Preview
Filing # 124733370 E-Filed 04/12/2021 12:47:40 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 17- CA-00166-M
vs.
BIZA, CORP, d/b/a GALWAY BAY MOBILE
HOME PARK,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
SANCTIONS
Plaintiff, GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Plaintiff
HOA”), files this Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and in support states:
A. Factual Background
1. On September 3, 2020, this Court entered an agreed order on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Court Order Requiring Defendant to Set Aside Disputed Lot Rental Amounts and to Provide Monthly
Accounting of Disputed Lot Rental Amounts (Exhibit A).
2. The agreed order requires individual homeowners to pay the undisputed amount of the
2017 lot rent directly to Defendant Biza and the disputed lot rent into the registry of the court or the
total 2017 rent directly to Defendant Biza (without waiver of any rights, claims or interest of any
kind). The agreed order also requires Plaintiff HOA to provide Defendant’s counsel with a monthly
accounting of the disputed rent amount that individual homeowners place into the court registry.
3. The agreed order allows for Defendant Biza to maintain any and all rights it may in
law or equity against any such individual homeowner, including the right to seek eviction of such
defaulting homeowner.
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 1
4. Plaintiff HOA knows which individual homeowners pay the disputed lot rent into the
court registry, but it does not have a complete accounting of which individual homeowner is paying
the total rent directly to Defendant Biza.
B. This lawsuit is between the homeowner’s association and Biza. The individual members
are nonparties who cannot be dismissed from the lawsuit.
5. Defendant in its motion is seeking sanction against the homeowner’s association
because there are members of the association who have fallen behind on payment. The Court should
not impose such sanctions because individuals’ members are not a party to the lawsuit, nor has the
party to the lawsuit engaged in “inequitable conduct”. According to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Swindoll, 54 So. 3d 548 citing Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998), the court
may impose such a sanction against a party that has engaged in “inequitable conduct” i.e., “where
one party has exhibited egregious conduct or acted in bad faith”. In this case, there is no finding that
the homeowner’s association has participated in egregious conduct, nor is there any allegation;
instead, Defendant is looking into the conduct of the individual members. As a matter of fact, the
homeowner’s association routinely reminds its members that they are required to pay the disputed
rent amount.
6. Additionally, Defendant moves to dismiss alleged “delinquent members” from this
lawsuit, however, these individuals cannot be dismissed when they are not a party to the lawsuit. The
District Court of Appeal held that not individual members, but the association is the party in this
lawsuit. Biza, Corp. v. Galway Bay Mobile Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D3010 (Fla.
3d DCA Dec. 18, 2019)
7. Here, this court held that the Plaintiff HOA had standing to file this lawsuit regarding
the rent dispute. It would be against the spirit and intent behind Florida Rule 1.220 if after the party
Page 2 of 7
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 2
has been held to be a homeowner’s association for the Defendant to then refer to individual members
as parties to the lawsuit instead of the homeowner’s association.
8. Again, the Defendant has legal remedies to try to enforce rent payment compliance
from individual tenants, such as filing evictions for non-payment.
C. Defendant’s assertion that 20 members are delinquent in their payment is vague and
incorrect.
9. Defendant’s motion is vague and does not specify who are the members that are
delinquent in their rent.
10. Defendant asks this court for sanctions for mobile homeowners who have not paid
their rent based on a partial accounting which only includes the amount in the court registry deposit.
The Defendant is in full custody and control of all accounting of who has paid the park partial or full
payment. In Defendant’s motion, they do not provide any documentation to show that they have not
been paid the full rent directly by the “delinquent members”. Counsel for the Plaintiff HOA represents
the homeowner’s association as a corporation and not the individual members. Since the tenants are
not a party to this action, Plaintiff does not have access to this same accounting.
11. However, at the time that counsel was served with Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff
HOA’s counsel began a cursory investigation of who was delinquent by calling the board and having
them reach out to the individual homeowners. This was the first notice that Plaintiff HOA received
of homeowners who could possibly be delinquent in their payment because the monthly accounting
that Plaintiff has access to is only a partial accounting of the rent payments.
12. After some investigation, the Plaintiff HOA confirmed that there are at least three
members who are no longer living in the Mobile Home Park. The homeowners of Lot C-8, Lot D-7,
and Lot D-10 have sold their mobile homes and no longer live in Galway Bay Park.
Page 3 of 7
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 3
13. Moreover, there is at least one mobile homeowner who was confused as to how to
make payments of the disputed amount. For instance, the family living in Lot G-8 started paying the
full amount including the disputed amount directly to the park owner instead of paying the disputed
rent amount to the court registry like they had in 2018.
14. Further, Plaintiff HOA was notified by the homeowners of Lot D-8 that they sent a
check for the disputed amount to the court recently because they had their money but were not sure
where they were supposed to deposit the money.
15. Plaintiff HOA does not have the complete documentation to determine which
individuals have not made complete rent payment. Plaintiff HOA represents the homeowner’s
association and not the individuals in a separate capacity. Plaintiff HOA does not have nor controls a
monthly accounting of the rent that is not paid to the court registry.
D. The appropriate remedy for Defendant is to serve tenancy termination notices on the
individual residents.
16. The Defendant in this motion is attempting to seek the wrong remedy, against the
wrong party, in the wrong case.
17. Pursuant to the order entered on September 3, 2020, that the Defendant references in
their motion, the mobile homeowners have the option of paying the disputed amount to the court
registry or directly to the park owner.
18. The Agreed Order (Exhibit A) under 7(b) includes language specifying the remedy for
Defendant when an individual member has not paid “individuals shall be entitled to the same seven
(7) day cure period as is provided under the applicable prospectus or lot rental agreement”. Defendant
has not alleged that they have exerted their best remedy of filing an eviction for nonpayment or
providing notice to the delinquent mobile homeowners.
Page 4 of 7
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 4
19. If according to Defendant’s full access to monthly accounting an individual member
is delinquent in their rent payment, then they are able to implement the rights they have in law against
the individual member by filing an action against the individual tenant who is delinquent. However,
you should not be able to sanction the Plaintiff HOA in this case.
E. Even if a non-party could be dismissed, dismissal is an extreme measure granted only
under egregious situations and the Plaintiff HOA’s action do not support this sanction.
20. The Florida Supreme Court held that the striking of a pleading or entering a default
for noncompliance with a court order “is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed
only in extreme circumstances.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983).
21. Here, the facts do not merit this sanction. There have been no previous sanctions, and
the individual members are not in willful and deliberate violation of the court order. Defendant has
sought no previous relief related to members being in violation of the agreed order or alleging that is
willful. Granting the severest sanction because members have fallen behind on payment would be an
abuse of discretion. See Lattanzio v. Hoffmann, 278 So. 3d 751, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
22. Defendant in its motion is seeking sanction against the homeowner’s association
because there are members of the association who have fallen behind on payment and not because
the homeowner’s association has committed any egregious action. According to State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Swindoll, 54 So. 3d 548 citing Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla.
1998), the court may impose such a sanction against a party that has engaged in “inequitable conduct”
i.e., “where one party has exhibited egregious conduct or acted in bad faith”. Here, there is no finding
that the homeowner’s association has engaged in any egregious conduct or in bad faith.
23. The only violations of an order have been from the Defendant when the homeowner’s
association was waiting for discovery documents to be produced for over a year, and the homeowner’s
association went out of their way to work it out with Defendant without further court intervention.
Page 5 of 7
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 5
24. Defendant, in its motion to compel, claims that this court should dismiss the members
who have fallen behind on payments to the court registry for a violation of its previous order based
on Allstate Ins. Co. v. Montgomery Ward, 538 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), however, this claim
is erroneous because Plaintiff HOA is not in violation of the order. Plaintiff HOA has complied with
the agreed order and has provided accounting of the monthly registry deposits to Defendant.
25. Further, the homeowner’s association does not have control over the individual
members paying the rent. Defendant’s motion is premised on the legally incorrect assumption that
the homeowner’s association has control over individual’s members monthly payments. If an
individual member falls behind on their rent, Defendant is able to seek remedy through the eviction
process against the mobile homeowner.
26. Plaintiff HOA does not dispute that Defendant has the right to exercise their right to
pursue evictions for nonpayment for those individuals who have fallen behind on payment.
27. Plaintiff HOA has complied with the court’s order by providing Defendant with the
monthly accounting of the court registry deposits, and any individual who has not paid their rent shall
be served with a 7-day notice to cure and then an eviction for their nonpayment of rent. The individual
homeowners will then have the opportunity to defend their eviction for non-payment of the lot rent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter an Order: (i) denying
Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and, (ii) for any further relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
LEGAL SERVICES OF GREATER MIAMI, INC.
By: /s/ Davalyn Suarez
Davalyn Suarez, Esq.
Page 6 of 7
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 6
Florida Bar No. 1015563
Attorney for Plaintiff
4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 100
Miami, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 438-2552
Facsimile: (305) 438-2552
E-mail: dsuarez@legalservicesmiami.org
Secondary: pleadings@legalservicesmiami.org
Secondary: crodriguez@legalservicesmiami.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via Notice of
Electronic Filing on April 11, 2021, to Brett Lieberman Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff at
brett@elrolaw.com.
By: /s/ Davalyn Suarez
Davalyn Suarez, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1015563
Page 7 of 7
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 7
'
.,,- r
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOMEOWNERS CASE NO.: 17-CA-000166-MR
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
,.._., :,;
0 ::a
<=>
BIZA, CORP, d/b/a GALWAY BAY MOBILE l;c: r
HOME PARK, ,.�,
j��
::'Cl :;ic;
Cl)
!"Tl
-0
rr,
Defendant.
g:
�-= ��
p
c...,
.,,
0
:::0
�-�· ,, '
•.•., ;;l'jJ
�
-------------- •"'-.·
-'-JR
'%l!a
--
-"-
......:;,.:.:
;:o
rTl
.
••'
:.,,· co
AGREED AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COT}.RT OR]jER §s
C)
REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SET ASIDE DISPUTED LOT RENTAL AMOUN'BtANIJ
TO PROVIDE MONTHLY ACCOUNTING OF DISPUTED LOT RENTAL AMOUNTS
This cause coming before the Court upon agreed submission of Plaintiff and Defendant to
clarify that certain April 19, 2018, Order On Plaintiff's Motion For Court Order Requiring Defendant
To Set Aside Disputed Lot Rental Amounts And To Provide Monthly Accounting Of Disputed Lot Rental
Amounts (the "Original Order") and having been advised of the agreement of the parties to the entry
of the instant order which would, among other things, clarify the obligations of the parties with respect
to the Original Order and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore:
ORDERED AND ADJUGED AS FOLLOWS:
I. The Plaintiff's Motion For Court Order Requiring Defendant To Set Aside Disputed
Lot Rental Amounts And To Provide Monthly Accounting Of Disputed Lot Rental Amounts is Granted
as follows:
a. The individual members of Plaintiff, Galway Bay Mobile Homeowners
Association, Inc. (the "Individuals" and each, an "Individual"), must timely pay
100% of the 2017 rental amount (the "Total 2017 Rent") either:
i. By paying the undisputed amount of the 2017 rent directly to Defendant
1
"EXHIBIT A"
4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 8
4/1
2/2
02
1
12:
47
P
M
eFi
led
-
Ke
vin
Ma
do
k,
CP
A,
Cl
erk
of
the
Co
urt
Pa
ge
9
4/1
2/2
02
1
12:
47
P
M
eFi
led
-
Ke
vin
Ma
do
k,
CP
A,
Cl
erk
of
the
Co
urt
Pa
ge
10
Preview
Filing # 124733370 E-Filed 04/12/2021 12:47:40 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 17- CA-00166-M vs. BIZA, CORP, d/b/a GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOME PARK, Defendant. _________________________________________/ AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff, GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Plaintiff HOA”), files this Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and in support states: A. Factual Background 1. On September 3, 2020, this Court entered an agreed order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order Requiring Defendant to Set Aside Disputed Lot Rental Amounts and to Provide Monthly Accounting of Disputed Lot Rental Amounts (Exhibit A). 2. The agreed order requires individual homeowners to pay the undisputed amount of the 2017 lot rent directly to Defendant Biza and the disputed lot rent into the registry of the court or the total 2017 rent directly to Defendant Biza (without waiver of any rights, claims or interest of any kind). The agreed order also requires Plaintiff HOA to provide Defendant’s counsel with a monthly accounting of the disputed rent amount that individual homeowners place into the court registry. 3. The agreed order allows for Defendant Biza to maintain any and all rights it may in law or equity against any such individual homeowner, including the right to seek eviction of such defaulting homeowner. 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 1 4. Plaintiff HOA knows which individual homeowners pay the disputed lot rent into the court registry, but it does not have a complete accounting of which individual homeowner is paying the total rent directly to Defendant Biza. B. This lawsuit is between the homeowner’s association and Biza. The individual members are nonparties who cannot be dismissed from the lawsuit. 5. Defendant in its motion is seeking sanction against the homeowner’s association because there are members of the association who have fallen behind on payment. The Court should not impose such sanctions because individuals’ members are not a party to the lawsuit, nor has the party to the lawsuit engaged in “inequitable conduct”. According to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Swindoll, 54 So. 3d 548 citing Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998), the court may impose such a sanction against a party that has engaged in “inequitable conduct” i.e., “where one party has exhibited egregious conduct or acted in bad faith”. In this case, there is no finding that the homeowner’s association has participated in egregious conduct, nor is there any allegation; instead, Defendant is looking into the conduct of the individual members. As a matter of fact, the homeowner’s association routinely reminds its members that they are required to pay the disputed rent amount. 6. Additionally, Defendant moves to dismiss alleged “delinquent members” from this lawsuit, however, these individuals cannot be dismissed when they are not a party to the lawsuit. The District Court of Appeal held that not individual members, but the association is the party in this lawsuit. Biza, Corp. v. Galway Bay Mobile Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D3010 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 18, 2019) 7. Here, this court held that the Plaintiff HOA had standing to file this lawsuit regarding the rent dispute. It would be against the spirit and intent behind Florida Rule 1.220 if after the party Page 2 of 7 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 2 has been held to be a homeowner’s association for the Defendant to then refer to individual members as parties to the lawsuit instead of the homeowner’s association. 8. Again, the Defendant has legal remedies to try to enforce rent payment compliance from individual tenants, such as filing evictions for non-payment. C. Defendant’s assertion that 20 members are delinquent in their payment is vague and incorrect. 9. Defendant’s motion is vague and does not specify who are the members that are delinquent in their rent. 10. Defendant asks this court for sanctions for mobile homeowners who have not paid their rent based on a partial accounting which only includes the amount in the court registry deposit. The Defendant is in full custody and control of all accounting of who has paid the park partial or full payment. In Defendant’s motion, they do not provide any documentation to show that they have not been paid the full rent directly by the “delinquent members”. Counsel for the Plaintiff HOA represents the homeowner’s association as a corporation and not the individual members. Since the tenants are not a party to this action, Plaintiff does not have access to this same accounting. 11. However, at the time that counsel was served with Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff HOA’s counsel began a cursory investigation of who was delinquent by calling the board and having them reach out to the individual homeowners. This was the first notice that Plaintiff HOA received of homeowners who could possibly be delinquent in their payment because the monthly accounting that Plaintiff has access to is only a partial accounting of the rent payments. 12. After some investigation, the Plaintiff HOA confirmed that there are at least three members who are no longer living in the Mobile Home Park. The homeowners of Lot C-8, Lot D-7, and Lot D-10 have sold their mobile homes and no longer live in Galway Bay Park. Page 3 of 7 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 3 13. Moreover, there is at least one mobile homeowner who was confused as to how to make payments of the disputed amount. For instance, the family living in Lot G-8 started paying the full amount including the disputed amount directly to the park owner instead of paying the disputed rent amount to the court registry like they had in 2018. 14. Further, Plaintiff HOA was notified by the homeowners of Lot D-8 that they sent a check for the disputed amount to the court recently because they had their money but were not sure where they were supposed to deposit the money. 15. Plaintiff HOA does not have the complete documentation to determine which individuals have not made complete rent payment. Plaintiff HOA represents the homeowner’s association and not the individuals in a separate capacity. Plaintiff HOA does not have nor controls a monthly accounting of the rent that is not paid to the court registry. D. The appropriate remedy for Defendant is to serve tenancy termination notices on the individual residents. 16. The Defendant in this motion is attempting to seek the wrong remedy, against the wrong party, in the wrong case. 17. Pursuant to the order entered on September 3, 2020, that the Defendant references in their motion, the mobile homeowners have the option of paying the disputed amount to the court registry or directly to the park owner. 18. The Agreed Order (Exhibit A) under 7(b) includes language specifying the remedy for Defendant when an individual member has not paid “individuals shall be entitled to the same seven (7) day cure period as is provided under the applicable prospectus or lot rental agreement”. Defendant has not alleged that they have exerted their best remedy of filing an eviction for nonpayment or providing notice to the delinquent mobile homeowners. Page 4 of 7 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 4 19. If according to Defendant’s full access to monthly accounting an individual member is delinquent in their rent payment, then they are able to implement the rights they have in law against the individual member by filing an action against the individual tenant who is delinquent. However, you should not be able to sanction the Plaintiff HOA in this case. E. Even if a non-party could be dismissed, dismissal is an extreme measure granted only under egregious situations and the Plaintiff HOA’s action do not support this sanction. 20. The Florida Supreme Court held that the striking of a pleading or entering a default for noncompliance with a court order “is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). 21. Here, the facts do not merit this sanction. There have been no previous sanctions, and the individual members are not in willful and deliberate violation of the court order. Defendant has sought no previous relief related to members being in violation of the agreed order or alleging that is willful. Granting the severest sanction because members have fallen behind on payment would be an abuse of discretion. See Lattanzio v. Hoffmann, 278 So. 3d 751, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). 22. Defendant in its motion is seeking sanction against the homeowner’s association because there are members of the association who have fallen behind on payment and not because the homeowner’s association has committed any egregious action. According to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Swindoll, 54 So. 3d 548 citing Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998), the court may impose such a sanction against a party that has engaged in “inequitable conduct” i.e., “where one party has exhibited egregious conduct or acted in bad faith”. Here, there is no finding that the homeowner’s association has engaged in any egregious conduct or in bad faith. 23. The only violations of an order have been from the Defendant when the homeowner’s association was waiting for discovery documents to be produced for over a year, and the homeowner’s association went out of their way to work it out with Defendant without further court intervention. Page 5 of 7 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 5 24. Defendant, in its motion to compel, claims that this court should dismiss the members who have fallen behind on payments to the court registry for a violation of its previous order based on Allstate Ins. Co. v. Montgomery Ward, 538 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), however, this claim is erroneous because Plaintiff HOA is not in violation of the order. Plaintiff HOA has complied with the agreed order and has provided accounting of the monthly registry deposits to Defendant. 25. Further, the homeowner’s association does not have control over the individual members paying the rent. Defendant’s motion is premised on the legally incorrect assumption that the homeowner’s association has control over individual’s members monthly payments. If an individual member falls behind on their rent, Defendant is able to seek remedy through the eviction process against the mobile homeowner. 26. Plaintiff HOA does not dispute that Defendant has the right to exercise their right to pursue evictions for nonpayment for those individuals who have fallen behind on payment. 27. Plaintiff HOA has complied with the court’s order by providing Defendant with the monthly accounting of the court registry deposits, and any individual who has not paid their rent shall be served with a 7-day notice to cure and then an eviction for their nonpayment of rent. The individual homeowners will then have the opportunity to defend their eviction for non-payment of the lot rent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter an Order: (i) denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and, (ii) for any further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, LEGAL SERVICES OF GREATER MIAMI, INC. By: /s/ Davalyn Suarez Davalyn Suarez, Esq. Page 6 of 7 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 6 Florida Bar No. 1015563 Attorney for Plaintiff 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33134 Telephone: (305) 438-2552 Facsimile: (305) 438-2552 E-mail: dsuarez@legalservicesmiami.org Secondary: pleadings@legalservicesmiami.org Secondary: crodriguez@legalservicesmiami.org CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via Notice of Electronic Filing on April 11, 2021, to Brett Lieberman Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff at brett@elrolaw.com. By: /s/ Davalyn Suarez Davalyn Suarez, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1015563 Page 7 of 7 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 7 ' .,,- r IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION GALWAY BAY MOBILE HOMEOWNERS CASE NO.: 17-CA-000166-MR ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, vs. ,.._., :,; 0 ::a <=> BIZA, CORP, d/b/a GALWAY BAY MOBILE l;c: r HOME PARK, ,.�, j�� ::'Cl :;ic; Cl) !"Tl -0 rr, Defendant. g: �-= �� p c..., .,, 0 :::0 �-�· ,, ' •.•., ;;l'jJ � -------------- •"'-.· -'-JR '%l!a -- -"- ......:;,.:.: ;:o rTl . ••' :.,,· co AGREED AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COT}.RT OR]jER §s C) REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SET ASIDE DISPUTED LOT RENTAL AMOUN'BtANIJ TO PROVIDE MONTHLY ACCOUNTING OF DISPUTED LOT RENTAL AMOUNTS This cause coming before the Court upon agreed submission of Plaintiff and Defendant to clarify that certain April 19, 2018, Order On Plaintiff's Motion For Court Order Requiring Defendant To Set Aside Disputed Lot Rental Amounts And To Provide Monthly Accounting Of Disputed Lot Rental Amounts (the "Original Order") and having been advised of the agreement of the parties to the entry of the instant order which would, among other things, clarify the obligations of the parties with respect to the Original Order and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is therefore: ORDERED AND ADJUGED AS FOLLOWS: I. The Plaintiff's Motion For Court Order Requiring Defendant To Set Aside Disputed Lot Rental Amounts And To Provide Monthly Accounting Of Disputed Lot Rental Amounts is Granted as follows: a. The individual members of Plaintiff, Galway Bay Mobile Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Individuals" and each, an "Individual"), must timely pay 100% of the 2017 rental amount (the "Total 2017 Rent") either: i. By paying the undisputed amount of the 2017 rent directly to Defendant 1 "EXHIBIT A" 4/12/2021 12:47 PM eFiled - Kevin Madok, CPA, Clerk of the Court Page 8 4/1 2/2 02 1 12: 47 P M eFi led - Ke vin Ma do k, CP A, Cl erk of the Co urt Pa ge 9 4/1 2/2 02 1 12: 47 P M eFi led - Ke vin Ma do k, CP A, Cl erk of the Co urt Pa ge 10