Motion for Renewal of Judgment in LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INCVs.TONI J SHERMAN, et al| Trellis.Law

On December 29, 2017 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Le Scampi Condominium Association Inc, and Any And All Unknown Parties, Sherman, Toni J, for REAL PROPERTY OTHER2 - $50,001 - $249,999 in the District Court of Pinellas County.

Preview
Filing # 86623098 E-Filed 03/19/2019 01:59:52 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION

LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.
Case No.2 18—43—CI
TONI J. SHERMAN; UNKNOWN TENANT #1, the
name being ﬁctitious t0 account for party in possession;
UNKNOWN TENANT #2, the name being ﬁctitious t0
account for party in possession; and ANY AND ALL
UNKNOWN PARTIES claiming by, through, under, and
against the herein named individual defendant(s) who are
not known t0 be dead or alive, whether said unknown
parties may claim an interest as spouses, heirs, devisees,
grantees, or other claimants,

Defendants.
/

PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Plaintiff, LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (the “Association”),

pursuant to Rule 1.510(b) 0f the Florida Rules 0f Civil Procedure, ﬁles this Renewed Motion for

Summary Judgment and, there being n0 material issues of fact or law, requests this Court enter

summary judgment in its favor and would state as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an action for foreclosure and damages brought by the Association against

Defendants, TONI J. SHERMAN (the “Property Owner”); UNKNOWN TENANT #1, the name

being ﬁctitious t0 account for party in possession; UNKNOWN TENANT #2, the name being

ﬁctitious to account for party in possession; and ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES

claiming by, through, under, and against the herein named individual defendant(s) who are not

known to be dead or alive, whether said unknown parties may claim an interest as spouses, heirs,

SLK_TAM:#30]7004V1 I

***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 03/21/2019 08:45:41 AM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
devisees, grantees, or other claimants, seeking to enforce the Proposed Declaration 0f

Condominium of Le Scampi (“Declaration”) as recorded in Ofﬁcial Records Book 5297, Page 1536

et seq., of the Ofﬁcial Records of Pinellas County, Florida, as amended and supplemented from

time t0 time. As more fully set forth below, the Association is entitled t0 the entry of summary

judgment in its favor.

II. GROUNDS UPON WHICH MOTION IS BASED
The following facts are uncontested in the pleadings 0r are supported by the record in this

action and/or an Afﬁdavit which has been 0r will be ﬁled prior t0 the hearing 0n this Motion.

A. The Parties

1. The Association is a Florida not—for-proﬁt corporation and condominium

association operating pursuant to Chapter 71 8, Florida Statutes, and by the Declaration.

2. The Property Owner is the owner of certain real estate (the “Property”) located in

the Association at 19010 Gulf B1Vd., #201, Indian Shores, Florida 33785, which is described as

follows:

That certain condominium parcel composed 0f Unit 201 and an
undivided interest 0r share in the common elements
appurtenant thereto, in accordance with and subject t0 the
covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, terms and other
provisions 0f the Declaration of Condominium of Le Scampi, a
Condominium and exhibits attached thereto, all as recorded in
Ofﬁcial Records Book 5297, Pages 1536, et seq., and the plat
thereof recorded in Condominium Plat Book 57, Pages 97
through 101, inclusive, together with such additions and
amendments t0 said Declaration and Condominium Plat as
from time t0 time may be made, all as recorded in the public
records 0f Pinellas County, Florida.

3. ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES, whose actual names are unknown to the

Association, may claim an interest in the Property by virtue 0f their elective share, right of

SLK_TAM:#30 7004vl
1 2
redemption, possession, custody 0r control 0f the subject premises, including any rights 0f

homestead. Any such interest is inferior and subordinate in time and right t0 the Association’s lien.

B. Procedural History

4. The Association ﬁled this action 0n December 29, 2017, seeking to foreclose its

claim of lien or, in the alternative, seeking money damages.

5. On January 15, 201 8, the Property Owner was served with a copy of the

Summons, Complaint and Lis Pendens. Afﬁdavit 0f service was ﬁled With the Court 0n January

26, 201 8. At the time 0f service, Defendant stated that she is not in the active military service of

the United States.

6. On January 18, 2018, it was determined that the Property was vacant With n0

tenants residing. Afﬁdavits 0f Non—Service were subsequently ﬁled with the Court. As such,

UNKNOWN TENANT #1 and UNKNOWN TENANT #2 have been dropped as parties t0 this

action.

7. On February 2, 201 8, the Property Owner ﬁled a Response t0 the Complaint. The

Property Owner acknowledged the outstanding debt and stated that she intends t0 pay upon the

sale of her Property.

8. On March 19, 2018, subsequent to the ﬁling and service 0f the initial Complaint,

a special assessment came due for the subject property. The Property Owner failed t0 pay this

special assessment and the Association moved to amend the Complaint.

9. On May 3, 2018, the Court granted the Association’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint.

10. On May 15, 201 8, the Property Owner was served with the Amended Complaint.

SLK_TAM:#3017004V1 3
11. On May 25, 2018, the Property Owner ﬁled a Response to the Amended

Complaint. Again, the Property Owner acknowledged the outstanding debt and stated that she

intends t0 pay upon the sale 0f her Property.

12. On June 25, 201 8, Plaintiff ﬁled itsMotion for Summary Judgment.

13. On September 21, 2018, the Property Owner ﬁled her Answer and Afﬁrmative

Defenses to Plaintiff‘s Amended Complaint and an Afﬁdavit in Opposition to Summary

Judgment.

14. On September 26, 2018, the Court ordered the Parties to Mediation. The Parties

attended mediation on November 9, 2018, but were unable t0 reach a resolution of this matter.

C. The Facts

15. The Association has made assessments for common expenses and special

assessments against the Property.

16. Although partial payments have been received, the Property Owner has failed to

pay these assessments in full as they became due and payable despite demand by the Association

to the Property Owner for payment of these assessments and, pursuant t0 Section 7 of the

Declaration, the Association isentitled t0 foreclose its Claim of Lien.

17. On October 5, 2017, the Association mailed the Property Owner a Notice of Intent

to Record a Claim 0f Lien pursuant t0 section 718.1 16(5)(a), Florida Statutes. A true and correct

copy 0f the Notice of Intent t0 Record a Claim 0f Lien is attached hereto and expressly made a part

hereof as Exhibit “A”.

18. As a result of the Property Owner’s failure to pay assessments, the Association,

pursuant t0 section 718.1 16(5)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 7.10 0f the Declaration, recorded an

SLK-TAM:#30]7004VI 4
Amended Claim 0f Lien] against the Property on November 21, 2017 in Ofﬁcial Records Book

19849, Page 2554 0f the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. The Amended Claim of Lien

states the description 0f the condominium parcel, the name 0f the record owner, the name and

address of the association, the amount due, and the due dates and was signed by an authorized agent

0f the Association, as required by section 718.1 16(5)(b), Florida Statutes. A true and correct copy 0f

the Amended Claim of Lien is attached as Exhibit “B” t0 the Complaint and isexpressly made a

pan hereof.

19. On November 22, 2017, the Association mailed the Property Owner a Notice of

Intent to Foreclose as required by section 71 8. 1 16(6)(b), Florida Statutes. A true and conect copy of
the Notice of Intent to Foreclose is attached hereto and expressly made a part hereof as Exhibit

“B”.

20. As 0f March 6, 2019, unpaid assessments for common expenses in the amount 0f

$52,200.00 and unpaid special assessments in the amount of $84,029.00 have accrued on the

Property, plus interest at the rate of eighteen percent (1 8%) per annum in the amount 0f $3 1 ,775.84,

and late fees at the rate 0f $25.00 per delinquent assessment or installment in the amount 0f

$1,400.00, plus attorneys’ fees and costs incident to the collection of the unpaid assessments.

Additional assessments, interest, late fees, and attorneys’ fees and costs continue t0 accrue.

21. Partial payments received on this account in the amount of $31,500.00 must be

applied pursuant t0 Section 7.11 of the Declaration, Article IX, Section 3 0f the By—laws, and Fla.

Stat. § 718.1 16(3), ﬁrst to any interest accrued by the Association, then t0 any administrative late

fee, then t0 any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in collection, and then to the

delinquent assessments.

‘

The Association recorded a Claim of Lien against the Property 0n September 26, 2017 inOfﬁcial Records Book
19782, Page 2102 0fthe public records of Pinellas County, Florida,but subsequently amended itsClaim 0f Lien
after resending its initial notice 0f intent to record a claim of lien letter to the Property Owner’s mailing address.

SLK_TAM:#30 l7004v1 5
22. The Association has retained the services 0f Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP

and is obligated to pay ita reasonable fee. The Association is entitled t0 recover its attorneys’

fees and costs pursuant t0 sections 718.116 and 718.303, Florida Statutes, Section 7 0f the

Declaration, and Article IX of the By-laws.

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Florida law, summary judgment is appropriate when there is n0 genuine issue of

material fact. See Volusia County v.Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.

2000); Fla. R. CiV. P. 1.510(0). For purposes 0f summary judgment, a “material fact” is a fact that

is essential to the resolution of legal questions raised in the case. See Florida Dep ’t.
ofEnvtl. Reg.

v.C. P. Developers, Ina, 512 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. lst DCA 1987). The existence 0f a dispute as t0

matters not material t0 the action will not preclude entry of summary judgment. See Armstrong v.

Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Ca, 366 So. 2d 88, 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The term “genuine issue”

means a real issue, as distinguished from a false 0r colorable issue. See Florida Palm-Aire Corp.

v. Devlin, 230 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Harrison v. Consumers Mortgage Ca, 154

So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

The summary judgment procedure isintended to improve the administration ofjustice, and

itsfunction isto avoid the expense and delay 0f trial when a party will not be able t0 support a fact

contention by competent evidence. See Pearson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0., 187 So. 2d 343,

347 (Fla. lst DCA 1966) (citing Nat’l Airlines, Inc. v.Florida Equip. C0. osz'ami, 71 So. 2d 741

(1954)). Thus, where the material facts are not in dispute “it is the court’s duty t0 enter summary

judgment.” Castellano v. Raynor, 725 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Fla. R. CiV. P.

1.510. If all of the facts either are admitted 0r the opposing party is unable to support some

SLK_TAM:#3017004V] 6
factual contention by any competent evidence, summary judgment should be granted. See id.;

Nat’l. Airlines v. Florida Equip. C0. ofMiami, 71 So. 2d 741, 744 (Fla. 1954).

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non~moving party “must present evidence,

not simply legal argument, demonstrating the existence of a disputed issue of material fact.” The

Florida Bar v. Mogil, 763 So. 2d 303, 307 (Fla. 2000) (citing Woodruffv. Gov’t. Employees Ins.

C0., 669 So. 2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. lst DCA 1996)); Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Austin, 658 So.

2d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Unsupported assertions that there are material issues of fact

cannot defeat the motion. Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (“[i]t is not enough for the

opposing party merely t0 assert that an issue does exist”); Eagle Nat’l Bank osz'ami v. Burks,

502 SO. 2d 69, 70-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (afﬁrming summary judgment where non-movant’s

allegation was unsupported by the record). Because the pleadings on ﬁle together with the

afﬁdavits show that there is n0 genuine issue as t0 any material fact, the Association is entitled to

a judgment as a matter 0f law.

B. Pursuant to the Declaration and Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, the Property Owner
isresponsiblefor payment 0f assessments, and the Association is entitled to money
damages orforeclosure 0f its claim oflien for unpaid assessments.

It is a well settled rule 0f law that a declaration is t0 be interpreted as a matter 0f law.

Schneberger v.Schneberger, 979 So. 2d 981, 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Blue ReefHolding Corp.
v. Coyne, 645 So. 2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). A declaration is t0 be construed like a

contract, and where it isclear and unambiguous, the declaration should be construed as written,

and a court can give it n0 other meaning. Heck v. Parkview Place Homeowners Association,

Inc, 642 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

SLK..TAM:#301 7004v] 7
Moreover, as the Second District Court 0f Appeal determined in Barnett v. Destiny

Owners Ass’n., 856 So. 2d 1090, 1092 (Fla. lstDCA 2003) (citing Barrett v.Leiher, 355 So. 2d

222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)):

Florida adheres to the general rule that a reasonable, unambiguous
restriction will be enforced according to the intent 0f the parties as
expressed by the clear and ordinary meaning of its terms. If itis

necessary to construe a somewhat ambiguous term, the intent of
the parties as to the evil sought t0 be avoided expressed by the
covenants as a whole will be determinative. Only Where intent
cannot be ascertained will the covenant not be enforced. . ..

Consequently, covenants and restrictions found Within a declaration are afforded a strong

presumption 0f validity. Shields v.Andros Isle Prop. Owners Ass’n., 872 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Fla.

4th DCA 2004) (citing Emerald Estates Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Gorodeter, 819 So. 2d 190,

193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

In the instant case, the covenants contained in the Declaration unambiguously provide for

assessments for Association expenses and each unit owned shall be liable for his, her 0r its

portion of said expenses. The Declaration imparts a clear and express intent that the covenants

and restrictions 0f the Declaration shall bind the properties and be enforceable by the Association

or the Unit Owner of any property subject t0 the Declaration. The Property Owner, as a member

of the Association and the record owner 0f Property subject to the Declaration, is bound to

comply with the restrictive covenants, including Section 7 0f the Declaration and Article IX,

Section 3 of the By-laws, as well as Section 718.116(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the

Property Owner t0 pay assessments and allows the Association to bring a suit for money

damages 0r t0 foreclose a claim of lien for unpaid assessments.

However, despite this unequivocal obligation and repeated demand by the Association for

payment, the Property Owner is in violation of the Association’s governing documents and

SLK_TAM:#3OI7004V1 8
Florida Statues by failing to pay all assessments. Section 7.1 0f the Declaration provides that

“[t]he expense for the operation and maintenance of the common elements...shall be a common

expense and each unit owned shall be liable for his, her or its portion of said expenses as provided in

Article 6.4(c)(1) of the Declaration of Condominium[.]”

Similarly, Article IX, Section 1 0f the By-laws states, in relevant part, as follows:

The expense for the operation and maintenance 0f the common
elements, (including general common elements and limited common
elements), shall be a common expense and each unit owner shall be
liable for his, her or itsportion 0f said expenses as provided in the
Declaration of Condominium, except as hereinafter provided.

Section 7.5 ofthe Declaration provides as follows:

Assessments for common expenses for emergencies requiring
immediate repair and which cannot be paid from the assessments for
recurring expenses shall only be made after approval by the Board 0f
Directors. After such approval by the Board of Directors, such
emergency assessment shall become effective, and it shall be due
after thirty (30) days notice thereof in such manner as the Board 0f
Directors may require.

Section 7.6 of the Declaration provides, in relevant pan, as follows:

All liens of any nature levied by governmental authority, including
taxes and special assessments which are a lien upon more than one
unit or any portion of the common areas, shall be paid by the
Association and shall be assessed against the units which in the
opinion of the Board are responsible for the existence of such liens.

Similarly, Article IX, Section 2 of the By-laws provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Assessments for common expense for emergencies requiring
immediate repair, and which cannot be paid from the assessments for
recurring expenses, shall only be made aﬁer approval by the Board
of Directors. After such approval by the Board of Directors, such
emergency assessments shall become effective and shall be due after
thirty (30) days’ notice thereof in such manner as the Board 0f
Directors may require.

All liens of any nature, including taxes and special assessments
levied by governmental authority which are a lien upon more than

SLK_TAM:#3017004V1 9
one unit 0r any portion of the common areas, shall be paid by the
Association as a common expense and shall be assessed against the
units which in the opinion 0f the Board are responsible for the
existence of such liens as the Board in its sole discretion shall deem
appropriate.

Section 7. 10 of the Declaration provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The unpaid portion of an assessment Which is due, including
payments accelerated pursuant t0 preceding Paragraph 7.3 hereof,
shall be secured by a lien upon:

(a) The unit and all appurtenances thereto when a notice claiming a
lien has been recorded by the Association on the Public Records
0f Pinellas County[.] Said lien shall include reasonable
attorneys’ fees incurred by the Association incident t0 the
collection of the assessment or enforcement of the lien, together
with interest thereon at the maximum rate allowed by law from
due date until paid.

Section 7.11 of the Declaration provides as follows:

(b) Interest, application of payment. Assessments and installments
paid on 0r before thirty (30) days after due date shall not bear
interest; but all sums not paid on or before thirty (30) days after
due date shall bear interest at the maximum rate of interest
allowed by law from due date until paid. A11 payments on
account shall be applied ﬁrst t0 interest, if accrued, and then t0
the assessment payment ﬁrst due.

(C) M. The Association, at its option, may enforce collection of
delinquent assessment accounts by suit at law 0r by foreclosure
0f the lien securing the assessment, 0r by any other competent
proceeding, and in any event the Association shall be entitled to
recover the payments which are delinquent at the time 0f
judgment or decree, together With interest as herein provided
from the due date of any delinquent assessment, together with all
court costs incurred in said action and all reasonable attorney’s
fee, including but not limited to such fees incurred prior t0
institution of litigation, or in litigation including trial and
appellate review, and in bankruptcy 0r other administrative 0r
judicial proceedings.

SLKNTAM:#3017OO4VI
Similarly, Article IX, Section 3 0fthe By—laws provides as follows:

Interest, application 0f payments: Assessments and installments
paid 0n 0r before thirty (30) days after due date shall not bear
interest; but all sums not paid 0n or before thirty (30) days after
due date shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law
from due date until paid. All payments on account shall be applied
ﬁrst to interest, if accrued, and then to the assessment payment ﬁrst
due.

The Association, at its option, may enforce collection 0f delinquent
assessment accounts by suit at law, or by foreclosure 0f the lien
securing the assessment, or by any other competent proceeding and
in any event the Association shall be entitled to recover the
payments which are delinquent at the time 0f judgment 0r decree,
together with interest at the legal rate and costs of suit, plus
reasonable attorney’s fees, including, but not limited to, such fees
incurred prior t0 institution 0f litigation 0r in litigation, including
trial and appellate review, and bankmptcy 0r other administrative
0r judicial proceedings.

The Property Owner, in her Answer and Afﬁrmative Defenses, alleges that the

Association breached Article XII, Section 7.7 0f the Declaration by levying special assessments

for replacement 0r repairs in excess 0f $5,000.00 per year. However, Anicle XII, Section 7.7 of

the Declaration states, in pertinent part:

Any budget requiring the expenditure 0f funds for betterments and
reserves for replacement or repairs in excess of $5,000.00 in a
given calendar year shall require the approval 0f the majority 0f
owners. (Emphasis added.)

This provision, as well as “Section 4” of the By—Laws 0f Le Scampi Condominium Association,

Inc. (“By—Laws”) cited by the Property Owner in her Answer and Afﬁrmative Defensesz refers

only to the voting requirements necessary for approving a budget that requires the expenditure of

funds for betterments and reserves for replacement or repairs in excess 0f $5,000.00 0r more in

any given calendar year and not for the approval of a special assessment, which is deﬁned by

section 718.103(24), Florida Statutes, as “any assessment levied against a unit owner other than

2
Plaintiffassumes Defendant isreferring t0 Article IX, Section 4 oftheBy-Laws.

SLK_TAM:#3OI 7004vl 11
the assessment required by a budget adopted annually.” The special assessments levied against

the Unit Owners 0f the Association were levied properly as shown by the Afﬁdavit 0f Sherry

DeRuzzo, which isﬁled contemporaneously herewith.

Because the Property Owner has failed to comply with her obligations under the

Declaration and there are n0 genuine issues 0f material fact in dispute, summary judgment is

appropriate. See Imperial Terrace East Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Grimes, 649 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1995) (upholding summary judgment of foreclosure where a declaration 0f covenants and

restrictions speciﬁcally so allowed and reversing denial of attorney’s fees because such fees were

clearly provided for in the declaration of covenants and restrictions).

C. The Association ’s lien is superior to the interests ofDefendants.

It is well settled that the interest of the owner of a property subject t0 a homeowners’

association’s lien and the interest 0f all those claiming by, through 0r under the owner 0f the

subject property are inferior and subordinate to the interest of the Association. JP Morgan

Chase Bank v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n et. al., 929 So. 2d 651, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Holly

Lake Ass’n v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 660 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1995) (citing New York Life

Ins. & Annuity Corp. v. Hammocks Cmty. Ass’n, Ina, 622 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993));

Bessemer v. Gersten, 381 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1980); Ass’n 0f Poinciana Villages. v. Avatar

Properties, 1nc., 724 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Because there are no genuine issues of

material fact regarding the Association’s priority over all Defendants, summary judgment should

be entered in favor 0f the Association.

Pursuant t0 Section 71 8.1 16(5)(a), Florida Statutes, the lien “. ..iseffective from and shall

relate back t0 the recording of the original declaration 0f condominium, or, in the case of lien on

a parcel located in a phase condominium, the last to occur of the recording of the original

SLK_TAM:#30} 7004vl 12
declaration or amendment thereto creating the parcel.” §71 8.1 l6(5)(a), Fla. Stat. This law applies

when determining the priority 0f a condominium association’s lien over all liens except a ﬁrst

mortgage of record. Id.

D. The Association ’s attorneys ’fees and costs must be added t0 its recovery
pursuant t0 sections 71 8.116, Florida Statutes, and the Declaration

Under Florida law, it is well established that pursuant t0 Sections 718.116(6)(a) and

718.303(1), Florida Statutes, a prevailing party is entitled t0 recover reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs. See Black et. al. v. Bedford at Lake Catherine Homeowners Ass’n., Ina, et. al., 801

So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Brickell Bay Club Condo. Ass’n., Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959

(Fla. 3d DCA 1981); 51 Island Way Condo. Ass’n., Inc. v. Williams, 458 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1984); Pelican Bay Homeowners Ass’un Inc. v. Sedita, 724 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 5th DCA
1999) (“[W]here the homeowner association prevailed 0n the only issue in contention, it was the

court's duty to enforce the attorney's fees provision in the parties' contract”); Imperial Terrace

East Homeowner ’s Ass ’n., 649 So. 2d at 301 (reversing denial 0f attorneys’ fees upon summary

judgment in a foreclosure action, because such fees were clearly provided for in the declaration

0f covenants and restrictions).

Here, Section 7 0f the Declaration, Article IX, Section 3 0f the By-laws, and Section

718.1 16(6)(a) and 718.3030), Florida Statutes, expressly provide for the recovery 0f reasonable

attorney fees, costs and expenses where the Association must bring an action t0 recover unpaid

assessments. Thus, the Association is entitled t0 recover their reasonable costs and attorney fees,

and such amounts must be added to the total amount of the recovery in this case,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC,

rCSpectfully requests this Court award the following relief:

SLKfTAM:#3017004v1 l3
a) ascertain the amount of money for delinquent assessments, interest, late fees,

attorneys’ fees and costs that the Association is entitled to recover in this action from Defendant,

TONI J. SHERMAN;

b) decree the Association t0 have a lien upon the Property for the sum of money found

t0 be due, and decree said lien t0 be superior to the rights, title and interest of Defendants, TONI J.

SHERMAN; and ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES claiming by, through, under, and

against the herein named individual defendant(s) who are not known to be dead or alive, whether

said unknown parties may claim an interest as spouses, heirs, devisees, grantees, 0r other

claimants;

c) foreclose such lien in accordance with the Declaration and the established rules and

practices of the Court, and upon default of the payment to the Association of the amounts due,

decree that said real estate be sold by the Clerk of Court to satisfy the Association’s lien, and that a

deﬁciency judgment be entered for the sum remaining unpaid against Defendant, TONI J.

SHERMAN;

d) incorporate in the Final Judgment 0f Foreclosure an order dispossessing Defendants,

TONI J. SHERMAN; and ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES, and requiring that the

purchaser at the foreclosure sale, his representative or assigns, be let into possession 0f the property;

e) speciﬁcally reserve jurisdiction t0 re—foreclose the subject lien should additional

unknown parties later be discovered; and

f) award such other and further relief as the Association may be entitled t0 receive.

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Plaintiff, LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC, respectfully requests this Court award the following relief:

SLK_TAM:#3017004V1 l4
a) ascertain the amount 0f assessments, interest, late fees, attorneys’ fees and costs

which the Association is entitled t0 recover from Defendant, TONI J. SHERMAN, in this action;

b) award the Association judgment in the amount 0f a1] delinquent assessments,

interest, late fees, attorneys’ fees and costs found t0 be due from Defendant, TONI J.

SHERMAN;

c) award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP

By:
JONATHKNJ. ELLIS, ESQ.
Florida Bar N0. 8635 13
CRISTINA J.AYO, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 1013895
Post Ofﬁce Box 172609
Tampa, Florida 33672-0609
Telephone: (813) 229-7600
Facsimile: (8 1 3) 229— 1 660
Primary Email: cayo@slk-law.com
Secondary Email: ccheaney@slk-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

IHEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1 b day of March, 2019 a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was served via E-portal and U.S. Mail upon:

Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
Weidner Law, P.A.
250 Mirror Lake Dr., N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
service@mattweidnerlaw.com
Counselfor Defendant

Attornef’

SLK_TAM:#3OI7004VI 15
WK
Shumakex; Loop :3: Kendn‘ck, LLP
Bank ofAmerica Plaza
Kennedy Boulevard
101 East
Suite 2800
Tampa, Florida 33602

wwwvslk-lawxom
8132297600
8132291660fax

RHONDA F.GILLESPIE
'
676.7247
‘

spie@slk-law.com
a‘i
L- October 5, 2017
d)
Q EUBB Certified Article Number
E
'5 Via Certified MaiI/Return Receipt Requested
Z &
RECORD

2060
Via RegularMa” HHIH 72H: W‘IUH EUBU EDBU “H:

.‘J
U SENDERS RECORD ~

a
L- 930‘!
Toni J. Sherman Toni 3. Sherman
< 19010 GulfBlvd. Unit 201 13.0. Box 3293
U Indian
SENDERS Shores, FL 33785 Pinellas Park, FL 33780-3293
.9 73H:
q...

3;
8-
0 Toni J‘Sherman Certified Article Number
O Hul‘i

27145831 Place North

Case Info

Judge

MUSCARELLA, PATRICIA ANN Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 19, 2019

Case Filing Date

December 29, 2017

County

Parties

ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES Defendant
LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC Plaintiff
MATTHEW D WEIDNER, ESQ Attorney for the Defendant
SHERMAN, TONI J Defendant
THERESA L DONOVAN Attorney for the Plaintiff
UNKNOWN TENANT 1 Closed Defendant - Dismissed/dropped
UNKNOWN TENANT 2 Closed Defendant - Dismissed/dropped
Jonathan Ellis Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jonathan Jacobs Attorney
Jason Davis Attorney
Cristina Ayo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Monica Johnson Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: LE SCAMPI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INCVs.TONI J SHERMAN, et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties