plaintiff in excess of this Court’s threshold jurisdictional amount, and denies further that plaintiff is entitled to recover any attorney’s fees and/or costs in this action. 2. Admitted solely for venue purposes; Homeowner denies that she has acted in a manner to proximately cause damages to the Plaintiff in excess of this Court’s threshold jurisdictional amount. 3. Admitted that the Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18 years; Homeowner is without sufficient knowledge, and therefore can neither admit nor deny, the allegation pertaining to Plaintiff’s residency. Answering further, homeowner denies that Plaintiff is a “private figure” for purposes of this action. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied that Homeowner has published tortious and defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff to unnamed residents of the La Costa Brava Lakeside #45 Condominium Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association"). Answering further, Homeowner denies that she has published defamatory comments on Facebook posts regarding Plaintiff or that she has published defamatory comments regarding the Plaintiff to unnamed individuals and associations that do business with Plaintiff’s employer. 6. Homeowner denies that in communications to other residents of the Association, she falsely alleged that Plaintiff is not licensed to perform community association management work and that Plaintiff is participating in efforts to steal from the Association assessment funds. Answering further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 7. Homeowner is without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegation that Plaintiff is an employee of Ferdinandsen Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a World of Homes. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she personally published any false allegations relating to the Plaintiff. 8. Homeowner denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 9. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. 10. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. 11. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. 12. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 13. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 14. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 15. Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. Answering further, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 16. Homeowner denies the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 17. Homeowner denies the allegations that characterize her statements to others in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Answering further, Homeowner denies that any of the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint defamed Plaintiff or were published with actual malice. 18. Homeowner restates her answers to paragraphs 1 through 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 19. Homeowner denies the allegations attributed to her in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 20. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 21. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice. Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 22. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice. Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 23. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice. Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. Lastly, Homeowner states that the communication of her concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in receiving, reasonably vetting and acting upon that information for themselves. 24. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice. Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. Lastly, Homeowner states that the communication of her concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in receiving, reasonably vetting and acting upon that information for themselves. 25. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Homeowner denies that she defamed Plaintiff, or that the statements attributed to her were published with actual malice. Moreover, Homeowner states that Plaintiff unreasonably and consciously failed -- for approximately 5 years -- to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, and thus created the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. Lastly, Homeowner states that the communication of her concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in receiving, reasonably vetting and acting upon that information for themselves. 26. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 27. Homeowner denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 28. As her First Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that any allegations she made against Plaintiff proceeded from good faith, with a reasonable belief in the integrity of the information conveyed, and not with actual malice. 29. As her Second Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the communication of her concerns regarding the licensure and conduct of the Plaintiff constituted private, limited communications to others who all had with a vested personal and/or financial interest in receiving, vetting and acting upon that information for themselves. 30. As her Third Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the filing of the instant action by Plaintiff amounts to a SLAAP suit expressly prohibited by Section 718.1224, Fla. Stat. 31. As her Fourth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the filing of the instant action by Plaintiff amounts to a SLAAP suit expressly prohibited by Florida public policy. 32. As her Fifth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that the Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter amounting to “unclean hands,” i.e., her attempts to recover sums from Homeowner that the Plaintiff knows are not authorized by law, her false allegations of having sustained damages in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional threshold, and her bad faith in proceeding with this litigation for the principal purpose of chilling the exercise by Homeowner of her freedom to speak on matters of genuine concern and interest to the owner-members and residents of the subject community. 33. As her Sixth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that even assuming purely arguendo that Homeowner has published defamatory allegations with respect to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff has failed to sustain damages in an amount in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional threshold. 34. As her Seventh Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that even assuming purely arguendo that Homeowner has published defamatory allegations with respect to the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff can show that she has sustained damages in an amount in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional threshold, any such damages claimed were brought on by Plaintiff’s own unreasonable and conscious failure – over a period of approximately 5 years - - to advise the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of her change in surname due to marriage, thereby creating the logical impression to any inquiring member of the general public that Plaintiff lacked licensure as a community association manager in Florida. 35. As her Eighth Affirmative Defense, Homeowner states that even assuming purely arguendo that Homeowner has published defamatory allegations with respect to the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff can show that she has sustained damages in an amount in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional threshold, Plaintiff has failed to reasonably act to mitigate such damages by, inter alia, communicating herself with the owner-members and residents of the subject community to dispel any unwarranted allegations made by Homeowner against her. 36. Homeowner hereby reserves the right to file a counter-claim in this action should this matter be allowed to proceed, and demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. WHEREFORE, now having fully answered the Plaintiff’s Complaint in this cause, Homeowner respectfully requests that: (a) judgment in this action be entered in favor of Homeowner, that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that Homeowner be discharged therefrom; (b) judgment be entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of Homeowner for all costs of this action; (c) judgment be entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of Homeowner for her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of this action pursuant to Section 718.1224, Fla. Stat, and/or other Florida law; and (d) this Court award Homeowner such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper under the circumstances of this case. Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2017. /s/ James A. Gustino Florida Bar No. 612499 James A. Gustino, P.A. P.O. Box 784959 Winter Garden, Florida 34778-4959 (407) 625-6700 / telephone jgustino@gustinolaw.com – primary email gustinolaw@protonmail.com – secondary email ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, KATHLEEN STEWART Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been filed th this 5 day of July, 2017 with the Clerk of the Court via the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which shall send an electronic notice and copy of same to all counsel of record. /s/ James A. Gustino