Connect with us

Appellate Circuit

What Happened to Chandra Turks Foreclosure Case On Remand?

On remand, the district court is directed to provide Turks with an opportunity to restate her claims to cure the deficiencies it identified in her initial complaint.

Published

on

On remand, on June 2020, the case settled, with the foreclosure sale being reversed.

Turks v. Bank of America

AUG 1, 2018 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 24, 2022

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Chandra Turks appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint alleging a number of claims under state and federal law relating to a non-judicial foreclosure sale of her home by Bank of America, N.A. After Bank of America removed the case to federal court, the district court construed her complaint as asserting claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and Georgia law.

On appeal, Turks argues the district court’s dismissal should be reversed, and she reasserts the factual allegations that provided the basis for her claims.

I.

In 2008, Turks purchased a home in Newnan, Georgia. To finance the purchase, Turks took out a loan from Bank of America, secured by a security deed.

In 2015, Turks fell behind on her loan payments. On May 19, 2016, Bank of America wrote to Turks, acknowledging that she had reached out about home loan assistance programs and “strongly encourag[ing]” her to apply.

The letter requested a number of documents so that Bank of America could “evaluate [her] loan for a modification.”

The letter said the documents should be sent by June 21, 2016.

On June 2, 2016, Bank of America sent Turks another letter acknowledging that it had received her “financial documentation.”

The letter said Bank of America would send another letter “in the next few days that either confirms we have all the documents we need from you, or identifies the documents you still need to provide, along with the timeframe in which you must provide them.”

The letter also said “[i]f your loan has been previously referred to foreclosure, we will not conduct a foreclosure sale (subject to court approval where applicable) during the period of time you have to send us all required documents, and while we evaluate your complete application once it is received, subject to applicable law.”

There are no additional written communications between Turks and Bank of America regarding the completeness of her application in the record.

However, Turks says she spoke with a Bank of America representative on the phone a number of times, and was eventually told that she had submitted all the required information and that “a postponement of sale would be submitted.”

Nonetheless, on July 5, 2016, Turks’s home was sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale.

A later letter from Bank of America’s counsel clarified that it “did not receive complete financial documents from [Turks] until June 2, 2016.

That left insufficient time for review prior to the July 5, 2016 foreclosure sale.”

This was so even though Turks sent the documents to Bank of America well before the June 21, 2016 deadline they initially provided.
Turks, proceeding pro se, filed suit in Georgia state court against Bank of America for claims relating to the foreclosure of her home.

Turks stated claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation, and wrongful foreclosure.

She says Bank of America acted in bad faith in foreclosing on her home after it told her it would postpone the sale pending the submission of a completed loan modification application. And she says Bank of America’s representations led her to forego other opportunities to avoid foreclosure.

The district court also construed her complaint to raise claims under the FDCPA and RESPA.

Bank of America moved to dismiss Turks’s action for failure to state a claim, which a magistrate judge recommended granting.

Turks objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, providing several pages of additional facts in support of her claims.

In particular, she described a number of other avenues for relief she would have pursued had she known Bank of America had no intention of reviewing her loan modification agreement, including through the HomeSafe Georgia Program and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

She also specifically objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendations on her claims for misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed Turks’s claims.

This appeal followed.

II.

We review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, “accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

Glover v. Liggett Grp., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (percuriam).

“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”

Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation omitted).

To be considered plausible, the allegations in the complaint must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).

Stating a claim upon which relief may be granted “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not” be enough to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964–65.

We therefore disregard any allegations that are mere legal conclusions and determine whether the remaining facts alleged, if accepted as true, would entitle the complainant to relief.

Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010).

Generally, if a more carefully drafted complaint could state a claim, a district court must offer a plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint before it dismisses the action with prejudice.

Woldeab v. Dekalb Cty. Bd. of Educ., 885F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018).

A district court need not grant leave to amend if either

(1) the plaintiff gives a clear indication that she does not want to amend the complaint,

or

(2) a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim. Id.

In Woldeab, we noted that even though the plaintiff did not ask to amend his complaint, “[t]he district court should have advised Woldeab, proceeding pro se, of his complaint’s deficiency and given him the opportunity to amend . . . before the court dismissed with prejudice.”

Id. at 1291–92.

III.

Georgia law recognizes the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Zhong v. PNC Bank, N.A., 812 S.E.2d 514, 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

“The elements of promissory estoppel are: the defendant made a promise upon which he reasonably should have expected the plaintiff to rely, the plaintiff relied on the promise to his detriment, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise because the plaintiff forwent a valuable right.”

Mbigi v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 785 S.E.2d 8, 20 (Ga. Ct. App 2016) (quotation omitted).

A plaintiff may not base a claim of promissory estoppel on vague or indefinite promises. Id.

Reasonable reliance is an issue of fact under Georgia law.

See Reynolds v. CB&T, 805 S.E.2d 472, 478 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Georgia courts have recognized that claims for breach-of-contract, wrongful foreclosure, and fraud may lie where the holder of a security deed offers loan assistance to a borrower in default, informs the borrower that the foreclosure sale would be postponed pending an application, and proceeds to foreclose despite its representations to the contrary.

See Stewart v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 770 S.E.2d 892, 895–97 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Such claims may be based on either a fiduciary relationship established in the original security deed, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or the general duty to act in good faith during foreclosure proceedings.

See id. at 896–98.

In certain cases, an intentional wrongful foreclosure claim can also provide the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016).

The district court erred in finding that Turks had not stated a claim for promissory estoppel.

In her complaint, Turks alleged that Bank of America offered her an opportunity to apply for loan modification that would postpone foreclosure, and that she relied on that offer by foregoing other opportunities to seek assistance elsewhere and avoid foreclosure.

Based on the exhibits attached to the complaint, Bank of America told Turks she had until June 21, 2016 to submit all her required documents and that Bank of America would not initiate foreclosure proceedings during that time and until it had reviewed her application.

It was not until well after Bank of America had foreclosed upon Turks’s house that it told her her application was submitted too late for review, even though it was submitted well before the deadline Bank of America had provided.

Bank of America’s promise to postpone foreclosure while reviewing Turks’s application had sufficiently definite terms and a finite duration.

See Mbigi, 785 S.E.2d at 20.

Construing the facts in Turks’s favor, we conclude the district court erred in dismissing this claim.

Because Turks presented additional facts in her responses to Bank of America’s motion to dismiss and to the magistrate judge’s recommendations that indicated she might be able to properly plead her other claims, the district court also should have sua sponte offered her an opportunity to amend her complaint.

See Woldeab, 885 F.3d at 1291–92.

This is especially so because Turks filed in state court and had no chance to amend her complaint to comply with federal pleading requirements.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order dismissing Turks’s claims.

On remand, the district court is directed to provide Turks with an opportunity to restate her claims to cure the deficiencies it identified in her initial complaint.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Newnan)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17-cv-00002-TCB

Turks v. Bank of America
Assigned to: Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr

Case in other court:  Superior Court of Coweta County, 16V1393
USCA – 11th Circuit., 17-12401-AA

Cause: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

Date Filed: 01/10/2017
Date Terminated: 09/29/2020
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Chandra Turks represented by Chandra Turks
62 Garden View Terrace
Newnan, GA 30263
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
Bank of America represented by Jarrod Sean Mendel
McGuire Woods LLP-GA
1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Promenade, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30309-3534
404-443-5713
Fax: 404-443-5687
Email: jmendel@mcguirewoods.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/04/2020 52 ORDER ALLOWING AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT IN THE COURTROOM for Chandra Turks and Jarrod Mendel on 3/6/2020 at 9:30am. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly on 3/4/2020. (dmb) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/05/2020 NOTICE of Rescheduling Mediation: The settlement conference is reset for Tuesday, 3/17/2020 at 10:00 AM in ATLA Courtroom 2022 (the courtroom adjacent to Judge Vineyard’s chambers) before Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly. (jtj) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/05/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re Notice of Mediation. (jtj) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/20/2020 53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly: Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 3/20/2020. Settlement reached. Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly will remain on the case for three weeks while the parties finalize the terms of the agreement. (Tape #FTR)(rsh) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
03/20/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 53 Settlement Conference (rsh) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
03/23/2020 54 General Order 20-01 re: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 3/16/20. (rsh) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
03/23/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 54 Order. (rsh) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
04/01/2020 55 Amended General Order 20-01 re COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 3/30/20. (dgs) (ADI) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
04/06/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 55 Notice (Other). (dmb) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
05/04/2020 56 SECOND AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 04/30/2020. (mmc) (ADI) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
05/05/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 56 Notice (Other). (dmb) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/08/2020 The parties are continuing to finalize settlement documents from the March 20, 2020 settlement conference. Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly will remain on the case through May 15, 2020. (jtj) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
05/27/2020 57 THIRD AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 05/26/2020. (dgs) (ADI) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
05/28/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 57 Notice (Other). (dmb) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
06/03/2020 58 NOTICE of Settlement and Request for Final Order Rescinding Foreclosure Sale by Bank of America (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mendel, Jarrod) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
06/03/2020 Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly terminated as settlement judge. (jtj) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
07/02/2020 59 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 07/01/2020. (adg) (ADI) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/06/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 59 Notice (Other). (dmb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/13/2020 60 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONAVIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 7/10/2020 (dgs) (ADI) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/13/2020 61 CONSENT ORDER re 58 Notice of Settlement filed by Bank of America. The Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED to record this Consent Order on the real estate records of Coweta County, upon payment of the costs for such recording and to cross-reference such recording to that Deed Under Power recorded at Deed Book Deed Book 4411, Page 430, the Security Deed recorded on Deed Book 3339, Page 893, and the Modification recorded at Deed Book 4267, Page 459. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 7/13/2020. (dmb) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 61 Order. (dmb) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 60 Notice (Other). (dmb) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
08/04/2020 62 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONAVIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 08/03/2020. (rvb) (ADI) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
08/04/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 62 Notice (Other). (dmb) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
09/02/2020 63 SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONAVIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 9/1/2020. (dgs) (ADI) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/03/2020 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing as to Chandra Turks re 63 Notice (Other). (rsh) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
09/29/2020 64 EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 09/28/2020. (dgs) (ADI) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
09/29/2020 Civil Case Terminated. Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard terminated from case. (dmb) Modified on 9/30/2020 to correct date (dmb). (Entered: 09/29/2020)
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Appellate Circuit

God Goes in Front of Me and Makes the Crooked Straight and I Get to Keep My Pension

Ex-Inmate and Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown is Confident of Her Plea Deal Keepin’ Her out of Jail and Ending Her Criminal Case.

Published

on

Former congresswoman Corrine Brown to take plea deal
Brown faced retrial this fall on federal fraud charges

May 17, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: May 17, 2022

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Former congresswoman Corrine Brown is set to change her plea Wednesday in a federal case that involves charges of fraud and conspiracy, avoiding a retrial that was scheduled to take place this fall.

Tuesday morning, News4JAX reporter Jim Piggott spoke with Corrine Brown by phone. She said everything will come out in court tomorrow.

“I want you to know, God has been good to me,”

Brown said.

“I just talked to my pastor and I know that He goes in front of me and make the crooked straight. That’s all I can tell you, He’s good.”

Former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown is set to change her plea Wednesday in a federal case that involves charges of fraud and conspiracy, avoiding a retrial that was scheduled to take place this fall.

Brown was indicted in 2016 on charges that included conspiracy, wire fraud, and tax fraud, on accusations that she used contributions to the One Door for Education charity for personal expenses.

Brown was convicted on some of the charges in May 2017, and began a five-year prison sentence in January 2018. Brown was released in April 2020, due to coronavirus concerns.

Following her conviction, Brown appealed the guilty verdict, arguing the trial judge wasn’t justified in replacing a juror who said the Holy Spirit told him Brown was not guilty.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals initially upheld Brown’s conviction.

Brown’s attorneys then asked for a rehearing before the full 11th Circuit, known as an “en banc” hearing. In May 2021, the appellate court reversed the conviction with a 7-4 decision, sending the case back to the district court for a potential retrial.

In October 2021, we learned that prosecutors planned to re-try Brown on the felony counts she faced in her 2017 trial.

At the time, we learned prosecutors had already extended her a plea deal to avoid being retried and the possibility of a return to prison, an offer she rejected at the time.

Following the appointment of a new defense team, Brown’s retrial was set to take place in September of 2022.

News4JAX Jim Piggott spoke with attorney Curtis Fallgatter,

“(Jim) Are you surprised at all?

(Curtis) A little bit, but not terribly because of the age of the case, the complexity of the case, the number of issues, reversal on appeal issues about a retrial, can I get a conviction, the age of Brown.”

The court document indicating that Brown will be changing her plea does not indicate what charges she may be pleading guilty to, or what sentence could potentially be imposed.

Fallgatter doesn’t believe Brown will serve any additional time.

He said she would not agree to that, and the agreement should be an end to the case.

Brown is getting her pension, and that likely will not change.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Appellate Circuit

Foreclosure Sanctions Maxed Out After Lapin And Leichtling Rip Opposing Counsel

Julio Marrero and Marrero Law continue to file patently frivolous removals and in bad faith sayeth Associate Jan Williams of LL-Lawfirm.com

Published

on

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed April 20, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Nos. 3D21-0373 & 3D21-0668
Lower Tribunal No. 16-28602

Max Kraushaar, et al.,
Appellants, vs.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc.,
Appellee.

APR 20, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 27, 2022

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.

Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer Law, LP, and Julio C. Marrero, for appellants.

Lapin & Leichtling, LLP, and Justin G. Prociv, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985);

Person v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., 201 So. 3d 842, 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Kraushaar

(1:21-cv-21156)

District Court, S.D. Florida

MAR 26, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 25, 2022

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A.’s Motion to Remand, for Sanctions Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Power to Sanction, and for Reasonable Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 6].

The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff, as Trustee for AEGIS Asset Backed Securities Trust Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-4, brought a mortgage foreclosure action against Defendants in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida (“State Circuit Court”).1

On March 26, 2021, Defendants Max Kraushaar and Olinda Kraushaar removed this action from the State Circuit Court (the “Notice of Removal”). [ECF No. 1]. On April 5, 2021,

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the State Circuit Court’s online docket and the documents therein in the original state action titled Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Max Kraushaar et al., Case No. 2016-028602-CA-01. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th Cir. 1987) (“A court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of inferior courts.”).

Plaintiff filed the instant motion, arguing that Defendants’ Notice of Removal is facially deficient and fails to show that removal is proper. [ECF No. 6].

Plaintiff also argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Id.

In addition, the Motion details the recent string of improper removals in state post-judgment foreclosure actions by Julio Marrero, Esq., and the law firm Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer Law LP, who represent Defendants. Id.

Defendants failed to timely respond to the Motion.

This error is fatal for Defendants because “on a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.”

Williams v. Aquachile, Inc., 470 F. Supp. 3d 1277, 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (quoting Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009)).

Because Defendants failed to timely respond to the Motion, they fail to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A.’s Motion to Remand, for Sanctions Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Power to Sanction, and for Reasonable Fees and Costs, [ECF No. 6], is GRANTED.

2. The above-styled case is REMANDED to Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. shall be awarded $500.00 as reasonable costs and attorney’s fees, which Plaintiff shall recover from Defendants Max Kraushaar and Olinda Kraushaar and their counsel, Julio Marrero, Esq., of the law firm Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer Law LP, jointly and severally.

4. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.

5. This case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of April, 2021.

 

 

 

 

JUDGE DARRIN P. GAYLES, SD FL.

Motion for Sanctions

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:21-cv-21156-DPG

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Kraushaar et al
Assigned to: Judge Darrin P. Gayles

Case in other court:  Miami-Dade County Circuit State Court, 16-028602-CA-01

Cause: 12:1441 Federal Mortgage Foreclosure

Date Filed: 03/26/2021
Date Terminated: 04/21/2021
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
as Trustee for AEGIS Assest Backed Securities Trust Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-4
represented by Jan Timothy Williams
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP
255 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1250
Coral Gables, FL 33134
3058300421
Email: jwilliams@ll-lawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Max Kraushaar represented by Julio Cesar Marrero
Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer Law, LP
3850 Bird Road, Suite 902
Coral Gables, FL 33146
305-446-0163
Email: eqramul@marrerorealestatelaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Olinda Kraushaar represented by Julio Cesar Marrero
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/26/2021 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT – Complaint for Foreclosure) Filing fee $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-14555290, filed by Olinda Kraushaar, Max Kraushaar.(Marrero, Julio) (Entered: 03/26/2021)
03/26/2021 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Darrin P. Gayles.Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.

Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (scn) (Entered: 03/26/2021)

03/26/2021 3 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. State Court Records not included. Filer is instructed to file a Notice (Other) with the State Court Records attached within 24 hours. (scn) (Entered: 03/26/2021)
03/26/2021 4 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. No Civil Cover Sheet. Filer is instructed to file a Notice (Other) with the Civil Cover Sheet attached within 24 hours of the notice. (scn) (Entered: 03/26/2021)
04/05/2021 5 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE. Unless otherwise specified by the Court, every motion shall be double-spaced in Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (jsi) (Entered: 04/05/2021)
04/05/2021 6 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Remand to State Court for Sanctions Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Power to Sanction, and for Reasonable Fees and Costs by Wells Fargo Bank N.A.. Attorney Jan Timothy Williams added to party Wells Fargo Bank N.A.(pty:pla). (Williams, Jan) (Entered: 04/05/2021)
04/21/2021 7 Order Granting 6 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Remand to State Court for Sanctions Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Power to Sanction, and for Reasonable Fees and Costs filed by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The above-styled case is REMANDED to Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 4/21/2021. See attached document for full details. (scn) (Entered: 04/21/2021)
04/21/2021 8 Transmittal Letter Sent with DE#7 to: Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. State Court Case Number: 16-028602-CA-01. (scn) (Entered: 04/21/2021)
05/10/2021 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT as to 8 Transmittal Letter Sent. (scn) (Entered: 05/10/2021)
Continue Reading

Appellate Circuit

The 3rd Branch is Now Circlin’ the Wagons Around the Ivory Tower

Gov. DeSantis appoints Gordo and Lobree to the Third District Court of Appeal, Apr 25, 2019 as conservative, constitutional judges.

Published

on

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CALVIN E. JACKSON and CARMEN A. JACKSON,

Appellants,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT INDIVIDUALLY, BUT AS TRUSTEE FOR

PRETIUM MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY AND THROUGH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-2779 [March 31, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barry J. Stone, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 062014CA021611AXXXCE.

Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Legal, PLLC, Miami, for appellants.

Adam G. Schwartz of Fox McCluskey Bush Robison PLLC, Stuart, for appellee Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB.

 

 REPUBLISHED BY LIF: APR 1, 2022

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed March 30, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D21-606
Lower Tribunal No. 12-38811

Joseph T. Buset,
Appellant,

vs.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, etc.,
Appellee.

 REPUBLISHED BY LIF: MAR 30, 2022

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K. Johnson, Judge.

Jacobs Legal, PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs, for appellant.

Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Kimberly S. Mello and Arda Goker (Orlando), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Simpson, 227 So. 3d 669, 670

(Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

(“This Court has held to the principle that that Rule 1.540(b) does not have as its purpose or intent the reopening of lawsuits to allow parties to state new claims or offer new evidence omitted by oversight or inadvertence.”);

see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Llovet, 330 So.3d 1006, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021);

HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed March 30, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Nos. 3D20-1470; 3D21-0737; 3D21-0409
Lower Tribunal No. 19-29733

Stanislav Fiskin,
Appellant,

vs.

Wilmington Trust, N.A., etc.,
Appellee.

 REPUBLISHED BY LIF: MAR 30, 2022

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon and Charles K. Johnson, Judges.

Cotzen Law, P.A., and Michael L. Cotzen, for appellant.

Fox McCluskey Bush Robison PLLC, and Eric S. Matthew (Stuart), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2022 LawsInFlorida.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware | Caricatures by DonkeyHotey