Jqc Complaint Judge Davidson 2143o

FLORIDA JUD|C|AL QUALTFTCAT|ONS COM/vilsstON Post Office Box 14106 Taltahassee, FL 32317 (850) 488-1s81

COMPLAINT FORM This form is designed to provide the Commission with information required to make an

initiat evaluation of your comptaint. PLEASE NOTE: COI PLAINT FORtt ilUST BE TYPED OR LEGIBLY HAND PRINTED, DATED AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED. (Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.)

l.

Person lnaking Complaint

Santamaria

Name

Mr.

nla

lsabel

(Last)

(Middte)

(First)

Ms.

Mrs.

NE

Address

Tel.ephone Number(s): (Day) ***t

ll.

+l

t tt

*t

II

-Ftoridat **

t*

* a t * **r

* *r

ffuun,ngl ti

t*

t * t * r**

I I * t a a * *t

t a*

* r ri

D **

* **

* *l*l

* * * l at

Judge Against Whom Complaint is Made

Davidson

Name

(Last)

Lisa (First)

(Middte)

2825 Judge Fran Jamieson Way (Moore Justice Center)

Address

Viera, Florida 32940 Supreme Court

District Court of Appeat Circuit Court County Court

Brevard County

* *

lll.

Statement of Facts Please provide in as much detail as possibte the information which you have knowtedge which you betieve constitutes judiciat misconduct or disabitity. lnctude names, dates, places, addresses and tetephone numbers which may assist the Commission,

il*Y:,""n',:ii:1w11!'*":mber30,20169T511"::lp_1ffi i j

nne'

*riq9

I

tw3 yeexs Jor.ruloe_lolcomb to

relse

hlm_self

1d

vlcate thellmefeo_lra:!th:l-

i

i scheduled the November 30, 2016 hearing, I ed Judge Lisa Davidson's JudicialAssistant i :

Jennie Young via email on November 29,2016 to if there was a pending order canceling the

1

t-

November 30, 2016 hearing. Ms. Young advised

thalmerlwalno

lendrnO

Ofer_and advised

]

that I had to file and Emergency Motion because I could not attend without my ADA Advocate/Oral lnterpreter present. My ADA Advocate, is one of my accommodations approved months earlier by Judge Davidson, and she was not able to attend the hearing due to an important hearing for one of her other clients that day in anotfer

Tunt

Ms Young

ldvis3d

th3 followyng morning (the -day

of the hearing)that I had to attend the hearing. (Please see emails attached). I was terrifled, unprepared and in great shock that the hearing was not canceled but I still had hope that Judge Davidson would cancelthe nllring in

frrT

I

was shakiry a1l0a1cfin0

Of I refused to allow

the Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants win that day on a technicality. I began hyperventilating shorty after I entered the courtroom. I witnessed Judge Lisa Davidson violate a deaf man's rights )

, before

my hearing and I became disheartened. (Defendant Frank Giordano, Case No. 05-2010-

I CA-010083). Mr. Giordano had an interpreter and was defending his home. He said that he did

not understand the mortgage contract he signed for $50,000.00 because there was no interpreter ,

pr€sent as required by the ADA. He also said that he did not understand anything that happened

l-

because they had no interpreter (sign language) for him and that medial i during durino court-ordered mediation

I

1

it was only him and the attorneys and he had no idea what was going on. Nonetheless, Judge

1

lf additionat

space is required, attach and number pages.

I

Davidson ignored Mr. Giordano's pleas of having nowhere else to

go with his children and that the Plaintiff had violated his rights under the ADA. Judge Davidson granted Summ ary Judgment to

the Plaintiff and set a sale date for Mr. Giordano's home. when I saw this happen to this disabled deaf man,

I lost hope.

Judge Lisa Davidson's actions against me were egregious in

nature and a violation of my rights as a disabled person, as

a

human being and as a natural born American. The following is how Judge Davidson violated her oath of office, Judicial Code of Conduct and most importantly violated my rights under the ADA

during this hearing dated November 30, 2016:

a.

Judge Lisa Davidson allowed the hearing to continue without the presence of my

ADA Advocate/Oral Interpreter which was one of

my required accommodations. I was forced to defend myself all alone against four corrupt attomeys and a clearly biased judge.

b.

Judge Lisa Davidson denied my Emergency Motion to

Cancel Hearing alleging that she just saw the Motion and that she w'ould not cancel

it now because opposing counsel

travelled a long distance. I had advised her Judicial Assistant Jennie Young the day before tlre lrearing that I was filing the

Emergency Motion and I also emailed her a copy. However, Judge Davidson itted to speaking to her JA about my Emergency

G)

ctr*.

Motion previously thereby knowing she could have canceled the hearing the da,v before or early that moming. C.

Several times during this hearing I mentioned how I was

was in duress, not prepared, was not feeling well and had shorlness

of breath. I was having a panic attack and I also felt my blood pressure rising due to distress. During most of the time

I was in

the courtroom, I was hyperventilating while I sat next to the and

bailiff

just feet away facing the judge. Judge Davidson did not even

care. She chose to ignore

it and not once even asked me if I was

okay after it was obvious that I was in severe distress. Opposing counsel ignored me as well and continued talking like if what I said or displayed was meaningless. d.

I repeated several times that this hearing should have been cancelled as a matter of law and as we had requested which was

part of my relief stated in my Motion to Disqualiff Judge Holcomb and in my Emergency Motion to Cancel Hearing of November

30th. Judge Holcomb scheduled the hearing on his Amended Order

which was pending to be vacated due to my Motion to Disqualifi Judge Holcomb. (See "Emergency Motion to Cancel November 30, 2A16 Hearing" attached hereto as Exhibit

"H").

Every time I would bring up the fact that this Hearing should not take place due to .Iudge Holcomb's Amended Order pending to be

U)

vacated, Judge Davidson repeatedly answered that she was not Judge Holcomb and that only Judge Holcomb could make that call. She also said during the hearing that she did not why Judge Holcomb was covering for her on September l6'h, the day

that Judge Holcomb issued the Amended Order scheduling this

hearing for November 30,2A16. To this day, Judge Holcomb has yet to decide on my Motion to Disqualifi, which I filed on

November I 5, ZArc. (See Court Docket printed on I l24l2Afi attached as Exhibit "I")"

f.

On the record and in further retaliation, Mr. Scott Stengel (opposing counsel and in the presence and with the of all opposing counsel) asked Judge Davidson if she had read Judge

Holcomb's Amended Order. Judge Davidson confirmed that she did read the Order and that she would address those issues after the other m atters regardin g addressed.

Pl

ainti fflCounter-Defendants moti ons were

I was so physically and emotionally ill that I did not

even respond to this even though

I knew that Judge Holcomb's

Amended Order (Doc. 61) was not scheduled on the docket for this hearing, was not on the },lotice of Hearing and that I was I fact

being ambushed and blind-sided by both Judge Davidson and opposing counsel in violation of both my rights as a pro se litigant and as a disabled litigant. They all knew I was in severe distress and unprepared to discuss this Amended Order. (See "Notice

&t

of

Hearing" and Judge Holcomb's "Amended Order" attached hereto as Exhibits "Bo'& "G"), o b'

On the record, I said that even though I addressed relief in my motions since September 2016, that current opposing counsel should be replaced with counsel familiar with the ADA because they were triggers to my condition, Judge Davidson ignored it. I also stated that I could not even look at them. I also mentioned that

opposing counsel has berated me for years and retaliated against my ADA Advocate. Judge Davidson also chose to ignore the

affidavits regarding opposing counsel verbally attacking us outside the courtroom after the previous hearing dated June 29,2016

rvhich rvas attached to my previous motions and filed separately on the docket as weli. (See "Affidavit" of Dr.

El

and

Abdiel Echeverria attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). o

Judge Davidson refused to acknor'vledge my Motion to Disqualify. Judge Holcomb which would vacate that Order and repeatedly said

to me that she was not Judge Holcomb but she had no problem addressing issues on Judge Holcomb's Order rvhich were not on the docket for that day which included issues regarding my ADA

They all knerv I was

Advocate lOral Interpreter Dr.

by myself and that my ADA Advocate rvas not present to defend herself regarding the erroneous ADA information on Judge

Holcomb's Order.

-

6)

h.

Judge Lisa Davidson stated several times on the record that my

ADA Advocate/Oral Interpreter "chose" to not be present at my hearing even though by law, the hearing should not have taken place. This is retaliation against my Advocate and I and in

violation of my civil rights. (See "Transcript" of November 30, 2016 Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit i,

"A").

Judge Lisa Davidson repeatedly said statements against my

ADA

Advocate/Oral Interpreter which included expressions like: "your advocate is not an attorney", "your advocate is not a lawyer",

'!our

advocate, they can be with you for ". Clearly this is

more retaliation against my advocate Dr.

and

myself in violation of ADAAA. The ADAAA provides for Advocates and protects them with a specific section from

retaliation of "any type". (See Section 12203, Prohibition against retaliation and coercion, The Act, p.42).

j.

Most of the time, I had to raise my hand or interrupt so that I can at Ieast have some type of defense or input on the record.

I would

forget words, had a hard time speaking and did not listen or understand man-v of opposing counsel's arguments but I tried to have some type of arguments on records of what I could . Judge Davidson did not show any intention

of

tetting me defend myself and knew I was incapacitated in doing so.

k.

Judge Davidson was dismissing all of my causes of action with

prejudice alleging res judicata. I had never sued carrington or

Marinosci before but she did not care. I argued that my counterclaim was a result of the foreclosure and that Ms. Serradet's argument regarding a failed loan modit'ication was false but Judge

Davidson did not care and denied me the chance to amend my

complaint even though she also knew that I was not prepared and that in my condition I could not properly argue my case. t.

While Ms. Serradet was giving her argument on my 2'd or 3'd cause of action

(I cannot recall which one) I had to get out of my'

chair, walk over to my purse next to the bailiff (the bailiff assisted me because I f'elt like I was going to fall) and retrieved my

medication and I took my medication with the bottled rvater I also had in my purse. I know everyone saw this and ignored it. I f'elt I had to take my medication because not only was I having a panic attack the whole time I was there, I also felt my heart racing fbr a

long period of time and also felt lightheaded. Shortly before I took

my medication, I had said that I was not feeling well. Judge Davidson ignored it as she did everything else I said and Ms. Serradet would continue her argument like

if I was not even

there.

The last cause of action I ed Ms. Serradet arguing was number four (4). As I revise the transcript for the hearing, I noticed that I did not speak at all after Ms. Serradet argued against counts

L'7)

5-7 of my counterclaim.

It is likely that I had already ed out in

the chair sometime after I opposed Ms. Serradet's argument to dismiss count four (4) of my counterclaim. I that I was

still short of breath rvhile speaking after Ms. Serradet argues against count four (4), feeling very lightheaded and having

palpitations. I believe the video and audio in the courtroom will not

only show how distressed I was and exactly when I ed-out hut also how egregious Judge Davidson and the attorneys' actions and

violations were. Nonetheless, Judge Lisa Davidson allowed the

hearing to continue knowing that I could no longer speak for myself and continued granting opposing counsel's motion to dismiss my counterclaim. o.

While opposing counsel was still presenting their argument for count seven (7) of my counterclaim, I collapsed on the floor and the transcript confirms

it. I do not recall anything that

happened or was said after opposing counsel argued count four (a) of my counterclaim. Judge Lisa l)avidson immediately called

for recess according to the transcript. (See Transcript for November 30, zArc hearing attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). o.

Almost immediately after I collapsed to the floor, I woke up shaking, crying, hyperventilating, pressure in my chest, my heart was racing and I was disoriented. I had no idea if the hearing was

finished or what had occurred. The bailiff (a very nice man with

G)

a

heart of gold) sat on the floor with me making sure I was okay.

I

looked up briefly and saw Judge Davidson's assistants who were

directly in front of me but Judge Davidson was not there. They appeared to be clearing out the courfroom because the

bailiff had

already requested medical attention and that an ambulance be

called. When the paramedics arrived, they asked me my syrnptoms, requested to see boftles of medication I took (the

bailiff handed

them the bottle) and took my blood pressure. The medic told me at that time that my blood pressure was2301165. The

medic also told me to breathe properly because I was breathing too heavily and that my pulse was too high. They gave me oxygen and did an EKG on me to make sure that I was not having a heart attack. The paramedics put me in the ambulance at

approximately 3: I 5 pm (I looked at the clock directly facing me in the ambulance). I was given aspirin and nitroglycerin. I was then transported minutes later to the emergency room for more

diagnostic and treatment. I was given more than one blood pressure medication because they were having a hard time bringing

down my blood pressure. I was released hours later after my blood pressure was no longer dangerously high and I was able to breathe normally and the pressure/pain in my chest diminished.

I

have the medical records from the emergency room in my possession along with the costly medical bills that

n)

I cannot afford.

p.

As noted throughout the transcript, I kept apologizing because I was having a hard time speaking due to the shortness of breath and

I knew that my speech was incoherent. There are several pauses throughout the transcript when I spoke because I was trying to breathe.

I was also stuttering and somewhat slurring my speech.

An audio of the hearing will confirm this. I was visibly in distress.

q,

After I was taken by the paramedics, the hearing resumed. I was not present but I have the transcript which details what happened after I left. When the hearing resumed, Judge Davidson stated that the hearing will have to be rescheduled. The heartless,

discriminatory and confrontational Scott Stengel (opposing counsel

with Akerman, LLP for client Carrington Mortgage) then began retaliating and complaining about how difficult it is to schedule anything with my husband and I ("borrowers") "as you can see

today", referring to my unnecessary collapse in the courtroom and thereby further discriminating against my disabilities. Mr. Stengel has become agitated against us several times inside and outside the

courfroom and via email before. Mr. Stengel requested that the court set the hearing, obviously without checking if we were available or not. Judge Davidson said she would not do it without me being present but then suggested to Mr. Stengel that he file a

Motion and to send it directlv to her Judicial Assistant Jennie

(rr:

Young and she could bring it to her attention. She mentioned nothing about serving us the ex parte comrnunication. I{owever, rvhen I sent Judge Davidson's J"A. Jennie Young a copy of my

Emergency Motion the day before this hearing. we were immediately asked and demanded that we serve opposing counsel and that she could not relay any ex parle information to the judge, I guess

it's only acceptable if opposing counsel does it.

Furthermore, due to the blatant discrimination and disregard

of my disabilities and the health crisis I continued to endure during the hearing because of Judge Lisa Davidson and opposing counsel/

I am now burdened with more medical expenses that I

did not expect to incur that day, I continue to be under medical care due to my disabilities and as a result of the events that

transpired on November 30, 2A76 and as a matter of medical necessity, I filed a "Notice of Unavailability" with the court on December 13, 2A1.6. As advised recently via email by opposing counsel, they are

being allowed by Judge Lisa Davidson to now schedule a "2 hour" special set hearing in violation of my ADA Accommodations which clearly specifies that

I cannot be in a hearing or proceeding for

more than one (1) hour at a time. They have not specified why

they need the two (2) hours but it is clear that Judge Davidson

(i,)

will continue to allow this abuse towards me, my husband and my ADA Advocate/Oral Interpreter Dr,

continue in

her courtroom in violation of state and federal law. For the obvious reasons stated above,

I never want to step

-toLisa Davidson and that foot in a courtroom again with judge abusive groLrp of bully attorneys.

It was quite clear to me and all

those who were present that day in the courtroom, that Judge Davidson and opposing counsel were synchronized with their specific agenda to ambush me, violate rny rights, violate the law,

and not allow me to properly defend myself and as a result caused me severe and unnecessary distress. All judges have a judlcial responsibility and obligation to

avoid bias and prejudice at all cost in all proceedings and to provide equal access to the court to ALL litigants, especially those

who are disabled (See Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 2t). The right to a fair and open trial or proceeding is grounded in the U,S. Constitution but

I was denied meaningful participation in this

proceeding. Judge Lisa Davidson not only violated her "oath of

office" by personally and publicly demonstrating clear bias against me and violating my rights, but she also allowed counsel to do so and was rewarding their unabated behavior, As the assigned trial

(t +)

judge on this case, she also ignored my requests filed on the record and at the hearing for removal of opposing counsel. This complaint is not regarding Judge Davidson's erroneous

application of the law regarding my counterclaim, this complaint is about how Judge Lisa Davidson discriminated against me as a

disabled pro se litigant, violated my rights, violated federal and

state law and allowed me to sit there like a defenseless animal while giving her utmost attention and priority to opposing counsel and allowing them to continue their fraudulent, discriminatory

and retaliatory behavior towards me and my ADA Advocate/Oral

Interpreter Dr.

Judge Davidson has a history of

discriminating against the disabled and

I have also attached a

closed "petition to remove Judge Davidson from office" started by

a disabled mother in the military a few years ago.

-

Such malicious conduct by Judge Lisa Davidson is egregious

and is in clear violation of ludicial Canon 1; Canon 2(A); Canon

3(A); Canon 3(BX4I Canon 3(BX5); Canon 3(BX6); Canon 3(BX7Xa); Canot3(CX2); Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 9 and Section 21; and most importantly violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990, ADAM 2008. ADAM 2016, Title

II and 28 C.F.R. PART 35,

tp)

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al.

HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON or I I I 30 l2ol 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

1 2

CASE NO.

3 4

: A5-2015-CA-0421,59

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE

SERVICES, LLC, 5

Plaintiff,

6 CaringloD Moflgage vs Abdicl Echevenia. et al. HUNORABLF LIS^ DAVIDSON ON I I 30 2016

V S .

1

I

ABDIEL trCHEVERRIA and ISABEL SANTAMARIA,

9

Defendants.

1n

11

ABDIEL ECHEVERRIA and ]SABEL SANTAMARIA,

Counter-PIaint i f fs ,

72

13

vs.

74

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,

15 76

t7

BANK OE AMERICA, N.A., BAC HOME LOANS SERVfCING, LP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, TNC. and MARINOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C.,

Counter-Defendants

.

18

HEARING BEEORE THE HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON

19 20

DATE 2L

TAKEN:

7:27 p.m.

TfMEz

22

Fisl

PLACE

:

Choice Repofiing

3:L2 p.m. & Video Scrvics

Br".rcr,i"-33lifi'tli""boi.rrrhouse 2825 Judge Eran Jamieson Way

23

Viera, Fl-orida 32940

Z1

REPORTED 25

November 30, 20!6

BY:

Jil1 E. Hastey, Notary Public

RPR and

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. fi rslchoicereporting. com

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on 1 1/30/2016

Pages 2..5 Page 4

1

APPEARANCES ;

2

R. STENGEL, ESOUIRE WILLIAM P- GRAY I1I, ESQUIRX Akernan/ LLP 420 South Orange Aveoue Suite 1200 orlando, Elorida 32801 scott. stengelGakerman. con bi1I. grayGakerman - com

3 4

4

MR. GELETY: Yes, I'm Mike Gelety. I'm here on behalf of the Marinosci Law Group. MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, Scott Stengel and Bill Gray here on behalf of the plaintiff,

5

Carrington.

I

SCOTT

) J

6

6

7

APPEARING ON BEIIAIF OE THE PLAINTIEF AND -t

COTINTER-DEFENDA.NT

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVlCES

8

defendant slash counter-plaintiff.

9

t6 t7

THE COURT: Okay. There was filed, I don't know when, either yesterday, I think yesterday, a motion to continue this hearing or to cancel this hearing. I don't know ifyou received a copy of this. My assistant, our foreclosure specialist, said that she had e-mailed Ms. Santamaria saying that she needed to copy all counsel. Have you all received this? MS. SERRADET: We received a copy of the

8

SAHILY SERRADET, ESOUIRE 9 1"0

11

Liebler,

Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A. Courthouse Tower

10

25lh F1oor 4 4 we sL El ag 1 e! c$SfiffiI Morg"g. r" Abdiel Echeveria, er at. Miami, Florida !I0h&IRABLE LISA DAVIDSON on I l/30,2016

11

12

l3

ssGlgplaw-coh 72

t4

APPEARING ON BEHALE OF THE COUNTER.DEEENDANT BANK OE AMERICA, N,A.

13

t5

t4 T. GEIETY, ESQUIRE Marinosci Law Group, P.C.

MICHAEL 15

100 l^iest Cl1)ress Creek Road 16 L1 18

Suite 1045 Et. Lauderdale, Elorida mge

33309

lety-Qnf g-de f au I t 1 aw . com APPEARING ON BEHALF OE THE COUNTER-DEFENDANT I4AR]NOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C.

27

APPEARING PRO SE

2 J

Page

6 7

dismiss?

5

8

9 10 11

t2 13

t4 15

l6 t7 18

t9 20

2t 22 23

24 25

20

24

scheduled per the court's order based on the granting of another emergency motion that was filed a day or two before the last hearing that we were going on the same motions to dismiss. THE COURT: Okay. But my question is, you did

25

receive the motion?

3

1 2 THE COURT: Let's go to Carrington versus ) 3 PROCEEDINGS :r.,r********

Echeverria. Thafs a one-hour hearing? THE CLERK: One hour reserved, Number 3. THE COURT: I thought this was just a motion

4

second emergency

23

22 23 24 25

1

emergency motion yesterday after

22

ISABEL SNTAMARIA

hours. It's a motion. This hearing was actually

18 19

2t

19

20

THE COURT: Okay. And your name, please? MS. SANTAMARIA: My name is lsabel Santamari

4

5 to 66 7

Page 5

MS.SERRADET: Wedid. THE COURT: All of you? MR. STENGEL: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So it's obvious I'm not Judge Holcomb, so any motions to disqualify that

order directed to him do not apply to me. So is there any'thing else you want me to know? MS. SANTAMARIA: Well, and I do apologize T'm not very understanding -- if you don't understand me. By the way, good aftemoon, Judge. I'm here out of duress. I'm sorry. I wrote what I

if MS. SERRADET: It is, Your Honor. It's three I A 9 motions to dismiss the same counterclaim slash third-party complaint. i tO THE COURT: Is this going to take an hour? l1 12 could down. MS. SERRADET: No, I don't think so. 13 I cannot actively participate in this MR. GELETY: Really, no one else is here. proceeding without my ADA advocate at my side, THE COURT DEPUTY: Ms. Echeverria is here. 14 out of respect to you and to the court, that's why TIIE COURT: Okay. Ald we have all these ] tS I'm present. My advocate advised that if she needs people? Okay. Ms. Echeverria, you can remain 16 to be called -- she is currently in another hearing seated or you can come forward, whatever makes you 17 comfortable. '".:-l'J:iffirTfflh[1t:"i#'fE'garaing a domestic violence case. If she needs to be called to confirm this information, she can. 19 MS. SANTAMARIA: Thankyou. i I did not expect this hearing to take place please introduce 20 THE COURT: Would everybody 2l because when -- Judge Holcomb is the one that yourselves? 22 continued the hearing, and it was in one of his MS. SERRADET: Yes, Your Honor. Good 23 orders and there is a current motion to disquaiify attomey aftemoon. I'm Sahily Serradet, an him from the proceedings, or disqualify him, and 24 by NA, a successor representing Bank of America, therefore that order that he issued regarding -25 merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP. First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. firstchoicereporting.com

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON or 1113012016

Pages 6..9 Page

I

and

I do apologize for my shortness of

2

the continuance of this hearing has not

J

decided

6 7

8 9 10

l1 t2

- regarding I

been

to be removed Aom this case, which was ignored. It was filed on September 13,2016, and as of right requested counsel to be removed,

on

8

9 l0 11

12 13

HO\ORABLE I ISA DA\nDSON on I I 30 20lo

I

l5

me, and I did not prepare for

t6

to be cancelled before

this. I expected

I was even

with

it

3 4 5

now, they showed up in this case, they are still the case, and they are triggers and catalysts to my condition. I've been berated. They violated my accommodations several times. I have requested the court to have theS-{iry^r9.1yq&1u:thq*.4tgetilthgs.

14

2

. ,6 7

crlrent counsel

Out of respect, like I said, I'm here, but really should not be here. I have nobody here

13

)

yet.

And I have also advised in my motions that I

4 5

6

14

i 15

here.

16

THE COURT; Okay. Your advocate, where is she 17

17

he?

2t

18 19 on a domestic violence abuse case, actually, 20 probably right now at this moment, but she said she 2l

22

wasgoingtoadvisethejudgethatifshegetsa

18

t9 20

23 24 25

or

MS. SANTAMARIA: She's in Hillsborough County

i22

call from a 321 number that she could take it 123 confirm 24 because it might be from this courthouse to confirm 24 -- or to speak to the judge if you have to. 25

Page 8

(Recess was taken.) taken

THE COURT: All right. Let's start again. Attorneys, tell me again your names and who you represent.

MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, Scott Stengel and

Bill Gray. We

represent the

plaintiff, Carrington.

THE COURT: Can I ask you a rluestion? Of course I can. Did you travel from Orlando? MR. STENGEL: We did, Your Honor, yes. TI{E COURT: Your narne, please? MS. SERRADET: Sahily Serradet, attorney on behalf of Bank of America, NA, and I traveled from Miami. THE COURT: And Mr. Gelety? MR. GELETY: Yes, I represent the Marinosci Group in this matter. THE COURT: And where did you travel from? MR. GELETY: GELETY: Fort Lauderdale. THE COURT: Fort Lauderdale. Okay. And then I've got Ms. Santamaria. Where did you travel from?

MS. SANTAMARIA: PalmBay.

TIIE COURT: Palm Bay. Okay. And this heari -- I'm sorry? MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, I don't mean to

has been

Page 9

Page ?

1

2

J 4 5

6

THE COURT: Okay. But if you want to call her I to be with you during this hearing, then you can be 2 on the phone with her if you want to do that. i3 MS. SANTAMARIA: She's actually conducting 4 another hearing right now. That's the problern. 5 6 She's in a courthouse right now. i

7 8

9

MS. SANTAMARIA: Yes. in l{illsborough County. MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, could I provide you

1i

notebooksfortoday'shearing? THE COURT: Yes.

12

MR. STENGEL: This is the motions that

10

13

t4

l5 16 17 18

t9 20 2L 22 23 24 25

8 9

l0 1l

are and then this is the

12 I3

intenupt. There

is another party, Abdiel

Echevemia, who also is on the note and moftgage who was ordered to be here as well today.

THE COURT: Okay. Not here. MS. SERRADET: I believe he's Mrs. Santamaria' husband, but I don't'- he hasn't informed us of a disability or a reason for a need for an advocate, so we're just not sure why he's not here. THE COURT: Okay.

MS.SANTAMARIA: IfImay,YourHonor, Ido apologize. Ms. Sharp is representing my husband

well.

as

She has a release form that she can submit

to the court, if requested, for my husband. Tm COURT: Okay. All right. This hearing has 15 been set lbr two months or over, so we're going to Echeverrias. proceed. I'm not Judgc Holcomb. I think evcrybody 16 THE COURT: Okay. recognizes that, I'm Judge Davidson, so I'm going MR. STENGEL: The order from Judge Holcomb, I 17 don't know if you've had a chance to reuieft"t6htliiffX;,llilflft f;:":ff8 a"ry the motion to cancel. And if you will directed at the counterclaims, counterclaim that's actually been filed by

the

it.

1

tl

19

proceed

22

like to start with Bank of America's motion to dismiss the counterclairn, which is actually a third-parry complaint with respect to Bank of

THE COURT: I've read 20 MR. GELETY: Oh, you've read it already? THE COURT: Yes. Okay. Let me go ahead and 2l take these other matters because this may take little while and then we'Il come back and I

a

will I ZZ addresstheseissues. Okay? Thankyou. i24 25 MS. SERRADET: Thank you, Your Honor.

with your motion, please. SERRADET: Thank you, Your Honor. MS.

So

America,becauseBankofAmericais-THE COURT: You need to slow down. It's been

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. fi rstchoicereporting.com

Carrington Morlgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et a1. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on 11/30/2016

Pages 10..13 Page

1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9 10

l1 12 13

t4 15

16 1'7

18

19

20 21

22 23

24 25

2 J

4 5

6 7 8

9 10

1l t2

|

long aftemoon. 1 MS. SERRADET: Sorry. Bank of America is not'a 2 party to foreclosure actions. Since it's being 3 sued by the borrowers in this case for the first 4 time, it's actually a third-party defendant. And I 5 believe that is the same case for the Marinosci Law 6 Group, which was previously representing the 7 plaintiff, Carrington, in this action, and 8 Carrington, which is the plaintiff, is being sued 9 as a counter-defendant. So I wanted to make that 10 clari fication for the court. 1t Now,BankoSm{BXIH.+ESYtiH$oRWibf t#6f the 12 subject loan, and as is set forth in the bank's l3 motion to dismiss, it has been sued three other 14 times by the borrowers for the same allegations in 15 the third-party complaint slash counterclaim. 16 Essentially, the allegation is that Bank

of

t7

America wrongfully denied a loan modification that the borrowers requested. That is the same basis of three other lawsuits that rvere filed, some of them in state court, and they were moved to federal court. All three of those wound up in federal court at some point. The first one was dismissed, and the next two were dismissed based on res judicata. Page

I

l0

18

t9 20 21

22 23

24 25

the claims, I can do that" but I don't know that's necessary.

THE COURT: Yes. MS. SANTAMARIA: Your Honor, I do apologi They can bring up res judicata as many times as they want. And I do apologize. I am medicated and I'm not supposed to be here without my advocate. But hearing all these things, I mean, it just boggles my mind because if somebody actually reads my counterclaim, they'll be able to see that I do have a valid claim. This is regarding a foreclosure. This was never regarding anything else. Ifs not regarding a loan modification as they allege. It's not regarding anything else. They want to throw whatever argument they want out there, but the fact of the matter is, my arguments are valid. They are on paper. They've been -- they've been -- they're -- actually, the previous judge I had a hearing with, he told me I had plausible arguments and that I can even ask for a summary judgment. So for me to be in this situation. in my condition without my advocate, is a violation of my rights with these same attoroeys that berated me. And Mr. Gray, by the way, is here present. He is

l1

I The three lawsuits, two of those were -- the dismissal of two of those was appealed to the l lth 2 circuit, and the dismissal of those two that were 3 4 appealed was affirmed by the I lth circuit. So 5 there have been five lawsuits, essentially, or maybe three and two appeals for the same exact 6 allegations against Bank of America, the alleged 77 8 wrongful denial of the loan modification. 9 So the first ground for Bank of America's motion to dismiss is obviously res judicata. This l0 has been adjudicated three other times. It is the i I I fourth attempt by the borrowers to do exactly the 12

13 14 I5

if

Page 13

another one for years that has violated my rights, along with co-counsel and along with the plaintiff, Bank of America. So I just wanted to put that on record, and I really am not supposed to be here

today.

THE COTIRT: Your advocate chose to go to another hearing instead of going to this hearing. The motion to cancel this hearing was filed yesterday. I just saw it a little while ago. I have attorneys that have traveled a gleat distance

in of Miami, Orlando

-

Mr. Gelety, Palm

Beach?

MR. GELETY: Fortlauderdale. THE COTIRT: Fort Lauderdale, I'm sorry. I'm

l3

oroou samething. Dflrrg L!uB. lllt'sal75-pagecounterclaimslash > 4 t I J'yobv Uvlurvrvlorul

14

third-party

15

always open to accommodate matters, whether it's We pored over each of the claims with respect illness or whatever it may be, but there also has 16 to the alternative argument that they also fail to b be respect for the attorneys and their time and state a cause of action or a claim against Sank of ] t7 Americao or in general they do, but f juifififfffi*ffilLiil'iBe pro se litigants and their time when there's going to be a request for accommodations for a to give the court a very brief summary of our I tS judicata, cancellation. because | 20 argument, which is based on res Your advocate had to know before yesterday think the argument should end there. It's the i21 she might have had a conflict. Your advocate is 22 same 22 fourth attempt to sue Bank of America on the same not an attomey, in addition. And the most 23 exact allegations. valuable thing that I have to give any litigant, So if the court would like me to proceed with 24 any attomey, is my time. I don't have anything 25 the altemative argument with respect to each of

t6 17 18

19

20

2l 22 23

24 25

complaint.

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. fi rstchoicereporting. com

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on 1113012A16

ll

Pages 14..17

2

3

else to give anybody but my time, and I have a limited amount of time and I have a lot of people that need my time, so I don't lightly cancel

4

hearings.

4

2

5

I 3

This was cancelled back in September by

5

6

Judge Holcomb, the same hearing. He set it for two

7

months later and,

8

14

extraordinary circumstance, that this hearing is going to take place. So if it helps you to call your advocate to have her on the phone with you to talk to you durine the hearineGryire"eam'ecrtsitr&Edsbthat+ d al. "A,NORABLE LISA DAVIDS')N ON I I ]U 2016 MS. SANTAMARIA: I texted her. She's obviously in front of a judge. She wasn't able to text me

14

l5

back.

15

16

THE COURT: She elected to go somewhere else. l6 MS. SANTAMARIA; But we weren't expecting to be 17 here. I mean, the -- the -- I'm sorry. The motion 18 to disquali$, which, by the way, the hearing was t9 not -- it was continued by Judge Holcomb. The 20

9 10

il t2 t3

17 18

19

20

2l

I

24

motion to disqualify was filed over two weeks ago with enough time and it has still not been decided, and it clearly states in Foster v. Wizofski (phonetic), that a trial judge must flrst rule on a

25

motion for disqualification before resolving any

22 23

1

2

J 4 5 6 7

6

expect, barring an 8

9 10

1l

t2 13

2l 22 23 24 25

or

]t

other matters, including any hearings proceedings, which would include this one. Arrd since he was the one that actually continued and set the date for the trial. that

I2 i3 4

the

i5

order should have been vacated along with disqualification already being heard before this )6 hearing taking place. t7 So by me being here, I really -- I'm shocked that I was supposed to be here. I mean, had to make special atrangements for my children to 10 be picked up from school today. My daughter going to have to walk home. 12 THE COURT: I'm the presiding foreclosure i

really

THE COURT: I don't want to hear it. I'rrijtJ# saying that, you know, it's your record, so if you want to make your record, you can, either way you want to handle it. MS. SERRADET: Well, with respect to the judicata argument, which we think is dispositive o this issue, I can point the court to the allegations referring to the alleged wrongful denial of the loan modification, but our motion to dismiss fully briefs the issue. It also lists each of the three prior lawsuits. It provides the case citation and it attaches a copy of those complaints. And we did that, even though it endedup being about l0 exhibits, so thar if the court had any question as to the -- not even overlap, just the fact that these are the same claims being made against the same defendant for the fourth time, that the court would have that there.

Now, what I proposed earlier was if the court did want me to address each of the specific causes ofaction, in the event that the court did not agree that the entire lawsuit was -- or counterclaim was barred based on resjudicata, I could go ahead and do that. But I think because Page 77

there are about l0 or 12 of them, if I'm going to do that, then I should do that in conjunction with the other defendants so that the court doesn't have to hear about the 10 claims three different times.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. You've already addressed the res judicata, so who is the next

attomey involved?

8 9 i

23

MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, Scott Stengel. If the court would allow us, what Ms. Serradet is suggesting, we're agreeable. If she wants to go through and -- the first counterclaim is a claim for declaratory relief, and so we're agreeable to allow her to make her arguments. judge. I'm the circuit judge assigned to this 14 We have really adopted the position that Bank division. I don't why Judge Holcomb was 15 of America has taken to a lot of these covering for me on September l6th, but he was. But 16 counterclaims. We would just like the opportunity I am the judge assigned. There's no to add on if there's any additional arguments we regarding my participation. Anyone can fB61ffi,ififfi,f.iiJ",1ftYil!1"ifl'fdef that are necessary and then allow the couft to docket to see who is going to be here today. I 19 rule, you know, on the counterclaims based on the the judge. So I encourage you to go ahead and make 20 arguments ofthe three counter-defendants. the rest ofyour argument so you set your record, 2t THE COURT: Mr. Gelety, your position? and let's go 22 MR. GELETY: Yeah, that sounds like a good MS. SERRADET: Okay. Thank you, Your Honoi .23 idea.

24

So since the court would like to hear each

8

9 10 11

12

l3 14

l5 t6 t7 18 19

I

is

11

t:

motion

17

am

I

20

2t 22

25

I

forward.

]

specific

]

24 25

THE COURT: And the other attorney? I'rn MR. GRAY: Yes, Bill Gray, and I'm fine with

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. fi rstchoicereporting. com

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on ll/3012016

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 I

1

12 13 14 15 16 17

8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1

Honor. THE COURT: Okay.

Pages 18..21 Page

1 )2 MS. SERRADET: Okay. Then I'll begin, Youri 3 Honor. The first count of the counterclaim slash 4 third-parfy complaint is for declaratory and 5 injunctive relief. It's an allegation directed 6 against Carrington and Bank of America stating that 7 the borrowers were not provided notice purstmnt to 8 paragraph2} of the mortgage and were not afforded 9 debt management relief, presumably the loan I tO modification that they discussed throughout the 11 that, Your

12

counterclaim "rs,*H;tsg#pBfffi$ffi18.[gt\th"t 13 Bank of America did not grant them. The notice, pursuant to paragraph 22 of the ', 14 mortgage, I don't recall in that paragraph, which l5 is paragraph 112 and also paragraph 173, it being 16 addressed by one of the two parties, Carrington or 17 Bank of America. But since CarrinSon is the one I 8 that brought the foreclosure action and Bank of 19 America was not otherwise involved in the 20 foreclosure action, that would have been addressed 2l at Carrington, or it should have, presumably, 22 because it's not clear. 23 Regardless, the borrowers also state a cause of :24 ' action for declaratory relief. They very 25 Page

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 t3 14 15 16 l7

18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

18

specifically state that the defendants failed to provide them with the notice of default and failed to provide them with a loan modification. In this regard, there's no need for a declaration from the court because they're not unsure as to their rights with respect to anything. They're sure because they are asserting that this is what happened. And we cite to the supreme course case May v. Holley, and we set forth the relevant statute, which is not cited in the Count I but which is what we're assuming that they are bringing the declaratory reliefrequest under, and the

19

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 I3 14 15 16 l7

Page

completely devoid of really any of the elements state a cause of action for declaratory relief. We would also ask the court -- we have a case, Benios v. Spine, and I have a copy for Ms. Santamaria. This case holds, Your Honor, where party raised an affirmative defense -- that is, raises the same issues that are raised in a counterclaim - that they are prevented from raising that counterclaim. Essentially here, you know, their argument is that Carington failed to comply with the conditions precedent, that Canington also failed to properly modified the loan. Well, they raised those defenses in the foreclosure action. So because the mortgage is already present in the foreciosure action, they're barred from raising that here as a counterclaim. So we would ask, on that basis as well, to dismiss the counterclaim as to declaratory -seeking declaratory relief. MR. GELETY: Yes, Your Honor. As far as Marinosci Law Group goes for this claim, it says that the Marinosci Law Group is further estopped from pursuing this foreclosure action. We were just counsel ofrecord at the beginning ofthis Page2l

case to prosecute an

action.

So this

isjust

a

conclusory statement and there's no reason why -- a client can go out and hire anybody they want to and prosecute a claim. So this is a conclusory statement and it should be dismissed. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY: Mr. Stengel is my colleague so I concur with his argument. THE COURT: Do I need to keep coming back to

you, orno? MR. GRAY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: A11 right. I'm going to grant the dismissal as to the declaratory relief and conclusion is that: injunctive reliefbased on resjudicata. "The borrowers failed to show there is a bona MS. SERRADET: Thank you, Your Honor. Wi fide, acfual, presentneed forthe declaration" -respect to Count 2 -which is the first element required by May v. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Did you -Hotley : "or that the declaration deals with a state of facts or a present controversy regaiUiffd;";*;|fjl1flffi!:"1fi-"* MS. SANTAMARIA: Yes. They have stated 19 are not behind the foreclosure. I iust submitted these state of facts or that some right of theirs documents with the court that states that they are 20 is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable." 2l definitely behind the foreclosure. Carrington is And that's the third element and, on that basis, 22 an attorney, in fact, for Bank of America. I filed the Count 1 fails to state a cause ofaction and 23 that document in the case. should be dismissed. I also -- there is also documents filed in this adopt tha]t 24 Honor, we would MR. STENGEL: Your just from counsel that states plaintiff, Bank of that it's 25 case reiterate argument. We would also First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. fi rslchoicereporting.com

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on 1 1 13012016

Pages22..25 Page

I 2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9

l0 11

t2 l3 t4 15

16

t7 18

t9 20

2t 22

America, Marinosci specifically. And, also, I would like to say that Marinosci is not -- they are filing paperwork in this case with an incorrect or

1

with prejudice. The second claim I haven't ruled

2

on.

3

I do apologize if I forget the names, the words. I filed certified documents showing that

4

MS. SANTAMARIA: Okay, okay. So I just to specifically know if it was with or without

5

prejudice.

Marinosci Law Group, P.C., is not allowed to do business in the state of Florida. That name was rejected and they continue to file not only the

6

THE COURT: Anything else? MS. SANTAMARIA: No. THE COURT: All right. I'm going to Brant Count 2 on res judicata and on the fact that it

-

7 8

foreclosure case with that name, they continue to 9 file other documents as we1l. 10 MS. SERRADET: Okay. Your Honor, I'll proceed 11

withcount2.*Hgbot*^H$gim^, jffiBtg(Htipldtglthe Florida RICO act. It's in paragraphs 182 to 201 of the counterclaim slash third-party complaint, and in this particular count the borrowers refer to the preceding 150 paragraphs ofgeneral allegations in oftheir recitation ofthe purported violation of the RICO act that they don't specifu what the fraudulent conduct that any ofthe defendants would have engaged in was.

12

l3 14 15

16

l7 18

19

20

21 As the court knows, the act provides a civil remedy to any person who has been injured by reason 22

of any violation of the statute which makes it unlawful for any person employed by or associated

23

24 25

with any enterprise to conduct or participate

25

23

24

ofaction. There's no allegations that would suffice to rise to criminal does not state a valid cause

activity. MS. SERRADET: With prejudice, Your Honor? THE COURT: This one, yes, because it's res judicata, yes. MS. SERRADET: Okay. Thank you, Your With respect to Count 3, it's a count for illegal consumer collection under the FDA and the

FCA. Those allegations are contained in paragraphs 231 to239 ofthe counterclaim slash third-party complaint, and they're simply a recitation of the borrower's belief that Carrington does not have standing to foreclosure on the mortgage because they believe that Bank of America never owned the note because Bank of America was, Page 25

Page 23

I 2

directly or indirectly in that enterprise through pattern of criminal activity.

a

I 2

at best, and I'm quoting, a servicer. These allegations don't quite make sense. They

3

appear to be a defense to a foreclosure. They

4

don't state a claim for illegal consumer collection under either of the two acts. They are wholly deficient and they should absolutely be dismissed. MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, once again we those arguments. We would also state that this is

7

None of the allegations would the conclusion that the bank or Carrington or Marinosci Law Group have engaged in any criminal activity or in an enterprise. And in any event, the count fails to state a cause of action wholly. lt should

8

be dismissed.

9

9 MR. STENGEL: Again, we would adopt these arguments of Bank of America and fufiher state that 10 u there just isn't any allegations regarding a pattem of criminal activity against Carrington. 12 l3 This fails to state a valid cause for a RICO violation. We'd ask it be dismissed on that basis. 14 MR. GELETY: The Marinosci Law Group adopt! 15 these arguments as well and reiterates that there ',16

a standing defense. Under the Berrios case, which

19

MR. GELETY: The Marinosci Law Group these arguments, as well as the Marinosci Law is simply hired to prosecute a claim and under just

3

4 5

6

10

1i 12

l3 t4

l5

l6 l7 18

l9 20

2t 22 23

24 25

5

6 7 8

we provided the court, this is our -- Carrington's entitlement to enforce the note and mortgage is at issue in the foreclosure action. They're barred from bringing this now as a counterclaim, it's our argument under the Berrios case, and once again just an absolute failure to allege any facts that would give rise to an FFA or FCA cause of

11 action. are no specific facts to back any ofthis np, and these claims are boarding on speciousnesB'b€t1iff:ffJl!:flftX#lLi,I'"'" tun point, Your

Honor.

20 THE COURT: Okay. Yes. MS. SANTAMARIA: Yes, I do apologize. Are 2t 22 these claims being granted with or without prejudice, me not being able to modiff rnodifu, amend the complaint? THE COURT: The f,rrst claim is being granted not

23 24 25

couRT: okay.

Yes.

basic litigation that we are under as well. THE COURT: Yes. MS. SANTAMARIA: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not feeling well, but I

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. firstchoicereporting. com

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on 1 1 1301201 6

Pages 26..29 Page

I

I

do not agree with their argument and that, sadly,

2

do not have

3

the hearing would be cancelled. I did not come prepared with my documents that I would

4 5

6 7 8

9

l0

ll t2 13

14 15

16 17 18

l9 20

2t 22 23

24 25

-

I thought

-

26

I didn't come prepared. I did not

have been able to prepare with my advocate, and am not able to properly argue this case like I

I

lr

lt 3

of

4

counter-plaintiffs. We'd ask the court to dismiss

5

this counterclaim.

6

MR. GELETY: And, Your Honor, the Marinosci La Group's position is that they aren't even mentioned

would have -- my argument is basically right now on 7 paper, and I don't have anything with me, and I've 8 got memory issues and I'm medicated as well. 9 THE COURT: Your advocate is not a lawyer. l0 MS. SANTAMARIA: No, I understand. 11 THE CouRTf,r/qrrrdymasrtdrtrt sahbd with vou t2 HONORABLE LISA D VIDSoNon I I JU 20I6 for , but the fact that 13 MS. SANTAMARIA: But I don't have any l4 I'm here with the four or five counsel, which I l5 don't even want to look at their face, that have 16 completely violated my rights consistently, and I t7 don't feel like I should be here, like I said. I t8 shouldn't be in this predicament. I just wanted to t9 say that. I do respect -20 THE COURT: Okay. Thankyou. 21 MS. SANTAMARIA: - Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to $ant the 23 motion to dismiss as to Count 3. lt does not state a valid cause of action, and also based on res

page

allegations which would give rise to a violation the Fair Credit Reporting Act as plead by the defendants -- or, excuse me, the

24 25

in this count, and so we would like to be relieved from any and all of this with prejudice.

THECOURT: Okay. Yes. MS. SANTAMARIA: Yes, I did not

- I did speciff how my credit was damaged. I'm not able to finance anything because of everything that's happened. Bank of America, I continue to -- and I did frle proof of it. Bank of America continues to be part of this foreclosure. They are behind everything, and I am in foreclosure because of Bank of America. Res judicata should not apply because now I'm in foreclosure. I never used to be in foreclosure. That's all I have to say. THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to grant it based on resjudicata. Also, it does not contain the allegations sufficient for a Fair Credit Reporting Act cause ofaction. It is not specific as to parties or elements ofthe cause ofaction.

tu*"'

Page21

I 2

J

4 5

6 7 8

9

l0 11

12 13

t4

l5 t6 11 18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25

judicata.

1

MR. GELETY: Is that with prejudice, Your Honor?

THECOURT:

Yes.

MS. SERRADET: Your Honor, Count 4 is for alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Those allegations are contained in paragraphs 240 to 245 ofthe counterclaim slash third-parry complaint, and the borrowers just basically alleged that there was negative information that was

2

MS. SERRADET: Thank you, Your Horror. MR. GELETY: Is that with prejudice, Your

3

Honor?

4

THE COURT: With prejudice. MS. SERRADET: And, Your Honor, Count 5 is alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It's contained in

5

6 7 8

9 10

paragraphs 246to245 [sic] ofthe counterclaim slash third-party complaint.

THE COURT'. 246towhat?

t1 MS. SERRADET: 254. Sorry. reported on their credit histories. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Even though it was disputed, they don't provide t2 13 MS. SERRADET: And that section also refers to any factual , such as whether they disputed 14 the preceding I 50 paragraphs of general allegations the information with the credit bureaus which in l5 tum would have provided a notice to the fumishers and further alleges that the defendants violated 16 FDUTPA by engaging in the foleclosure without of the credit information in order for there to be 17 standing to do so and filing fiaudulent documents a viable cause of action under FCRA. And for this reason, this count rait to stBf6ilii"l"*ffii1ffifilit::tr"6?fore the court. 19 As counsel for Carrington has pointed out, this a cause of action as well, not to mention the fact 20 standing argument should be an affirmative defense, that it's not specific as to any ofthe parties. 21 and I believe that it is, to the foreclosure. And Bank of America hasn't been a servicer of the 22 Filing fraudulent documents before the court, that loan for many, many years either. appears to be some sort of opinion regarding the MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, once again we would 24 filings that have been made in the foreclosure adopt Bank of America's arguments there and just 25 action which do not involve Bank of America or did further reiterate there's a failure in any

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. firstchoicereporting. com

{ cltd no*

Org*c Qoorta 5 Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON ot 1 /30/201 6

Pages 30..33

1

Page 32

Page 30 1

). J

4 5

not involve Bank of America at the time when this counterclaim slash third-party complaint was filed. And in any event, Florida courts have held that foreclosure activities do not constitute trade or corlmerce within the meaning of FDUTPA.

I

should be dismissed with prejudice as well.

2

THE COURT: And why would it be futile? MS. SERRADET: Because the forgery and un recording of assignment do not appear to state cognizable causes ofaction, to my knowledge at least. But in any event, with respect to Bank of

.,

4 5

6

all of those reasons, failure to state a cause of action and just simply not -- based on the

6

8

vague allegations that are made, just not being a claim that would be eligible to be brought under FDUTPA, the borrowers are barred from bringing

8

10

l1 t2

claim against Bank of America and, I believe, the

ll

13

g 10

t4 15 16 17 18

19

20 21

22 23

24 25

So for

7

9

America, the claims do not apply because the allegations involved an assignment of mortgage that Bank of America is not relying upon because it's not involved in the foreclosure.

MR. STENGEL: Your Honor, we would adopt

12

arguments and, in addition, state that the

MR. STENGEL: Your Honoq Carrington would adopt those arguments. In addition, standing is already at issue at present in the foreclosure

13

15

counterclaims, Count 6 and 7, they make general conclusory allegations that Carrington has forged or fabricated the assignment of mortgage and

action and, as such, would not create a basis or should not create a basis for a cause of action as a counterclaim here. Further, the law is clear. FDUTPA does not apply to foreclosure actions. Carrington, by filing this foreclosure action, has not violated FDUTPA. There is no allegations outside of merely that Carrington filed this foreclosure action by the counterclaim that's here and, as such, they fail to state a cause of action. We'd ask that the

t6

improper$:

Othef defendanl5

rlgrgrrglli4ongagc !s Ahdiel !.cb(vnia. er al. HONORABLr LISA DA\4DSON on I I 30 2016

t4

1'l

l8

(Ms. Santamaria collapsed to the floor.) T}IE COURT: We are in recess.

l9

(Recess taken.)

2t

THE COURT: Everyone be seated. With that. the hearing, of course, is over and I'll have to

22

reschedule.

23

MR. STENCEL: Your Honor, would it be possible for -- it's been difficult to coordinate hearings with the borrowers, as you can see, I think. from

20

24 25

Page 3 I

I 2 J

4 5

6 7 8

9 10

l3

15

MS. SERRADET: Thank you, Your Honor. The next argument is with a respect to Counts 6 and 7. Count 6 is for forgery and Count 7 is for unlawful recording of assignment. In ofthese counts, the borrowers

16

allege that the assignment of mortgage that is

17

relied upon by Carrington in the underlying foreclosure is somehow fabricated and they do not specify how the document is forged or appears to be forged to them. I could not possibly respond to these claims which don't even relate to it, to Bank of America, and theyjust don't appear to be proper causes of

11

12 13

t4

l8 19

20 21

22 23 24 25

Page 33

counterclaim be dismissed. MR. GELETY: Yes, Your Honor, and Marinosci Law 2 Group adopts those arguments as well. And I just 4 want to point out that Marinosci Law Group isn't even mentioned in this count by name let alone have 5 6 any specific facts to back up these allegations. THE COLTRT: Okay. Well, standing is not a 7 cause of action, FDUTPA does not apply in this 8 matter, and I will dismiss this with prejudice, 9 along with res judicata. 10

1l 12

l3 14 15

today. Would it be possible for the court to

set

this hearing, because it's going to need to be special set again, I assume, for a halfhour to an hour. THE COURT: If you want a special set, do a motion and give me some parameters and we'll go from there, but I don't want to do anything when

in here. MS. SERRADET: Okay. Understood. THECOURT: Thankyou. MR. STENGEL: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. SERRADET: Thank you. THE COURT: lf you have a motion, send it directly to Jenny Young and she can bring it to my attention, and just put the amount of time you

she's not

might need. MS. SERRADET: Okay. Thank you, Your Xiff:1fl'"""Gtr. hearing was concluded at 3:12 p.m.)

16

19

i20

action either. Even if they were to request emendment, it would be futile. Therefore, they

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. fi rstchoicereporting.com

*

*

*{r

Carrington Mortgage vs Abdiel Echeverria, et al. HONORABLE LISA DAVIDSON on I I 130/2016

Page34 Page

RXPORTER I

S

CERTTFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BREVARD

I, JILL E.

HASTEY/

ed Professional

Reportel, State of F.Lorida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did repoxt the foregoj.ng proceedings, and that the transcrj-pt,

pages 1 through 33,

t2

is a true and correct record of my stenograPhic notes. I FURTHER CERTIEY lhat I am neither aD attorney nor counsel for lhe parties to this cause, nol a relative

13

or employee of any atlftnsdRdBner-6rDdvt&aul$6lle$Oi2ifib 1]his

14

litigatlon,

15

outcome of this action,

10 11

CaringloB Mof,gace vs Abdiel Ec-beveria. et al.

L6

l1

nor DATED

am

I financiafly

interested in the

THIS 20th day of December, 2016, Breward

Countyr Florida.

19

Qw

z-

,]ILL E. HASTEY ed Prof essiona] Reporler 22 23 24

FiNt Choice Rofr rg & Vid@ Scrvices www-EBehoir :repofring.com

First Choice Reporting & Video Services www. f,rrstchoicereporting. com