P. 1
Ryan Christopher Rodems Bar Complaint No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

Ryan Christopher Rodems Bar Complaint No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

|Views: 34|Likes:
Published by Neil Gillespie
Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

The complaint makes the following accusations, in part:

Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing party is pro se.

Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to directly communicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along. Every portal of communication was used to communicate with Attorney
Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would discuss any detail of the case

Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to Plaintiffs, etc.

Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge & Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve lis Pendens.

Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be treated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.
Carl Montag v Ryan Christopher Rodems, File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

The complaint makes the following accusations, in part:

Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing party is pro se.

Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to directly communicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along. Every portal of communication was used to communicate with Attorney
Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would discuss any detail of the case

Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to Plaintiffs, etc.

Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge & Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve lis Pendens.

Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be treated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions.

More info:

Published by: Neil Gillespie on Oct 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/12/2012

pdf

text

original

THE FLORIDA BAR

JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

850/561-5600
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

January 23, 2012 Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker 501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790 Tampa, FL 33602-5237

Re:

Complaint by Carl Montag against Ryan Christopher Rodems The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

Dear Mr. Rodems: Enclosed is a copy of an inquiry/complaint and any supporting documents submitted by the above referenced complainant(s). Your response to this complaint is required under the provisions of Rule 48.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and is due in our office by February 7, 2012. Responses should not exceed 25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Failure to provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Please note that any correspondence must be sent through the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material. You are further requested to furnish the complainant with a complete copy of your written response, including any documents submitted therewith. Please note that pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(b), Rules of Discipline, any reports, correspondence, papers, recordings and/or transcripts of hearings received from either you or the complainant(s) shall become a part of the public record in this matter and thus accessible to the public upon a disposition of this file. It should be noted that The Florida Bar is required to acknowledge the status of proceedings during the pendency of an investigation, if a specific inquiry is made and the matter is deemed to be in the public domain. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline, you are further required to complete and return the enclosed Certificate of Disclosure form. Finally, the filing of this complaint does not preclude communication between the attorney and the complainant(s). Please review the enclosed Notice for information on submitting your response. Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707 Enclosures (Certificate of Disclosure, Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Complaint, Notice Mailing Instructions) cc: Carl Montag

Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline, you must execute the appropriate disclosure paragraph below and return the form to this office by February 7, 2012. The rule provides that the nature of the charges be stated in the notice to your firm; however, we suggest that you attach a copy of the complaint. CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ________ day of _______________, 201___, a true copy of the foregoing disclosure was furnished to ________________________________, a member of my present law firm of ______________________________________________________, and, if different, to _________________________________________, a member of the law firm of ______________________________________________________, with which I was associated at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E).

_______________________________________ Ryan Christopher Rodems

CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE (Corporate/Government Employment) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ________ day of _______________, 201___, a true copy of the foregoing disclosure was furnished to ________________________________, my supervisor at ______________________________________________________ (name of agency), with which I was associated at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E).

_______________________________________ Ryan Christopher Rodems CERTIFICATE OF NON-LAW FIRM AFFILIATION (Sole Practitioner) I HEREBY CERTIFY to The Florida Bar on this ________ day of _______________, 201___, that I am not presently affiliated with a law firm and was not affiliated with a law firm at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E).

_______________________________________ Ryan Christopher Rodems

NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

1. The enclosed letter is an informal inquiry. Your response is required under the provisions of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct. Failure to provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). If you do not respond, the matter will be forwarded to the grievance committee for disposition in accordance with Rule 3-7.3 of the Rules of Discipline. 2. Many complaints considered first by staff counsel are not forwarded to a grievance committee, as they do not involve violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct justifying disciplinary action. 3. "Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(a), Rules of Discipline, any response by you in these proceedings shall become part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public upon the closure of the case by Bar counsel or upon a finding of no probable cause, probable cause, minor misconduct, or recommendation of diversion. Disclosure during the pendency of an investigation may be made only as to status if a specific inquiry concerning this case is made and if this matter is generally known to be in the public domain." 4. The grievance committee is the Bar's "grand jury." Its function and procedure are set forth in Rule 3-7.4. Proceedings before the grievance committee, for the most part, are nonadversarial in nature. However, you should carefully review Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. 5. If the grievance committee finds probable cause, formal adversarial proceedings, which ordinarily lead to disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida, will be commenced under 3-7.6, unless a plea is submitted under Rule 3-7.9

THE FLORIDA BAR
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

850/561-5600
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

January 23, 2012

Mr. Carl Montag 3444 Park Square East #4 Tampa, FL 33613 Re: Ryan Christopher Rodems; The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

Dear Mr. Montag: Enclosed is a copy of our letter to Mr. Rodems which requires a response to your complaint. Once you receive Mr. Rodems's response, you have 10 days to file a rebuttal if you so desire. If you decide to file a rebuttal, please send a copy to Mr. Rodems. Rebuttals should not exceed 25 pages and may refer to any additional documents or exhibits that are available on request. Please address any and all correspondence to me. Please note that any correspondence must be sent through the U.S. mail; we cannot accept faxed material. Please be advised that as an arm of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida Bar can investigate allegations of misconduct against attorneys, and where appropriate, request that the attorney be disciplined. The Florida Bar cannot render legal advice nor can The Florida Bar represent individuals or intervene on their behalf in any civil or criminal matter. Please review the enclosed Notice on mailing instructions for information on submitting your rebuttal. Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707 Enclosures (Notice of Grievance Procedures, Copy of Letter to Mr. Rodems; Notice - Mailing Instructions) cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems

THE FLORIDA BAR
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

850/561-5600
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

1. The enclosed letter is an informal inquiry. Your response is required under the provisions of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4 8.4(g), Rules of Professional Conduct. Failure to provide a written response to this complaint is in itself a violation of Rule 4 8.4(g). If you do not respond, the matter will be forwarded to the grievance committee for disposition in accordance with Rule 3-7.3 of the Rules of Discipline. 2. Many complaints considered first by staff counsel are not forwarded to a grievance committee, as they do not involve violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct justifying disciplinary action. 3. “Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(a), Rules of Discipline, any response by you in these proceedings shall become part of the public record of this matter and thereby become accessible to the public upon the closure of the case by Bar counsel or upon a finding of no probable cause, probable cause, minor misconduct, or recommendation of diversion. Disclosure during the pendency of an investigation may be made only as to status if a specific inquiry concerning this case is made and if this matter is generally known to be in the public domain.” 4. The grievance committee is the Bar’s “grand jury.” Its function and procedure are set forth in Rule 3-7.4. Proceedings before the grievance committee, for the most part, are nonadversarial in nature. However, you should carefully review Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. 5. If the grievance committee finds probable cause, formal adversarial proceedings, which ordinarily lead to disposition by the Supreme Court of Florida, will be commenced under 3-7.6, unless a plea is submitted under Rule 3-7.

PERSONAL - REPLY REQUESTED

Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker 501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790 Tampa, FL 33602-5237

Mr. Carl Montag 3444 Park Square East #4 Tampa, FL 33613

THE FLORIDA BAR INQUIRY/COMPLAINT FORM
PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE - Required Information.): Your Name: Organization: Address: O i City:_ Zip Code: Email: ACAP Reference No.

JAN 18 2012
The Florida Bar-ACAP Tallahassee, Florida

5U uttAJl State: ^

Attorney's Name: l^Uftw CWiS"bpWYAddress: State: City: 'VDuv\\>pa Zip Code: Jjfefr telephone:

PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO - Facts/Allegations.); The specific thing or things I am complaining about are:

PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [see attached sheet]. Vr-

PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.

Signature

Date

THE FLORIDA BAR INOUIRY/COMP1 [PART TWO ~ FACTS/A TJ.KKA TIDM]

ETHICAL SHORTCOMINGS OF RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS. ESQUIRE
Attorney Rodems' duty and/of obligation to ensure that due process is not short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing party is pro se. Gross & continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence to Attorney Rodems. Attorney Rodems absolute refusal to direcdy communicate with Plaintiffs, after repeated requests, time after time, to discuss the pending legal action and to further the instant litigation along. Every portal of communication was used to communicate with Attorney Rodems, to wit telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, emails and hand delivered correspondence from Plaintiffs. Attorney Rodems never would discuss any detail of the case (and acknowledges same in his responsive letter to Plaintiffs dated June 15,2011, and only communicated a couple of times by fax or mail (would never orally speak to Plaintiffs), but again, NEVER addressing any of the letters, faxes and pleadings that Plaintiffs sent him. (Please see various letters to Attorney Rodems from Plaintiffs} Non-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to Plaintiffs, etc. Attorney Rodems never would acknowledge or communicate with Plaintiffs regarding their properly filed and noticed 'Counter Motion To Quash.' Plaintiffs hand delivered their Motion to the Court and to Attorney Rodems office, requesting time be coordinated and set for such Motion at the upcoming hearing. Again, thwarting any legal efforts made by Plaintiffs. In fact, Attorney completely ignored said Motion at the hearing and didn't allow Plaintiffs Motion to be heard after his Motion was called up, and thus denying due process of law. There was not one word communicated {Please see various letters to Attorney Rodems, that were also copied to Judge Silver, from Plaintiffs} Case law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge & Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve lis Pendens. Also, the Judge had to tell him he was submitting a wrong Order for the Court to consider granting, thus leading Plaintiffs to believe Attorney Rodems was attempting to "ambush" them, especially because he did not

offer such case law prior to the hearing, but in the middle of the hearing. (Please see case law that was provided to Plaintiffs} Attorney Rodems called up for hearing the above Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively Posting of a Surety Bond that he filed in the instant case over THREE (3) YEARS AGO, to wit May 9,2008. This same Motion was "used up" or had a resolution of same when he originally filed such Motion when both Attorney Rodems and Plaintiffs' prior counsel, Bud Stansell, Esquire, had stipulated to Plaintiffs posting a $20,000 surety bond, and which Plaintiffs followed through with and posted. Why did Attorney Rodems, a member of the Bar in good standing, who is supposed to uphold and follow the TLetter of the Law', use a stale Motion, or otherwise already 'used up' Motion that had already been acted upon, and that which he should have at least known, or possibly did know, he needed to file a new Motion to call up for hearing three years later, the same issue again but in proper order (signing a new Motion to call up instead of using a three year old Motion that had already been stipulated by the Parties thereto and thus considered satisfied and now null and void, as per the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure? Attorney Rodem's behavior & open disregard to Plaintiffs' legal right to be treated with courtesy and in a timely manner. Additionally, that Attorney Rodems did not afford Plaintiffs proper noticing of hearings, motions. Attorney Rodems intentionally did not provide Plaintiffs with properly plead discovery requests, blantantiy withheld information, as well as requested proof of legal authority for Nell Crowley to be present and be able to make any kind of decisions for settlement of any or all issue at the only Mediation held in this case, which was on May 15,2008. Attorney Rodems repeatedly alluded to there was a signed Power of Attorney from the Garofalo's giving Nell Crowley Power of Attorney over them to act in their absence. This same document was asked for time after time, all to no avail. Plaintiffs' are entitled to such information. Plaintiff feels that Attorney Rodems did not follow his oath of being a member of the Florida Bar in good standing, nor practice the requirements in his Creed of Professionalism. {Please see Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel, and other discovery requests from various time periods}

DISINGENIOUS MEDIATION - MAY 15.2008
The Mediation that was held in good faith by Plaintiffs, and also ordered by the Court, would be the venue that any or all issues relating to the instant litigation may have been solved. Unfortunately, this Mediation never could have had any real substance or legal impact on the case, because there were ZERO documents giving authority to Nell Crowley to attend such mediation, and by that fact, the Mediation Settlement Agreement the Parties reached,

meant nothing at all come to find out There was nothing binding the Defendants to such Agreement, because the actual Parries, or any legal representative, did not come to the the Mediation, and therefore, showing Attorney Rodems blantant disregard to protect due process of parties and legitimate furthering of litigation. {Please see Mediation Settlement Agreement}

ATI.F.naiNG THAT AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS. ESQUIRE. PARTICIPATED & POSSIBLY EVEN FACILITATED. A POSSTRTJR FR Aim THIS HONORABLE COURT
Jacob Garofalo signed two Power of Attorneys literally the day after the Order Dissolving Lis Pendens was entered and Attorney Rodems possibly drew up such instruments, informed Jacob Garofalo of same & then recorded same in public records in Hillsborough County, Florida. {Please see newly signed Power of Attorneys attached} Newly signed Power of Attorney filed in Hillsborough County public records This is especially upsetting because Attorney Rodems personally represented to the Court that his client, Emilio Garofalo, was incompetent and was deteriorating and unable to further be a part of any proceedings (Unanswered discovery requests directed to Mr. Garofalo were being addressed at the time before the Court on a Motion to Compel) and Judge Silver entered an ORDER, based on Attorney Rodems representation of his client's physical and mental incompetence, that Mr. Garofalo no longer had to answer any discovery requests pending, and was excused from taking part of any further litigation in the instant case. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, presumed to be prepared by Attorney Rodems to effect the sale of the condominium he had been trying to push through for his clients, had this same gentleman, Emilio Garofalo, signing before a notary in Louisiana, to give Jacob Garofalo Power of Attorney on his behalf. However, Emilio Garofalo would have needed to have sound mind and mental & physical competency to sign such an Affidavit and would therefore show that Attorney Rodems SYSTEMATICALLY & KNOWINGLY allowed in the scope of his professional conduct this illegal document to be recorded in Hillsborough County public records, which allowed the sale of the subject condominium that is the subject of the instant litigation in Hillsborough County. It is outrageous that Attorney never turned over to Plaintiffs the requested Power of Attorney that he used as legal authority for Nell Crowley to be present at

Mediation for FOUR YEARS, yet later facilitates a Power of Attorney to be produced ONE DAY after Order was entered from the Court, and is an entirely DIFFERENT POWER OF ATTORNEY than was alluded to by Attorney Rodems to Plaintiffs. The Garofalo's now appoint their son Jacob in Louisiana to act on their behalf.

NON-COMPT JANCE ISSUES WITH
To this date, Plaintiffs Request For Production heretofore filed in the instant Hgitation HAS STILL NEVER BEEN RECEIVED. {Please see Plaintiffs' Request for Production} Again, the alleged Power of Attorney that Attorney Rodems stated he had with him at Mediation giving authority to Nell Crowley to be there at Mediation has NEVER BEEN PRODUCED after many, many requests. The Interrogatories Plaintiffs' had properly requested and filed with the Court were never produced until AFTER Attorney Rodems made Plaintiffs file a Motion To Compel such answers and was granted by Judge Silver. Upon receipt of said answers to Interrogatories, Attorney Rodems provided to Plaintiffs minimal and scantily answered Interrogatories, seemingly trying to thwart Plaintiffs' right to information sought in such discovery request (Please see Defendant's Answer to Interrogatories} Attorney Rodems refusal or ignoring of Plaintiffs' various discovery requests ensued the entire time Plaintiffs were pro se.

A

THE FLORIDA BAR INQUIRY/COMPLAINT FORM [PART THREE ~ WITNESSES]
=> => => => => => => => => => => => => => => Plaintiff Carl Montag Plaintiff Stephanie Miller Defendant Emilio Garofalo Defendant Martha C. Garofalo The Honorable Bernard C. Silver, Circuit Court Judge Prior Plaintiffs counsel, B. Bud Stansell, Jr., Esquire Defendants' counsel, Christopher Rodems, Esquire Nelle Crowley Tom Crowley Jacob Yates Cowden-Garofalo David Garofalo Tom Dickinson Louise Hale Sheila Dugan Any other witnesses requested, needed, or found to have information relating to mis matter

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. CASE NO.: DIVISION: 07-9817 "H"

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens or in the Alternative to Require the Posting of a Bond and Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens, will be called up for hearing before the Honorable Bernard C. Silver, Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Room 519, 800 East Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, on Wednesday, May 25,2011 at 2:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Time Reserved: 15 minutes. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this /^ day of May, 2011.

, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008 Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HBLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: 07-9817 DIVISION: «H"

vs.
EMDLIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS Defendants Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo move to dissolve the Us pendens, and as grounds therefor would state that there is no factual or legal basis to support a lis pendens. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an Order dissolving the lis pendens. RESPECTFULLY SUB: 9th day of May, 2008. i CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE FloridavBar No. 9476522 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008 Attorneys for Defendants

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mai/to O. B. Stansell, Jr., Esquire, B. Bud Stansell, Jr. & Associates, PA., 1707 East Bearss Avenue, Tfempa, Florida 33613, this 9th day of May, 2008.

Ryan (JmistopKer Rodems, Esquire

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR fflLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MDLLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO.: 07-9817 DIVISION: «H"

EMGTLIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS / OR ALTERNATIVELY TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF A BOND v Defendants Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo move to dissolve the lis pendens ro alternatively to require the posting of a bond, after an evidentiary hearing, and as grounds therefor would state: 1. Plaintiffs have filed a complaint and recorded a notice of lis pendens. Plaintiffs

notice of lis pendens has been filed without a duly recorded instrument or mechanic's lien of record. 2. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to have Plaintiffs post a bond. S & T Builders

v. Globe Props.. 944 So. 2d 302,304 (Fla. 2006)("We have interpreted the statutory reference to injunctions in section 48.23(3) of the Florida Statutes to authorize a trial court to require the posting of a bond because a notice of lis pendens 'will often prevent the property holder from selling or mortgaging the property.'" S & T Builders v. Globe Props.. 944 So. 2d 302,304 (Fla. 2006Vquoting Medical Facilities Dev. v. Little Arch Creek Props.. 675 So. 2d 915,917 (Fla.

1996). 3. la setting the amount of a bond, the Florida Supreme Court has held that "[t]he

amount should bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages which the property-holder defendant demonstrates will likely result if it is later determined that the notice of lis pendens was unjustified." Medical Facilities Dev. v. Little Arch Creek Props.. 675 So. 2d 915,918 n.2 (Fla. 1996). 4. In determining the amount of the bond, an amount sufficient to satisfy

Defendants' attorneys' fees is also required. S & T Builders. 944 So. 2d at 305-06 ("Since the attorney's fees incurred in obtaining the dissolution of an injunction are recoverable from a surety bond, we conclude that section 48.23 of the Florida Statutes similarly permits a recovery of the attorney's fees incurred in obtaining a discharge of a Us pendens... In conclusion, we hold, that a trial court may include attorney's fees that may foreseeably be incurred in obtaining a discharge of a lis pendens in a lis pendens bond." WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an Order dissolving the lis pendens or requiring plaintiffs to postjBrappropTlate bondr RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13Ui day of November, 2007.

5EMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 9476522 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008 Attorneys for Defendants

/

"^-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to/0. B. Stansell, Jr., Esquire, BJBufastansell, Jr. & Associates, P. A., 1707 East Bearss Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33613, this 13th day of November, 2007.

yanr(£nristopner Rooems, Esquire

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AJSD FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION
CARL MONTAG, Individually, and

STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. EMTLIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. CASE NO.: DIVISION: 07-9817 «H"

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLyEJLISJgENTXENS THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Wednesday, May 25,2011 on Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens, served May 9,2008, and the proceedings having been read and considered, the Court having heard from counsel for Defendants and the pro se Plaintiffs, and the Court be otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens is GRANTED. The lis pendens recorded in the Hillsborough County Official records at Book 18006, Pages 712-713 is hereby dissolved and of no force or legal effect DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Hillsboroxigh County, Florida this
A11 day of May 2011.

,

,,,

»

CONFORMED COPY

ORIGINAL SIGNED

MAY 3 1 2011
Bernard C. Silver Circuit Judge Copies to: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, Counsel for Defendants Carl Montag, pro se Stephanie Miller, pro se BERNARD C. SILVER CIRCUIT JUDGE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs,
Vs.

CASE NO.:07-9817 DIVISION: H

EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GARAFALO, Defendants.

MOTION TO COMPEL Let it be known that CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee, come before the Court as (Pro Se) Plaintiffs and having requested, far too many Times over a three (3) year period, that the Defendants, their Counsel, provide their Interrogatories, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340. Plaintiffs (former) Counsel, Mr. B. Bud Stansell, Jr. has sent most requests via the Court and email. Plaintiff Carl Montag made three different demands during a six-hour Mediation Conference on May 15th, 2008, but was denied access. Mr. Stansell then sent the Defendants and their Counsel still another request for the Interrogatories, via the Court, on March 12th, 2010, but to no avail. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully move for an Order from the Court, that the Defendants/their Counsel relinquish these documents, immediately.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HHJLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. CASE NO.: 07-9817 DIVISION: "H"

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Wednesday, August 1 1, 2010 on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, and the proceedings having been read and considered, and the Court having heard from counsel for Defendants and the pro se Plaintiffs, the Court be otherwise fully advised in the premises, and counsel for Defendants having advised that Emilio Garofalo is reported to be suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and mentally incompetent and Martha C. Garofalo is suffering from physical infirmities, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and Plaintiff Martha Garofalo shall respond to the interrogatories within twenty (20) days from August 1 1, 2010; and, Plaintiff Emilio Garofalo is not required to answer the interrogatories.

2.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Hills
day of _ ,2010. AUG 3 1 2010 BERNARD C. SILVER CIRCUIT JUDGE

Bernard C. Silver Circuit Judge Copies to: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Carl Montag, pro se Stephanie Miller, pro se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. : 07-98 1 7 DIVISION: H

EMILIO GAROFALOand MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350, hereby requests the Defendants, EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA GAROFALO, to produce the documents in the attached Schedule "A" for copying and inspection at the offices of the undersigned counsel within thirty (30) days after service. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail to: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, Barker. Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602 on December 5^, 2007.

B.BUD STANSELL, JR. & O.B. Stansell, Jr., Esquire Fla. Bar No. 442372 1707 East Bearss Avenue Tampa, Florida 33613 (813)631-0344 FAX (813) 971-0522 Attorney for Plaintiffs

1
r

•\f

SCHEDULE "A" 1. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all plumbing repai^ and/or plumbing item replacements for the time period from October 6. 2003 through November 2007. for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl. 2. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all air conditioning system repairs and/or replacements to include but not limited to air handler, drip pans, condenser, interior/exterior, vents, thermostat* for the time period from October 6, 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

3. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all hot water heater repairs and/or hot water heater replacement! for the time period from October 6, 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

4. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all vanity repairs and/or vanity replacements in the kitchen and/or bathrooms., for the time period from October 6. 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

5. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all kitchen repairs and/or kitchen sink repairs and/or appliance repairs,, for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

6. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all toilet repairs and/or sink repairs for all bathrooms* for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, FL 7. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all caulking repairs an/or caulking replacement for all interior and exterior surfaces* for the time period from October 6. 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, FL

8. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all bathtub repairs and/or bathtub replacements for all bathrooms., for the time period from October 6. 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, FL

9. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all repair and/or replacement of any condominium common area item around and/or close proximity to Defendants' unit, for the time period from October 6, 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, FL

10. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all code enforcement paperwork and/or code enforcement citations and/or code enforcement compliance progress inspections and/or code compliance notifications* for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, FL

11. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all bathtub drain repairs and/or bathtub drain replacements* for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants',

Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

12. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all overflow valve repairs and/or overflow valve replacement, for the time period from October 6,2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl. 13. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all faucet repairs through the interior and exterior of the condo unit^ for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

14. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received from third parties for all interior/exterior floors and/or floor coverings and/or carpet padding, for the time period from October 6,2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

15. Furnish complete copies front and back of all invoices, and/or all paid receipts and/or all billing statements received for all plumbing repairs completed by Chris Plumbing, for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants'. Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

16. Furnish complete copies all documents front and back and/or any writing authorizing any one else to actfbr the defendants to include all power ^Taftorneyji, agencies, letters, memos, for the time]periodTrom June 20^1 through November 2007, for Defendants'. Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

17.

Furnish complete copies front and back of any and all private condo unit inspections
3

documents and all correspondence to and from this company for the time period from October 6,2003 through November 2007. for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl. 18. Furnish complete copies front and back of all insurance claims filed and all correspondence to and from the insurance carriers for the time period from October 6,2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl. 19. Furnish complete copies front and back of all inspection reports and all correspondence to and from code enforcement agencies and its inspectors for the time period from October 6, 2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, Fl., described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl. 20. Furnish complete copies front and back of all mold inspection reports and all correspondence to and from the inspectors and/or this company for the time period from October 6.2003 through November 2007 for Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl. 21. Furnish complete copies front and back of all condo association letters for the time period from October 6. 2003 through November 2007 to and from the Defendants', Garofalos, Condominium unit located at 3452 Park Square East, Unit 4, Tampa, FL, described as Unit H, Bldg 8, Condominium of Park Place, recorded at OR Book 3496, Page 202-264,Hillsborough Co, Fl.

CIRCUIT COURT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG and STEPHANIE MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES Pursuant to the Mediation Conference held on May 15, 2008, the undersigned parties have agreed to settle this case and abide by the terms hereafter, as follows: 1. Without the admission of liability by any of the parties hereto, Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $20,000.00, hi full settlement of all cause(s) of action constituting this litigation. This Settlement Agreement is contingent upon Defendants securing within 30 days of the date of this Settlement Agreement a contract for the sale of their unit #4 in Park Place Condominiums Building 3452 ("Contract"). During this 30-day period, the parties agree the litigation shall be stayed, hi the event Defendants cannot secure within 30 days of the date of this Settlement Agreement such Contract for the sale of their unit #4 in Park Place Condominiums Building 3452, then this Settlement Agreement shall be null and void. 2. Defendants shall pay such $20,000.00 through the office of Plaintiffs' undersigned attorney, $10,000.00 within 10 days of the date of such Contract, and the remaining $10,000.00 by the earlier of the closing of the Contract or within 30 days of the date of such Contract 3. Upon clearance of the settlement funds, (1) Plaintiffs shall voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all claims hi this lawsuit and dissolve their lis pendens, (2) the parties, including Nelle Crowley and Tom Crowley, shall execute and exchange mutual general releases of any and all claims, including but not limited to any that have been raised or could have been raised hi this litigation, from the beginning of time through the date of this Settlement Agreement, and (3) the parties shall execute a joint stipulation for entry of a court order directing the Clerk of Court to release to Plaintiffs the lis pendens bond posted by Plaintiffs herein. 4. All parties shall pay their own attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs and Defendants will each pay one-half of the cost of mediation. 5. Plaintiffs agree that they will neither interfere nor assist, either directly or indirectly, with Defendants' efforts to sell Unit #4. Plaintiffs agree that they will not communicate, orally or in writing, directly or indirectly, with anyone regarding any of the allegations made in this litigation or any matter having any relationship to Plaintiffs' Unit #2 or Defendants' Unit #4, including but not limited to the condition of Plaintiffs' Unit #2 or Defendants' Unit #4. However Plaintiffs may make any communications required by law or necessary for their own purposes. If Plaintiffs are contacted by

CASE NO.: 07-CA-009817 "H"

l

^h a * T— ii A "\

U I X 0 I I I««IV

r.uut/uua

r—uta

anyone regarding this settlement, lamtifFs shall ojity respond TO such inquiry by providing the name of their attorney B.'lBud Stansell, Jr., 3sq.,(813)63i{0344. BECOMES BINDING UPON THE PARTIES BY THIS THEIR EXECtlmON AND TH/< L T OF THEIR COUNSEL. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IF ALL PARTIES AGREE! IM WRHTNG TO MODIFY IT. MAY BE MOD"; THIS 1TTLEMENT A< REEMENT 4ND ALL OF ITS TERMS ARE CONFIDENTIAL ' AND MAY N< BE DISCLOSED TO ANY THIRD PARTY,, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.
30 DAY S FROM THE DATE OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ONLY THIS AGREEMENT MAY JBE FILED IN COURT WITH THE PARTIES' OR BY A PARTY UNILATERALLY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE WRITTEN O t i THE COURJT SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENTER SETTLEMEN* ORDER DISCUSSING THE CASE, OR OTHERS FINAL JUDGMENT, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
i

N THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MAY BE EXECUTED IN PARTS AND LEGALLY COUNTERPARTS, AND EXECUTION OH!A FAX VERSION SHALL BE H 7*7 EFFECTIVE 4,1s EXECUTION OF THE ORIGINAL.

CarlMontag

Stephanie MI

Platoiffs'Counl
6

f

•*-P:$<- I I

Eznilio GaroMo, by and tbrougt , his attomcy-ia-fect

Maitha C. Gaixifalo, by and thrcjugh. Nelle Crowley, her attomey-in-fact

anyone regarding this settlement, Plaintiffs shall only respond to such inquiry by providing the name of their attorney B. Bud Stansell, Jr., Esq., (813) 631-0344. TfflS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BECOMES BINDING UPON THE PARTIES BY EXECUTION AND THAT OF THEIR COUNSEL. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MAY BE MODIFIED IF ALL PARTIES AGREE IN WRITING TO MODIFY IT. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS TERMS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY THIRD PARTY, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW. ONLY AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF TfflS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MAY BE FILED IN COURT WITH THE PARTIES' WRITTEN CONSENT OR BY A PARTY UNILATERALLY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE COURT SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT, ENTER AN ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE, OR OTHERWISE ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. TfflS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MAY BE EXECUTED IN PARTS AND COUNTERPARTS, AND EXECUTION OF A FAX VERSION SHALL BE AS LEGALLY EFFECTIVE AS EXECUTION OF THE ORIGINAL.

o
Date Carl Montag

Plaintiffs' Counsel /f 6 £» ^i-ra^S'
(_

— ' ••••'

•" " '-

-—

" "

jj^

Emilio Garofalo, by and through Nelle Crowley, his attorney-in-fact

Martha C. Garofalo, by and through Nelle Crowley, her attorney-in-fact

Defendants' Counsel

May 13,2011

VIA FACSIMILE f813J 489-1008

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602
In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division "H"

Dear Attorney Rodems: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 12,2011 relating to the Garofalo's potential sale of their condominium unit, which is the subject of the pending litigation here in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Please be advised that I remain unrepresented, at this juncture, and therefore, you may communicate with me directly and send any and all correspondence to me directly. In response to your above-referenced letter, it remains a mystery to me why you are asking me to get rid of my protection (heretofore filed Notice of Lis Pendens), before being made whole in the above-referenced pending legal action. In my position, I have an equitable lien against the subject real property that is now under contract. However, I understand that my equitable Hen has not been perfected into a Judgment yet and is not a legal lien, even though the underlying claim is still valid. To that end, if your clients) are really acting in good faith, then why are they not settling the underlying claim by payment? You conveyed in your letter that your client(s) "remain interested in a resolution." I am willing to accept a payment, in the amount of $25,000.00, as full and final settlement of all claims arising from the subject pending law suit against them as referenced above. Upon receipt of payment of same, it will then be appropriate to immediately remove and/or dissolve the Notice of Us Pendens. It would stand to reason that your clients) would be willing to make the same or similar offer as previously entered into by them in the May 15,2008 settlement agreement This would, in turn, resolve the pending matter, and would then allow your clients) to gain good and merchantable title on the subject real property.

Please contact me once you have reviewed my correspondence and had the chance to go over same with your clients). You may reach me on my ceil phone (813) 410-1201. Truly, it is my intention to resolve this matter as well, and it is my hope that we can reach a mutually amicable resolution without the necessity of resorting to litigation, by either party. Sincerely,

C<VU0
Carl Montag
/cm

May 20,2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division "H"

Dear Attorney Rodems: Please find enclosed Plaintiffs/Counter Movants "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens -and—Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond." We have filed the originals with the Clerk of Court and have hand delivered a copy of same for Judge Silver's review, as this relates to a hearing set before you and being called up on Wednesday, May 25,2011 at 2:30 p.m. We have asked Judge Silver to review our "Counter Motion to Quash" and upon his review, if he finds it appropriate, we have requested the Judge to call up our "Counter Motion To Quash" on the same hearing date/time that is already set by you for Wednesday, May 25,2011, and to lengthen such hearing time to accommodate the hearing of our "Counter Motion To Quash." Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Carl Montag

v

J^Sl Slephanie Miller r

V

May 20,2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street 5th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division "H"

Dear Judge Silver: Please find enclosed Plaintiffs/Counter Movants "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens -and—Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond." We have filed the originals with the Clerk of Court and am hand delivering a copy for your immediate review, as this relates to a hearing set before you and being called up on Wednesday, May 25,2011 at2:30p.m. Your judicial assistant advised that upon your review of the delivered pleadings, you would at that tune make a determination if you find it appropriate to lengthen the hearing already set for Wednesday, May 25,2011, to accommodate the hearing of our instant "Counter Motion To Quash." Upon your determination, kindly have your judicial assistant advise us by telephone if we will be allowed tune to call up our "Counter Motion To Quash" at the above referenced time and how much time you are reserving for same so we may prepare for same. I may be reached at (813) 410-1201. Please note that a copy of this correspondence to you is being furnished via hand delivery to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, counsel for Defendants, along with a copy of our above-referenced "Counter Motion To Quash." Sincerely, Sincerely,

Carl Montag

J^-^Stephanie Miller

<^X

cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire (Counsel for Defendants) via Hand Delivery

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUJDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR fflLLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION

CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, Case No: 07-9817 Division: "H"

vs.
EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants.

COUNTER MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS -AND- DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS OR ALTERNATIVELY TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF A BOND Plaintiffs/Counter Movants, Carl Montag, and Stephanie Miller, as Trustee of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, in propria persona, counter moves this Honorable Court to Quash the pending Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens -andDefendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively To Require The Posting of A Bond, and as grounds therefore would show unto the Court the following: 1. The Defendants/Counter Respondents acknowledged at a voluntary mediation conference on May 15,2008 (see Exhibit "A"), their indebtedness to Plaintiffs/Counter Movants in the sum of $20,000.00, and agreed to and would have paid this sum - extinguishing the subject equitable lien and inchoate legal claim - from the proceeds realized from the pending sale of the subject real property, but said sale fell through.

2. The Defendants/Counter Respondents is estopped from denying his indebtedness to Plaintiffs/Counter Movants and same constitutes a known equitable lien AND known inchoate legal claim upon the subject real property, and accordingly, constitutes a known cloud upon the title of the subject real property. 3. There can be no good or merchantable title-folly warranting title—in any purported conveyance of title at any purported closing in the premises, by reason of aforesaid cloud on the title on the bases of the aforesaid equitable lien and inchoate legal claim that is a viable ground for obtaining a judgment

against Defendants/Counter Respondents, then becoming a perfected legal claim/legal lien, in the premises. 4. Plaintiffs/Counter Movants has held off from obtaining a judgment at law because he held out hope that the Parties could reasonably and fairly negotiate a resolution of the subject debt, saving on legal fees and costs. 5. If the subject debt is not paid within a reasonable time, Plaintiffs/Counter Movants, will have no option but going forward and obtaining a judgment at law, perfecting the formally inchoate basis of the subject legal claim, recording same in the public records of Hillsborough County, Florida. 6. Plaintiffs/Counter Movants avers that the Defendants/Counter Respondents prayer for setting of another posting of a bond is MOOT because it was previously posted and subsequently, by agreement of the Parties, was released (See Exhibit "B"). 7. Plaintiffs/Counter Movants provided actual notice by fax to counsel for Defendants/Counter Respondents advising of the pending equitable lien and inchoate legal claim in the premises (See Exhibit "C"). WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, respectfully prays for this Honorable Court to: Plaintiffs/Counter Movants

1. Assume jurisdiction over the Parties hereto and the subject matter in the premises. 2. Enter an Order Quashing Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens -andDefendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively To Require The Posting of A Bond. 3. Enter such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Dated:

CARLMONTAG

^^

'$%- STEPHANIE MILLER, as / of the Stephanie N. Mille^Revocable Trust

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand delivery this j^gpoay of May, 2011 to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, Counsel for Defendants/Counter Respondents.

(W.
CARLMONTA( TEPHANIE MILLER, as rustee of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust

June 1,2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street 5th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division «HW

Dear Judge Silver: Please allow this correspondence to act as Plaintiffs, Carl Montag and Stephanie Miller's, objection to Attorney Rodem's proposed Order and dated May 26,2011. We only received his correspondence to you today, June 1,2011. At the hearing that took place on May 25,2011, Defendant's called up their "Motion To Dissolve Us Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond." On May 20,2011, and prior to the above referenced hearing, Plaintiffs filed with the Clerk's office their "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens -and—Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond", as well as, hand delivered a copy of same to Attorney Rodems office, and to your office. Your judicial assistant had already left for the day, so it was left in your box behind the Bailiffs desk, and with large handwritten letters on the outside of the envelope "URGENT." The hand delivery was a copy of Plaintiff s Motion and a letter to you, outlining our request to have our "Counter Motion" called up at the same time as Attorney Rodem's "Motion" and if that was not agreeable, or possible, to reserve your nding, until our "Motion" was able to be put on your docket and called up for hearing. Plaintiff s never received a response from you office, nor from Attorney Rodem's office. At the hearing on May 25,2011, our "Motion" was never called up and Attorney Rodems never addressed our "Motion." My daughter and I feel it would be an unconstitutional denial of our due process of law, if you enter an Order, without hearing our "Motion", before nding on Defendant's Motions. Additionally, after being given the case law, that Attorney Rodem's was citing at the hearing in support of his "Motion", I had the opportunity to review same. None of the three cases that Attorney Rodem cited are on point, with regard to the specific Motions that have been filed or heard. They discuss how you can EXTEND the Lis Pendens, if the case is still being actively litgated, but it did not refer at all to dissolving the Lis Pendens.

June 3, 2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division «H"

Dear Attorney Rodems:
Please be advised that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk of Court the enclosed "Plaintiffs Motion To Rescind or Set Aside Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens dated May 31, 2011 "and has also hand delivered to Judge Silver's office, the above-referenced Motion, along with a proposed Order relating to same, which I enclose for your review. I have requested the Judge to enter this ex-parte, and without the necessity of a hearing, due to the time sensitivity of this matter and the imminent sale and closing of the subject real property. However, if the Judge does want to call the Motion up for hearing, then I will be coordinating with your office dates and times for same, once obtained by Sasha, his judicial assistant Lastly, I have now obtained dates and times from Sasha, Judge Silver's judicial assistant, to call up for hearing Plaintiffs previously filed "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens-and-Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively to Require the Posting of a Bond." The amount of time given for such Motion to be heard is for fifteen (15) minutes. Once you have chose a date and time, please have your secretary call me at (813) 410-1201 and confirm same with me, so I may get the appropriate Notice of Hearing sent out and filed. The dates given to me, are as follows: July 5th at 4:00 p.m.; July 6th at 3:30 p.iru; July 12th at 1:30 p.m.; or July 13* at 11:00 a.m. or 1: 30 p.m. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

Carl Montag

June 3,2011 VIA FACSIMILE (813) 489-1008 Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division "H"

Dear Attorney Rodems: Please be advised that Plaintiffs will be hand delivering this morning to Judge Silver and filing with the Clerk of Court their "Motion To Rescind Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens dated May 31,2011", hi the above-styled matter and will request the Judge for this to be done ex-parte, and without the necessity of a hearing. However, if the Judge does want to call the Motion up for hearing, then I will be coordinating with your office dates and tunes for same, once obtained by Sasha, his judicial assistant. Please govern yourself accordingly. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Carl Montag

Stephanie Miller

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUJDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION

CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No: 07-9817 Division: "H"

EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RESCIND OR SET ASIDE "ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS" DATED MAY 31.2011 Plaintiff/Counter Movant, Carl Montag, in proprk persona, files this his 'Tlaintiff s Motion To Rescind Or Set Aside Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Dated May 31, 2011", and as grounds therefore would show unto the Court the following: 1. The Plaintiffs/Counter Movants timely filed with the Clerk of Court and hand delivered to Judge Silver's office their "Counter Motion to Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens-and-Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively To Require The Posting Of A Bond" on May 20, 2011, a full FIVE (5) DAYS prior to the hearing set on same, to wit May 25,2011. {Please see "Exhibit A**}

2. This Honorable Court called up for hearing on May 25,2011, "Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens-and-Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively To Require The Posting Of A Bond." Plaintiffs' requested additional hearing time from Judge Silver, through Sasha, to "piggy back" onto the hearing date/time, to allow Plaintiffs Counter Motion to be heard and argued. Sasha informed Plaintiffs that it would be up to Defendants' counsel, if they were willing to give Plaintiffs any of their hearing time. At such hearing, Defendants'

utilized all, and then some additional time, on solely their Motion and therefore precluding Plaintiffs Motion to be heard or addressed whatsoever. 3. Plaintiffs, by and through their previously filed pending Counter Motion to the Defendants' Motion, and that was heard on May 25,2011 before this Honorable Court, sought time for same to be heard, even if it had to be at a later date and time, but if that was the case, they specifically moved this Honorable Court to RESERVE RULING on Defendants' Motion that was heard on May 25, 2011, until such time as the Plaintiffs' Counter Motion could be heard, argued and considered.

4. On May 28, 2011, Plaintiffs received through regular U.S. Mail a copy of Attorney Rodem's proposed Order relating to the hearing that took place on May 25, 2011. Being that the Plaintiffs received such proposed Order over a HOLIDAY WEEKEND, and the Courthouse was closed until May 31, 2011, the very day the Order was signed, and in addition to the fact they couldn't even contact Sasha, the judicial assistant, as she was out of the office until Wednesday, June 1, 2011, Plaintiffs allege that they were not given the APPROPRIATE, PROPER or SUFFICIENT time to offer their objection(s) to such proposed Order submitted to the Judge. It appears Attorney Rodem's was attempting to "push through" this proposed Order, without giving Plaintiffs the required time to offer their objection(s), and therefore, has been denied their due process in the judicial process and by the standards of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Attorney Rodems is a well-experienced trial attorney and knows without any question the process and time parameters in which to allow objections to be offered. 5. On June 1, 2011, the same day Sasha returned, Plaintiffs' TIMELY hand delivered to Judge Silver's office their formal objection^) to the proposed Order received by them from Attorney Rodems. Unbeknownst to them at that time, Judge Silver had already signed the above-referenced Order on May 31,2011. {Please see "Exhibits B & C"} 6. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to rescind or set aside its Order dated May 31, 2011, until its "Counter Motion to Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens-and-Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively To Require The Posting Of A Bond" is called up for hearing, with such dates and times having been given to Plaintiff yesterday to coordinate with counsel, and is in process. Additionally, Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to enter such Order Rescinding or Setting Aside its Order dated May 31, 2011, without the

necessity of a formal hearing, and done ex-parte, because of the underlying time not being given to Plaintiffs for their objections to have such Order entered. If this Honorable Court does require a formal hearing to be set on this matter, Plaintiff requests an immediate hearing date/time be given on this instant Motion to be heard. There is time sensitivity relating to this, as Plaintiffs Lis Pendens is still dissolved at this time, and there is an imminent sale and closing on the subject real property. 7. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court, until the instant Motion has been heard and considered and ruled upon, to direct the Clerk of Court to not record such Order dated May 31, 2011, or give any party whatsoever a certified copy of such Order, as this could possibly affect Plaintiffs legal action, without the safeguard of the Lis Pendens.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, Plaintiff/Counter Movant, Carl Montag, respectfully prays for this Honorable Court to: 1. Assume jurisdiction over the Parties hereto and the subject matter in the premises. 2. Enter an Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion To Rescind Or Set Aside Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Dated May 31, 2011, and enter same ex-parte, and without the necessity of a formal hearing, and thereby, restoring the Lis Pendens to be back in full force and legal effect, as recorded in the Hillsborough County Official Records at Book 18006, Pages 712-713. 3. Enter such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Dated:

CARL MO:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand delivery this 2±L day of June, 2011 to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602, Counsel for Defendants/Counter Respondents.

CARLMONTAG

May 20,2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street 5th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division «H"

Dear Judge Silver: Please find enclosed Plaintifis/Counter Movants "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens -and—Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond." We have filed the originals with Ihe Clerk of Court and am hand delivering a copy for your immediate review, as this relates to a hearing set before you and being called up on Wednesday, May 25, 201 1 at 2:30 pjn. Your judicial assistant advised mat upon your review of the delivered pleadings, you would at mat time make a determination if you find it appropriate to lengthen the hearing already set for Wednesday, May 25, 201 1, to accommodate the hearing of our instant "Counter Motion To Quash." Upon your determination, kindly have your judicial assistant advise us by telephone if we will be allowed time to call up our "Counter Motion To Quash" at the above referenced time and how much time you are reserving for same so we may prepare for same. I may be reached at (813) 410-1201. Please note that a copy of this correspondence to you is being furnished via hand delivery to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, counsel for Defendants, along with a copy of our above-referenced "Counter Motion To Quash." Sincerely, Sincerely,

Carl Montag

^^tStephanie Miller

cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire (Counsel for Defendants) via Hand Delivery

U .A ^

A

June 1,2011 VIA BAND DELIVERY Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street 5th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Dear Judge Silver: Please allow this correspondence to act as Plaintiffs, Carl Montag and Stephanie Miller's, objection to Attorney Rodem's proposed Order and dated May 26,2011. We only received bis correspondence to you today, June 1,2011. At the hearing that took place on May 25,2011, Defendant's called up their "Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond." On May 20,2011, and prior to the above referenced hearing, Plaintiff's filed with the Clerk's office their "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens -and—Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens Or Alternatively to Require The Posting Of A Bond", as well as, hand delivered a copy of same to Attorney Rodems office, and to your office. Your judicial assistant had already left for the day, so it was left in your box behind the Bailiffs desk, and with large handwritten letters on the outside of the envelope "URGENT." The hand delivery was a copy of Plaintiff s Motion and a letter to you, outlining our request to have our "Counter Motion" called up at the same time as Attorney Rodem's "Motion" and if that was not agreeable, or possible, to reserve your ruling, until our "Motion" was able to be put on your docket and called up for hearing. Plaintiff s never received a response from you office, nor from Attorney Rodem's office. At the hearing on May 25,2011, our "Motion" was never called up and Attorney Rodems never addressed our "Motion." My daughter and I feel it would be an unconstitutional denial of our due process of law, if you enter an Order, without hearing our "Motion", before ruling on Defendant's Motions. Additionally, after being given the case law, that Attorney Rodem's was citing at the hearing hi support of his "Motion", I had the opportunity to review same. None of the three cases that Attorney Rodem cited are on point, with regard to the specific Motions that have been filed or heard. They discuss how you can EXTEND the Lis Pendens, if the case is still being actively litgated, but it did not refer at all to dissolving the Lis Pendens. Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division «H»

I called your office today and spoke with your judicial assistant, Sasha. She stated "the Judge had the file with him and was reviewing it" I requested hearing dates and times to call up our "Motion" and was told "to call back in two days." Again, it is my absolute concern that you are considering entering an Order, based upon the proposed Order that Attorney Rodem's has submitted to your office, and we have not had our "fair shake" having our "Motion" called up prior to your decision, and have not been afforded due process of law. Therefore, please accept this correspondence as our FORMAL OBJECTION to the proposed Order you have been provided by Attorney Rodem's office, and I request again, that your judicial assistant, Sasha, kindly call me at (813) 410-1201 and provide me with several hearing dates & times to call up our "Motion", wherein I may coordinate same with Defendants' counsel to agree on. Please note that a copy of this correspondence to you is being furnished via hand delivery to Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, counsel for Defendants. Sincerely, Carl Montag Sincerely, Stephanie Miller

cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire (Counsel for Defendants) via Hand Delivery

m THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND <FOR BOLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO.: DIVISION: 07-9817 «H"

EMUJO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE US PENPENS

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Wednesday, May 25,2011 on Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens, served May 9,2008, and the proceedings having been read and considered, the Court having heard from counsel for Defendants and the pro se PlaintfcBs, and the Court be otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens is GRANTED. The Us peadens recorded in the Kllsborough County Official records at Book 18006, Pages 712-713 is hereby dissolved and of no force or legal effect. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, HiUsborough County, Florida this day of May 2011. ORIGINAL SIGNED CONFORMED COPY

MAY "3 12011
Bernard C. Silver Circuit Judge Copies to: BERNARD C. SILVER CIRCUIT JUDGE

Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, Counsel for Defendants Carl Montag, pro se Stephanie Miller, pro se

kf V,

June 14,2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division "H"

Dear Attorney Rodems: Thank you for your letter dated June 10, 2011 to me. I have reviewed same and am wondering what "Motion To Dismiss" you are referring to. Stephanie, nor I, have not received any such pleading or Motion from your office and are confused what you are wanting us to clear. If you in fact are asking us to clear dates/times for such a Motion, we need to be provided a copy of same, so we may evaluate how much time WE think is necessary as well, to prepare for such hearing and to ensure the appropriate amount of time requested for such hearing, will give each party enough time to argue their case. We are certainly not trying to drag anything out, or be non-responsive, as we faxed you a week prior, to wit June 3,2011, asking you clarify what Motion you were referring to and only heard back from you a week later. Upon our receipt of such Motion that you are referring to, we will be more than happy to clear dates/times with your office for same. Next, I'd like to address your systematic and utter refusal to communicate with Stephanie or I. You have COMPLETELY ignored any and all communication by us to you regarding our requests to speak with you by telephone in hopes of resolving this litigation, by leaving messages with your assistant Susan; by several faxes from us, asking you to communicate with us, to clarify issues we are not clear on; by numerous letters from us that we've hand delivered to your law office attempting to clear dates on OUR Motion(s). Where is your good faith in furthering litigation on this matter, wherein both sides are entitled to have their legal questions and concerns brought up. Where is your ethical and professional standards in all of this, I ask? It is impossible, yet your duty as a member of the Florida Bar, to communicate with you, to have any part of our requests for hearing dates/times coordinated with you, or any part of the judicial process ensured, as you will simply NOT COMMUNICATE with us. As you know, we have asked you over A WEEK AND A HALF AGO to clear our "Counter Motion To Quash", all to no avail. You have not responded in any way, shape, or form, and with that said, we feel as if you are denying us our due process of kw, our constitutional rights, and abandoning your

duties of a member of the Florida bar, to conduct yourself in an ethical and professional manner. Will you PLEASE contact me at (813) 410-1201 to clear same? I have unfortunately, yet necessarily, had to ask Judge Silver to intervene in this matter, and to direct you to clear such dates/times already provided to you on June 3, 2011. Additionally, per Sasha, please be advised Judge Silver has directed that our second and previously filed Motion, to wit: "Motion To Rescind or Set Aside Order dated May 31,2011" be called up for hearing at the same time as our "Counter Motion To Quash." Please choose the best time available that is left, which is either July 12th at 1:30 p.m. or July 13th at 11:00 a.m. or 1: 30 p.m. Lastly, we are asking again, when you are going to produce the Power of Attorney that you have promised to us since the day of Mediation on May 15,2008. As you know, not only have we requested, but our prior counsel Bud Stansell, requested a copy of the Power of Attorney from you on at least a half dozen occasions, all to no avail. This has raised great concern for both Stephanie and I, as we have never received a copy of same and do not even know if the Crowley's have ever had any lawful authority whatsoever to act on behalf of the Garofalos. As you know, our prior counsel, Bud Stansell, made his requests for same in person to you, and by email (which if you need a copy of all of the emails where he requested same from you and you agreed and promised our attorney you would provide us with same, and never did, we have copies of them and will be more than happy to provide them to you to jog your memory of such promise.) Your unprofessional treatment of both Stephanie and I is perplexing. We feel as if you are more like a "school yard bully" trying to wash out and ignore any and all of our rights with regard to furthering this litigation, because we are pro se litigants, as to reiterate, each and every time we have reached out to you and have attempted to communicate with you or your office, it has seemingly fallen no "deaf ears" and we are completely frustrated at this point We have been nothing but forthcoming and communicative in all aspects during this litigation. Stephanie and I both hope that you will proceed from here on out in a more ethical and professional demeanor. We look forward to your earliest reply.

Sincerely,

Carl Montag

/^

June 14, 2011

VIA HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street 5th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602

In Re:
Dear Judge Silver:

Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division «H"

Please be advised that I spoke with your judicial assistant Sasha this morning regarding my concern diat Attorney Rodems WILL NOT communicate with me whatsoever regarding my repeated requests (via telephone messages left for him and my hand delivered letter to him dated June 3,2011 - over a WEEK AND A HALF AGO) to coordinate a date certain to call up our "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Lis Pendens-and-Defendants' Motion To Dissolve Us Pendens or Alternatively to Require the Posting of a Bond." Per Sasha's suggestion, she stated I should correspond with you for you to take the requisite steps and/or action in directing and ordering Attorney Rodems to clear one of our proposed dates. However, per Sasha, she stated the only date left available in the previously submitted proposed dates given to call up such hearing, is July 12, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. or July 13, 2011 at either 11:30 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. It is readily apparent that Attorney Rodems does not intend on communicating with either Stephanie or I, as literally every portal of communication has been exhausted with he and his office to try to further this litigation on a timely basis and to provide us with ethical and professional conduct We have reached out to him through various hand delivered letters, faxes & telephone calls, with yet ONCE being given the courtesy, or the required and expected professional and ethical conduct of a member of the Bar, when communicated with. (See Exhibit "A") The only time, and I repeat, THE ONLY TIME, Attorney Rodems has communicated with Stephanie or I, has been by an email right after the May 25, 2011 hearing and last Friday, June 10, 2011, wherein I received a fax, completely overlooking any of our requested action from him to clear dates on our long standing pending "Counter Motion", but only to clear dates on HIS "Motion to Dismiss" he eagerly wants to set down for hearing and NEVER has acknowledged or given any responsive communication to our repeated

requests for action or communication by him for our matters we are seeking to bring before this Honorable Court. I implore you to take the appropriate action with Attorney Rodems to resolve this pending issue. I would like, and expect, to have equal treatment with this Court, while participating in the judicial process by and through the instant litigation, though I am a pro se litigant. Lastly, it is my understanding that you will not enter my Proposed Order To Rescind or Set Aside your Order dated May 31, 2011 without the necessity of a formal hearing on same. To that end, I would request at the same time we are calling up for hearing the "Counter Motion To Quash", I would ask you allow additional time at the same hearing & set down to hear argument by Plaintiff and Attorney Rodems, Plaintiffs "Motion To Rescind or Set Aside Order dated May 31,2011." Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration & understanding relating to this matter. I look forward to your earliest response.

Sincerely,

Carl Montag

^/

cc: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire (Counsel for Defendants) via Hand Delivery

June 3,2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 In Re: Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division

Dear Attorney Rodems: Please be advised that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk of Court the enclosed "PlaintifFs Motion To Rescind or Set Aside Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dissolve lis Pendens dated May 31,2011"and has also hand delivered to Judge Silver's office, the above-referenced Motion, along with a proposed Order relating to same, which I enclose for your review. I have requested the Judge to enter this ex-parte, and without the necessity of a hearing, due to the time sensitivity of this matter and the imminent sale and closing of the subject real property. However, if the Judge does want to call the Motion up for hearing, then I will be coordinating with your office dates and times for same, once obtained by Sasha, his judicial assistant. Lastiy, I have now obtained dates and times from Sasha, Judge Silver's judicial assistant^ to call up for hearing Plaintiffs previously filed "Counter Motion To Quash Defendants' Motion To Dissolve lis Pendens-and-Defendants' Motion To Dissolve lis Pendens or Alternatively to Require the Posting of a Bond." The amount of time given for such Motion to be heard is for fifteen (15) minutes. Once you have chose a date and time, please have your secretary call me at (813) 410-1201 and confirm same with me, so I may get the appropriate Notice of Hearing sent out and filed. The dates given to me, are as follows: July 5* at 4:00 p.m.; July 6* at 3:30 pjru; July 12* at 1:30 p.m.; or July 13* at 11:00 a.m. or 1:30 pjn. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,

to. (!';!

BARKER, RODEMS & COQK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION' ATTORNEYS rYl LAW
L./.W CKSBTOPHSR WSV';)

-tOO North Aihlt" Drive, SUIT* 1100

H13/48910CW

15,2011 TRANSMITTED BY f ACSDflLjE AMP U.S. MAIL: (813) 782-8899 Mr- Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square Hast. £ 4 Tampa, Florida 33613' Re: Montag v. Garofalo Case No. U7-9817; Division "IT Our File No. 2007.5547 Dear Mi. Montag and Ms. Miller. Let me respond to your I have and thank Mr. Montag for his letter of yesterday, points and issues, Fir&t, the motion to dismiss was served on M r . Staassil onNoveuxber 13, 2007, and a copy is enclosed. Second. 1 believe that I have communicated, as aecessarjv for the case. I regret that you disagree. I have found that telefphorte coreimunications in certain circumstapces are not as effective M at«d with you in -writing. •written commxmications; tmd wken appropriate, I have Therefore., I am willing to speak by telephone, as neccssaiT, to schedule hearings, but 1 am aot willing to speak by t«'ephone or in person to discuss the case. "] "here is Qe\tx a. dispute about in| what was discussed in a letter, but there can be a disagreement i what was discussed orally. As an example, at die last hewing, you proceeded to tell Judge Sil.ler what occurred in mediation statements that were not (even though mediation discussion aie confidential), and you accurate Lei me make clear, I am not accTising you of making 'alse statements. It is possible iftat you misundersTood what was discussed I have a different ecoilection of \vbai was discussed at mediation than what you represented to the Judge Ms. Stephanie Miller Park Place Condominiums East, # 4 3444 Park S< Tampa, Florda 33613

... Third, a,s for yovir :'Cotinter Motion to Quash," my recollection vps Judge Silver denied it when he that motion or any other motion. I dissolved the Us pendens. If you wish to clear hearing time for invite you to contact Susan, my legal assistant, as she handles tin majority of my 3chfduling> and she is generally more available than I am. this does not mean'. never handle scbedxilmg or mat I will not speak to you about scheduling, only that yon may have i mor« prompt response if you to speak to Susan.

2 « ' 1 i n ".'/AM

No.

Mr Carl Montag Ms. Stephanie Miller Jun*15,20ll Page 2 Fourth, I am scheduled for a non-juiy trial with Judge Nielsen bdgiaiuag My 11, so at this point, 1 am unable TO agrfce to July 12. or 13 for the motion hearings. If hat changes ki the next few days, I mil advise you. the Florida Rules of Civil Fifth, my clients will respond to discovery requests that comply Procedure. Respectfully, This is an. adversarial proceeding. M y duty is to my clients, and I have been retried to protect their interests. The Florida Rules of Ci Procedure were enacted to provide certainty to the litigation of civil matters, and therefore, o properly represent my clients, 1 must requue my adversaries to folkw those rules. Sixth. I regret that you believe I have engaged in iproirssional reatmctu of you and Ms, Miller, I believe that you will agree that I have always spoken to you to polite manner, and that I have Ms. Miller by "Ms. Milter." always addressed you as "Mr. Montag.*' and I have always lythi Jg 5ess than civil and I cannot think of one occasion when our discussions were an; nt of you both as professional, so I must assume that your characterization of my "unprofessional" must relate to your perceptions that I have cot j rovided the power of attomay that you have informally requested and because you believe I ha1 'e not returned telephone calls, I trust my explanation on these issues is sufficient. Fioally, if you >vish to engage in settlement discussions, I am wiJ .ing to do so, but they roust be in \vriting. If you have an offer, please forward jt to «ne.

RCR'so

Enclosure

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRISA. BARKER
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS OU 1 Cast ^nnCCly DOUlCVarQ, OUlte / 7U

501 Fast Kennedy Boulevard Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602

Facsimde

Telephone 813/489-1001

813/489-1008

WILLIAM]. COOK

January 26, 2012 Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esquire Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300 Re: Complaint by Carl Montag against Ryan Christopher Rodems The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734(13E)

Dear Mr. Littlewood: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 23,2012, requesting my written position regarding Carl Montag's inquiry/complaint. I have also enclosed, as requested, the disclosure form mandated by Rule 3-7.1, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. I. Introduction

Represented by attorney O.B. Stansell, Jr., Esquire, Mr. Montag filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Florida Thirteenth Judicial Circuit on or about August 26, 2007, and the case is styled Carl Montag. et al. v. Emilio Garofalo. et al., Case No. 07-CA-009817, Division H. I was retained to represent the defendants in that lawsuit, Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo. Mr. Stansell moved to withdraw as Mr. Montag's counsel on March 12, 2010, stating that "irreconcilable differences" had arisen. The Court granted Mr. Stansell's motion to withdraw on March 30, 2010, by written Order, and the action was stayed for 20 days to allow Mr. Montag and the other plaintiff "to obtain a new attorney." Mr. Montag never obtained another attorney; instead, he began representing himself and the other plaintiff. Eventually, Judge Silver advised Mr. Montag that he could represent himself, but he could not represent the other plaintiff. II. Response to Allegations

I have reviewed Mr. Montag's inquiry/complaint and the supporting documents. The majority of Mr. Montag's issues are either so vague that a complete response is not possible, or involve issues

Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esquire January 26, 2012 Page 2

arising from Mr. Montag's personal opinions about the manner in which the case has been handled by the trial judge. The various issues Mr. Montag raises in his written complaint are not enumerated with a numbering or lettering system. Therefore, I have attempted to faithfully respond to each of Mr. Montag's issues; however, in the event that you find that I have not responded to any issue raised, I request that you not interpret my omission to mean I agree with Mr. Montag's recitation. Finally, because my response is limited to 25 pages, I have attached only those documents which are necessary to respond; to the extent you wish to review any documents mentioned but not provided, please let me know, and I will forward them to you. A. Mr. Montag's First Issue: Rodems, Esquire" "Ethical Shortcomings of Ryan Christopher

Mr. Montag's first comment under this heading is "Attorney Rodems' duty and/or obligation to ensure that due process is not short circuited or extinguished and gone by the wayside when the opposing party is pro se." Without any question, an attorney's first duty is as an officer of the Court. As an officer of the Court, I recognize and comply with applicable provisions of the United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and state laws and rules, including, among others, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. I regularly review chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and the ethics opinions and case law construing these rules. I have been a member of the Florida Bar since 1992. I am Board Certified in Civil Trial law. I have lectured on the topic of Ethics for Lorman Education Services. In representing the Garofalos, I have at all times met my obligations as an officer of the Court. An attorney's second duty is loyalty to his or her clients. As the preamble to chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar states, "[a]s an advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system." This, I have faithfully done. Mr. Montag is aware of my duty to zealously represent my clients. On June 15, 2011,1 sent a letter to Mr. Montag, following his to me of June 14, 2011, and in my letter, I stated to Mr. Montag, "[rjespectfully, this is an adversarial proceeding. My duty is to my clients, and I have been retained to protect their interests. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were enacted to provide certainty to the litigation of civil matters, and therefore, to properly represent my clients, I must require my adversaries to follow those rules."

Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esquire January 26, 2012 PageS

Mr. Montag next complains about "[gjross and continual lack of communication, even from FIRST correspondence to Attorney Rodems." In fact, since March 30, 2010, when his attorney's motion to withdraw was granted, I have written or copied Mr. Montag on letters on the following dates:

• • • • • • • • • •

May 3, 2010 June 10, 2010 July 14, 2010 August 24, 2010 May 12, 2011 May 25, 2011 May 26, 2011 May 31, 2011 June 10, 2011 June 15, 2011

Neither the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar nor the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure specify when or in what manner an attorney is required to respond to calls, e-mails or letters. Certainly, there are many occasions when a response is not necessary or would even be detrimental to a client's interests. I did decide not to discuss the case orally with Mr. Montag after I became concerned with his recollections of prior telephone conversations. At all times, when a matter required my response and was in my clients' interest, I have responded. Next, Mr. Montag complains about "[n]on-cooperation of scheduling hearings on Plaintiffs' Motions and improperly setting his hearing down and not giving sufficient notice to Plaintiffs, etc." I would suggest this accusation is also unfounded. Regarding "non-cooperation in scheduling hearings," after a May 25, 2011 hearing, Judge Silver requested I schedule a pending motion to dismiss for a hearing. That same day, I personally researched the court's website for open hearing dates, submitted them to Mr. Montag by facsimile and the other plaintiff by e-mail. I mentioned this again in a letter I sent to Mr. Montag and the other plaintiff on May 31,2011. Additionally, in my June 15, 2011 letter, one of the issues I discussed was the scheduling of hearings: Third, as for your "Counter Motion to Quash," my recollection was Judge Silver denied it when he dissolved the lis pendens. If you wish to clear hearing time for that motion or any other motion. I invite you to contact Susan, my legal assistant, as she handles the majority of my scheduling, and she is generally more available than I am. This does not

Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esquire January 26, 2012 Page 4

mean I never handle scheduling or that I will not speak to you about scheduling, only that you may have a more prompt response if you request to speak to Susan. Fourth. I am scheduled for a non-jury trial with Judge Nielsen beginning July 11, so at this point, I am unable to agree to July 12 or 13 for the motion hearings. If that changes in the next few days, I will advise you. (Emphasis supplied). Mr. Montag fails to mention that the Court denied the "Counter Motion to Quash" by written Order entered June 16, 2011, without a hearing. Obviously, the Court agreed with my view that it was denied when he dissolved the lis pendens. The Court, not me or Mr. Montag, determines when a motion should be granted or denied without a hearing. As for the allegations about my scheduling of my motions for hearing and "not giving sufficient notice to Plaintiffs, etc.," I would again suggest the allegation is unfounded. I recall only scheduling one motion for hearing in this case since Mr. Montag was acting pro se. The notice of hearing was served on May 13, 2011 for a hearing on May 25, 2011. Mr. Montag and the other plaintiff attended the hearing. The Court granted my motion by written Order entered May 31, 2007. I do not recall any complaints by Mr. Montag to the trial judge about the notice. Respectfully, the trial judge is responsible for determining whether notice was reasonable. As to the allegation that I somehow "didn't allow Plaintiffs Motion to be heard after [my] Motion was called up," again I would reiterate that the trial judge decides the process and order in which matters are considered, not me, and the trial judge chose to deny Mr. Montag's motion without a hearing. Mr. Montag next complains that "[c]ase law that Attorney Rodems submitted at court hearing to the Judge & Plaintiffs was NOT ON POINT specifically regarding his Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens." Obviously, Judge Silver disagreed with Mr. Montag because he granted my motion. If Mr. Montag was unhappy with that ruling, the proper forum to challenge it would be on appeal, not to the Florida Bar. As to the allegation that I submitted "a wrong ORDER to the Court," I do recall that the proposed Order had a typographical error that required correction. I resubmitted it with a letter to Judge Silver on May 26, 2011, and I sent a copy of the revised proposed Order and transmittal letter to Mr. Montag and the other plaintiff. As to the allegation that I called up for hearing in May 2011 a motion filed in May 2008, the motion was ripe for adjudication in May 2011 as evidenced by Judge Silver's entry of the Order granting it.

Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esquire January 26, 2012 PageS

Mr. Montag's next allegation is that I disregarded "Plaintiffs legal right to be treated with courtesy and in a timely manner." Mr. Montag raised that in his letter to me on June 14, 2011, and I responded on June 15, 2011, stating: Sixth, I regret that you believe I have engaged in unprofessional treatment of you and Ms. Miller. I believe that you will agree that I have always spoken to you in a polite manner, and that I have always addressed you as "Mr. Montag," and I have always addressed Ms. Miller by "Ms. Miller." I cannot think of one occasion when our discussions were anything less than civil and professional, so I must assume that your characterization of my treatment of you both as "unprofessional" must relate to your perceptions that I have not provided the power of attorney that you have informally requested and because you believe I have not returned telephone calls. I trust my explanation on these issues is sufficient. I treat all people, including Mr. Montag, with respect. B. Mr. Montag's Second Issue: Disingenuous Mediation — May 15,2008

Mr. Montag complains about the mediation held on May 15, 2008, the authority of the person attending on behalf of my clients, and the fact that the settlement agreement reached never became operable. Of course, statements during mediation are confidential, except that if a settlement agreement is reached, then the terms of the settlement must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties. Here, the settlement agreement provided that if certain contingencies did not occur, "then this Settlement Agreement shall be null and void." The contingencies did not occur. To the extent Mr. Montag had any issues about the way the mediation occurred or the settlement agreement, the Court is the proper forum to raise those issues. My conduct was proper and in compliance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. C. Mr. Montag's Third Issue; "Alledging [sicl that an Officer of the Court, Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, Participated & Possibly Even Facilitated, A Possible Fraud Upon This Honorable Court"

Here, Mr. Montag makes some nonsensical allegations about powers of attorney, and actions taken after the Court dissolved the lis pendens. I do not know what it is Mr. Montag is referring to. I did not draft any powers of attorney for my clients or anyone on their behalf. Whatever powers of attorney Mr. Montag was referring to were not enclosed. As to Mr. Garofalo, he was ill, and any representations to the Court I made about his condition were accurate. Finally, I did not represent anyone in connection with the sale of any of my clients' real property.

Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esquire January 26, 2012 Page 6

D.

Mr. Montag's Fourth Issue: "Non-Compliance Issues with All Discovery"

Disputes regarding discovery are governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Montag filed one motion to compel. Mr. Garofalo was ill and residing in another state, and he did not have the capacity to sign interrogatory answers. Mrs. Garofalo was also suffering from infirmities, and she also resided out of state. As a result, this delayed a timely response. We needed Judge Silver's guidance on how to proceed given Mr. Garofalo's medical condition, and upon receiving it, we timely complied with his direction. Apparently, Mr. Montag continues to have complaints about discovery. He has not, however, filed a second motion to compel. Whether invalid or not, Mr. Montag's complaints are misdirected; they should be addressed to the Court, not the Florida Bar. III. Conclusion

Mr. Montag's inquiry/complaint does not raise any violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. At best, Mr. Montag raises procedural issues outside the Florida Bar's jurisdiction. The trial judge is responsible for the administration of due process in a lawsuit, not the Florida Bar. It would violate my duty of loyalty to my clients to not assert their right to require Mr. Montag to follow the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Florida Bar should dismiss the inquiry/complaint as unfounded. Sincerely,

ristopher Rodems RCR/so Enclosures cc: Mr. Carl Montag (w/encl)

Pursuant to Rule 3-7. l(f), Rules of Discipline, you must execute the appropriate disclosure paragraph below and return the form to this office by February 7, 2012. The rule provides that the nature of the charges be stated in the notice to your firm; however, we suggest that you attach a copy of the complaint. CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE day of Jl*Ml((Ui | , 201^ a true copy of I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day l*(Ui the foregoing disclosure was furnished to CM y\ 5 /^ Bfaffay* (wl it/lfjl &**• J-C^ member of my present lawfirmof Bff v v(gg/j/, KP w4U& "ft C.QO J, P*/\* _ , and, / if different, to _ ' , a member of the lawfirmof _ , with which I was associated at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E).

Ryanythristopher Rodems

CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE (Corporate/Government Employment) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of , 201 , a true copy of the foregoing disclosure was furnished to , my supervisor at (name of agency), with which I was associated at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E).

Ryan Christopher Rodems CERTIFICATE OF NON-LAW FIRM AFFILIATION (Sole Practitioner) I HEREBY CERTIFY to The Florida Bar on this day of , 201 , that I am not presently affiliated with a law firm and was not affiliated with a law firm at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E).

Ryan Christopher Rodems

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO.: 07-9817 DIVISION: H

EMILIO GAROFALOand MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW COMES NOW the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs, CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, and moves this Court for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiffs on the grounds that irreconcilable differences have arisen between the undersigned and the Plaintiffs and the undersigned requests this Court to give the Plaintiffs thirty (30) days in which to find other counsel. WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs moves that this Court grant them leave to withdraw as counsel and give the Plaintiffs thirty (30) days in which to find other counsel.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail to: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100, Tampa, Florida 33602 on March ^ , 2010.

B.BUD STANSELL, JR. &-ASSOC., P.A. O.B. Stansell, Jr., EsquirZ .Fla. Bar No. 442372 1707 East Bearss Avenue Tampa, Florida 33613 (813) 631-0344 FAX (813) 971-0522 Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs,

CASE NO.: 07-9817 DIVISION: H

vs.
EMILIO GAROFALOand MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon consideration of O.B. Stansell, Jr.'s Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record for CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust ("Plaintiffs"), and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Withdraw is Granted and the matter is stayed for twenty (20) days to allow the Plaintiffs to obtain a new attorney. If new counsel does not file a Notice of Appearance within twenty (20) days, then the Plaintiffs will be deemed to represent themselves. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall remove O.B. Stansell, Jr., Esquire from being the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs and Attorney Stansell is relieved from any further obligation or liability in this case. All Future pleadings to be served upon Plaintiffs, CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, at their address of 3444 Park Square East #4, Tampa, Florida 33613. The Plaintiffs, CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, have an affirmative duty of notifying the Court of any change of address. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Hillsborough County,

"

^

BERNARD C. SILVER CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE01" Copies to: O.B. Stansell, Jr., Esq. Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esq. Carl Montag Stephanie Miller

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. CASE NO.: DIVISION: 07-9817 "H"

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens or in the Alternative to Require the Posting of a Bond and Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens, will be called up for hearing before the Honorable Bernard C. Silver, Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Room 519, 800 East Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, on Wednesday, May 25,2011 at 2:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Time Reserved: 15 minutes. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this I ? day of May, 2011.

fAN TCS&RODEMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008 Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by regular U.S. Mail to Mr. Carl Montag, Park Place Condominiums, 3444 Park Square East, # 4, Tampa, Florida 33613, this 1 T? day of May, 2011.

Ryan CMstopher Rodems, Esquire

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CARL MONTAG, Individually, and STEPHANIE MILLER, as Trustee Of the Stephanie N. Miller Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, vs. EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendants. CASE NO.: DIVISION: 07-9817 "H"

ORDER GRANTING DEFEND ANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Wednesday, May 25, 201 1 on Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens, served May 9, 2008, and the proceedings having been read and considered, the Court having heard from counsel for Defendants and the pro se Plaintiffs, and the Court be otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens is GRANTED. The lis pendens recorded in the Hillsborough County Official records at Book 18006, Pages 712-713 is hereby dissolved and of no force or legal effect. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Hillsborough COKFORMEDC
day of May 2011. j^y 3 1 2011

Bernard C. Silver Circuit Judge Copies to: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire, Counsel for Defendants Carl Montag, pro se Stephanie Miller, pro se

IN THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CARL MONTAG, Plaintiff(s)
v.

CASE NO.: 07-9817

EMILIO GAROFALO and MARTHA C. GAROFALO, Defendant(s).

DIVISION: H

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' COUNTER MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS OR ALTERNATIVELY TO REQUIRE THE POSTING OF BOND The above-style case came on this day to be heard upon Plaintiffs' Counter Motion to Quash Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens and Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively to Require the Posting of Bond filed May 26, 2011 and the same having been duly considered by this court; it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Plaintiffs' Counter Motion to Quash Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens and Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively to Require the Posting of Bond is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 2011.

BERNARD C. SILVER Circuit Court Judge Copies Furnished to: Carl Montag, 3444 Park Square East, #4, Tampa, FL 33613 Stephanie Miller, 3444 Park Square East, #4, Tampa, FL 33613 Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire

jyf| 1 g 2011

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRIS i-UDrc-rnDucn BARKER K V A M t A. R I i l O P H E R pnncvic: K.YAN - H RODhMb WILLIAM j. COOK Ann INOrttl Act^Air Dri™» < M i i f - » 1UU TUU XWfk /\Sniey LTlvc, OUlCc <i 9 i n n ' ' Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone o , i / * o n , « n o . .• 813/489-1001 Facsimile 813/489-1008

May 3,2010

Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Carl Montag and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547

Dear Mr. Montag: I am writing this letter to you directly, as it is my understanding that you do not have counsel. If you do have counsel of record, please forward this letter to your counsel, and I will cease further communications with you. My clients now have the condominium prepared for listing, and the purchase price will be $40,000.00. They are prepared to offer the condominium to you for the amount of $20,000.00, provided that it operates as a full and final release of any and all claims you may have against them. After you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please let me know if you are interested in pursuing such a resolution. If so, we would need to prepare settlement documents, but you may consider this letter as a preliminary proposal, subject to agreement on all of the terms before we would have a final and binding offer. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems RCR/so

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS W I L L I A M J. COOK
CHRIS A. B A R K E R 400 North Ashlev Drive Suite 2100

fUU JNOrin/\S>mey L/nVC, OUHC Z, 1UU Tampa, Florida 33602

T e l e p h o n e 813/489-1001

Facsimile 813/489-1008

June 10, 2010 TRANSMITTED BY FAX ONLY: (813) 782-8899 Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Carl Montag and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547

Dear Mr. Montag: I have and thank you for your facsimile of June 9,2010. I am available July 27 or 28. Please advise the date you select. Also, please send me a copy of the motion. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,

RyarrChristopher Rodems RCR/so

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN C H R I S T O P H E R RODEMS W I L L I A M J. COOK 400 Nnrtli A«V>W Driw Snil-p710D ^U North Ashley Drive, buite ZIUU Tampa, Florida 33602 T e l e p h o n e 813/489-1001 Facsimile 813/489-1008

July 14, 2010 TRANSMITTED BY FAX ONLY: (813) 782-8899 Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Carl Montag and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547

Dear Mr. Montag: I have and thank you for your facsimile of July 12, 2010. Please advise the date you select. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, I am available August 9, 1 1, 18 or 19.

Ryan Christopher Rodems RCR/so

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS WILLIAM J. COOK

400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

Telephone 813/489-1001 Facsimile 813/489-1008

August 24,2010

Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 519 Tampa, Florida 33602 Re: Carl Montage and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547

Dear Judge Silver: Following the August 11,2010 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, enclosed please find a proposed Order for your review. The pro se Plaintiffs have advised that they have no objection to the form of the order. If the Order meets with Your Honor's approval, please enter the order. I have provided sufficient copies and envelopes for Your Honor's use. Thank you for your tune and attention to this matter. Resp< ,

Ryan Christopher Rodems RCR/so Enclosures cc: Carl Montag, pro se (w/encl) Stephanie Miller, pro se (w/encl)

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephones 813/489-1001 Facsimile: 813/489-1008
May 12,2011 Number of Pages (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) 2

To:

Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums

Fax: (813)972-2428

From: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Re: Carl Montage and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547 Correspondence dated May 12,2011

COMMENTS:

Also as we discussed, I need to clear a hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens or Alternatively to Require the Posting of a Bond [Served 11-13-07] and Defendants' Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens [Served 05-09-08]. Judge Silver has available May 25,2011 @ 2:30 p.m. Please let me know as soon as possible if this date will work with your schedule. Thank you... Susan O'Dell Secreteriylo Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire

Please call Susan O'Dell at 813/489-1001 if this transmission is incomplete.
NOTE: THE ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR USE OF THE ABOVE ADDRESSEE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, OR COPYING OF THE ACCOMPANYING COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER BY COLLECT TELEP VIA U.S. MAIL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS WILLIAM ]. COOK
WU

xrvfl \l0 l, AstiW UrlVe bUltC Z7 100 Drivp <Miitp iUU nrt N ™1 ^^^ > Tampa, Florida 33602

Telephone 813/489-1001 Facsimile 813/489-1008

May 12,2011 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL; (813) 782-8899 Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Montag v. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547

Dear Mr. Montag: We understand that you and your daughter, Stephanie Miller, remain unrepresented in this action. If you have counsel, please forward this letter to him or her. The Garofalos have entered into a contract to sell their condominium unit, but the notice of lis pendens which you and Ms. Miller recorded is preventing the sale. There is no legal basis for a notice of lis pendens, and it constitutes a slander of title. We request that it be removed immediately. The closing is scheduled on May 20,2011. If it is not removed immediately, and the sale is lost, the Garofalos will file a lawsuit against you and your daughter for slander of title. The settlement agreement entered on May 15,2008 was contingent on the Garofalos entering into a contract to sell the condominium within 30 days of the settlement agreement. That did not happen. Therefore, by its express terms, the settlement agreement was voided. The Garofalos remain interested in a resolution, but will not engage in any further discussions until the notice of lis pendens is dissolved. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,

. ChristopherRodems RCR/so

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, PA.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813/489-1001 Facsimiles 813/489-1008 May 25,2011 Number of Pages (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) 3

To:

Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums

Fax: (813)972-2428

From: Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire Re: Carl Montage and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547 Correspondence dated May2# 2011

COMMENTS:

Please call Susan O'Dell at 813/489-1001 if this transmission is incomplete.
NOTE THE ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR USE OF THE ABOVE ADDRESSEE IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, OR COPYING OF THE ACCOMPANYING COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER BY COLLECT TELEP VIA U S MAIL THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

foe.
Ryan Rodems
From: Sent: To: Subject: Ryan Rodems Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:45 PM 'Stephanie miller' Montag v. Garofalo, hearing dates

Ms. Miller: Below is what I was able to find for available hearing times. Note, the website listing hearing times does not list 1 hour time blocks, but I would suggest we can hear our motion to dismiss and your motions to compel in a half hour. I am available on 6/14, 6/15, 6/22, 7/5 and 7/6, as of this moment, but any of those times could be taken by other attorneys or someone could schedule something on my calendar, so the sooner I hear back from you, the better our chances of getting these motions scheduled in the next 30-40 days. Does your father have an e-mail address? Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 (Office) 813/205-1198 (Mobile) E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Available Time Forded H: General Civil - Daily -30 minutes
': :. Options; '; . ;'

m m m m € m * • m m

m

'. - '. -

^Jf&j&ftltyi^

Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes

30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes

6/14/2011 6/15/2011 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 6/22/2011 6/22/2011 6/30/2011 6/30/2011 6/30/2011 7/5/2011 7/5/2011

10:00 AM 2:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM

* 9 * * • 6

9 m

Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes Daily -30 minutes

30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes

//5/2011 7/6/2011 7/6/2011 7/11/2011 7/11/2011 7/11/2011 7/11/2011 7/11/2011

2:30 PM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:OOPM 3:30PM

BARKER, RODEMS &. COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER

RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
WILLIAM].COOK

400 wu North Aslllev Drive Suite 2100 woiui/wmey urive, auitc ^,iuu

Telephone 813/489-1001 Facs.m.le 813/489.1008

Tampa, Florida 33602

May 26, 2011

Honorable Bernard C. Silver Circuit Court Judge 800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 519 Tampa, Florida 33602 Re: Carl Montag and Stephanie Miller v. Emilio Garofalo and Martha C. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547

Dear Judge Silver: Following your ruling at the hearing on Wednesday, May 25,2011 dissolving the Lis Pendens, enclosed please find the proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens, along with copies for transmittal to me, Mr. Montag, and Ms. Miller, as well as postage prepaid envelopes bearing the recipients' addresses. Because the real estate closing is imminent, may I please ask that your Judicial Assistant advise me when the Order has been entered so that I may obtain a certified copy from the clerk's office? I thank you in advance for this courtesy. Respectfully submitted,

Ryan Christopher Rodems RCR/so Enclosures cc: Carl Montag, pro se (w/encl) Stephanie Miller, pro se (w/encl)

BARKER, RODEMS &. COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS WILLIAM). COOK

400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

Telephone 813/489-1001 Facsimile 813/489-1008

May 31,2011 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL; (813)782-8899 Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Montag v. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547 Ms. Stephanie Miller Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613

Dear Mr. Montag and Ms. Miller: I am enclosing for your review a copy of EHQF Trust v.S&A Capital Partners, Inc., 947 So.2d 606 (Fla. 44 DCA 2007), which holds that a trustee cannot appear pro se on behalf of a trust because such would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. I would request that Ms. Miller address this position before the next hearing in front of Judge Silver. In that regard, I did follow-up on the court's website listing available hearing dates as soon as I returned to the office after the May 25, 2011 hearing, and I forwarded proposed dates to Ms. Miller by email and to Mr. Montag by facsimile. Please advise as soon as possible. Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems RCR/so Enclosure

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
4QQ

vr 1 A,1 1 £) j Q u j t 7100 WU JNOrtft Asmey UriVC, SUltC -£1UU

Telephone 813/489-1001 p^.^ gl3/489.1008

WILLIAM ]. COOK

Tampa, Florida 33602

June 10, 2011 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL: (813)782-8899 Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Montag v. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547 Ms. Stephanie Miller Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613

Dear Mr. Montag and Ms. Miller: As you will recall, Judge Silver directed me to schedule the hearing on our motion to dismiss the complaint, and as soon as the hearing was over, I looked at the Judge's calendar available on the website, determined some available dates, and forwarded those to you both. Would you both advise me of when we may schedule a telephone conference so that we can coordinate a hearing date? I look forward to hearing from both of you. Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems RCR/so

f
June 14, 2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Esquire BARKER, RODEMS & COOK 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602

In Re:

Montag vs. Garofalo Case No: 07-9817 - Division "H"

Dear Attorney Rodems: Thank you for your letter dated June 10, 2011 to me. I have reviewed same and am wondering what "Motion To Dismiss" you are referring to. Stephanie, nor I, have not received any such pleading or Motion from your office and are confused what you are wanting us to clear. If you in fact are asking us to clear dates/times for such a Motion, we need to be provided a copy of same, so we may evaluate how much time WE think is necessary as well, to prepare for such hearing and to ensure the appropriate amount of time requested for such hearing, will give each party enough time to argue their case. We are certainly not trying to drag anything out, or be non-responsive, as we faxed you a week prior, to wit: June 3, 2011, asking you clarify what Motion you were referring to and only heard back from you a week later. Upon our receipt of such Motion that you are referring to, we will be more than happy to clear dates/times with your office for same. Next, I'd like to address your systematic and utter refusal to communicate with Stephanie or I. You have COMPLETELY ignored any and all communication by us to you regarding our requests to speak with you by telephone in hopes of resolving this litigation, by leaving messages with your assistant Susan; by several faxes from us, asking you to communicate with us, to clarify issues we are not clear on; by numerous letters from us that we've hand delivered to your law office attempting to clear dates on OUR Motion(s). Where is your good faith in furthering litigation on this matter, wherein both sides are entitled to have their legal questions and concerns brought up. Where is your ethical and professional standards in all of this, I ask? It is impossible, yet your duty as a member of the Florida Bar, to communicate with you, to have any part of our requests for hearing dates/times coordinated with you, or any part of the judicial process ensured, as you will simply NOT COMMUNICATE with us. As you know, we have asked you over A WEEK AND A HALF AGO to clear our "Counter Motion To Quash", all to no avail. You have not responded in any way, shape, or form, and with that said, we feel as if you are denying us our due process of law, our constitutional rights, and abandoning your

JM

i

duties of a member of the Florida bar, to conduct yourself in an ethical and professional manner. Will you PLEASE contact me at (813) 410-1201 to clear same? I have unfortunately, yet necessarily, had to ask Judge Silver to intervene in this matter, and to direct you to clear such dates/times already provided to you on June 3, 2011. Additionally, per Sasha, please be advised Judge Silver has directed that our second and previously filed Motion, to wit: "Motion To Rescind or Set Aside Order dated May 31, 2011" be called up for hearing at the same time as our "Counter Motion To Quash." Please choose the best time available that is left, which is either July 12th at 1:30 p.m. or July 13th at 11:00 a.m. or 1: 30 p.m. Lastly, we are asking again, when you are going to produce the Power of Attorney that you have promised to us since the day of Mediation on May 15, 2008. As you know, not only have we requested, but our prior counsel Bud Stansell, requested a copy of the Power of Attorney from you on at least a half dozen occasions, all to no avail. This has raised great concern for both Stephanie and I, as we have never received a copy of same and do not even know if the Crowley's have ever had any lawful authority whatsoever to act on behalf of the Garofalos. As you know, our prior counsel, Bud Stansell, made his requests for same in person to you, and by email (which if you need a copy of all of the emails where he requested same from you and you agreed and promised our attorney you would provide us with same, and never did, we have copies of them and will be more than happy to provide them to you to jog your memory of such promise.) Your unprofessional treatment of both Stephanie and I is perplexing. We feel as if you are more like a "school yard bully" trying to wash out and ignore any and all of our rights with regard to furthering this litigation, because we are pro se litigants, as to reiterate, each and every time we have reached out to you and have attempted to communicate with you or your office, it has seemingly fallen no "deaf ears" and we are completely frustrated at this point. We have been nothing but forthcoming and communicative in all aspects during this litigation. Stephanie and I both hope that you will proceed from here on out in a more ethical and professional demeanor. We look forward to your earliest reply.

Sincerely,

Carl Montag

£^~

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRISA.BARKER RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS WILLIAM ]. COOK 400 Nr.rt-1-i AcVilow TVim. <Miit-p?100 400 North Ashley Drive buite Z100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone 813/489-1001 ^Jm.le 813/489,1008

June 15,2011 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL; (813)782-8899 Mr. Carl Montag Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613 Re: Montag v. Garofalo Case No. 07-9817; Division "H" Our File No. 2007.5547 Ms. Stephanie Miller Park Place Condominiums 3444 Park Square East, # 4 Tampa, Florida 33613

Dear Mr. Montag and Ms. Miller: I have and thank Mr. Montag for his letter of yesterday, hand-delivered. Let me respond to your points and issues. First, the motion to dismiss was served on Mr. Stansell on November 13, 2007, and a copy is enclosed. Second, I believe that I have communicated, as necessary, for the case. I regret that you disagree. I have found that telephone communications in certain circumstances are not as effective as written communications, and when appropriate, I have communicated with you in writing. Therefore, I am willing to speak by telephone, as necessary, to schedule hearings, but I am not willing to speak by telephone or in person to discuss the case. There is never a dispute about what was discussed in a letter, but there can be a disagreement in what was discussed orally. As an example, at the last hearing, you proceeded to tell Judge Silver what occurred in mediation (even though mediation discussions are confidential), and you made statements that were not accurate. Let me make clear, I am not accusing you of making false statements. It is possible that you misunderstood what was discussed. I have a different recollection of what was discussed at mediation than what you represented to the Judge. Third, as for your "Counter Motion to Quash," my recollection was Judge Silver denied it when he dissolved the lis pendens. If you wish to clear hearing time for that motion or any other motion, I invite you to contact Susan, my legal assistant, as she handles the majority of my scheduling, and she is generally more available than I am. This does not mean I never handle scheduling or that I will not speak to you about scheduling, only that you may have a more prompt response if you request to speak to Susan.

Mr. Carl Montag Ms. Stephanie Miller June 15, 2011 Page 2

Fourth, I am scheduled for a non-jury trial with Judge Nielsen beginning July 11, so at this point, I am unable to agree to July 12 or 13 for the motion hearings. If that changes in the next few days, I will advise you. Fifth, my clients will respond to discovery requests that comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully, this is an adversarial proceeding. My duty is to my clients, and I have been retained to protect their interests. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were enacted to provide certainty to the litigation of civil matters, and therefore, to properly represent my clients, I must require my adversaries to follow those rules. Sixth, I regret that you believe I have engaged in unprofessional treatment of you and Ms. Miller. I believe that you will agree that I have always spoken to you in a polite manner, and that I have always addressed you as "Mr. Montag," and I have always addressed Ms. Miller by "Ms. Miller." I cannot think of one occasion when our discussions were anything less than civil and professional, so I must assume that your characterization of my treatment of you both as "unprofessional" must relate to your perceptions that I have not provided the power of attorney that you have informally requested and because you believe I have not returned telephone calls. I trust my explanation on these issues is sufficient. Finally, if you wish to engage in settlement discussions, I am willing to do so, but they must be in writing. If you have an offer, please forward it to me. Sincerely,

. Christopher Rodems RCR/so Enclosure

Regarding Rodems, 2012-10734 (13E)
to: tlittlew@flabar.org

FEB 1 5 2012
02/15/201201:59 PM

Mr. Littlewood: Can you advise of the status of this matter? I am presently under consideration by the 13th Circuit JNC for nomination for a county court vacancy, and I am also in the process of applying for re-certification for Civil Trial law. In both of these endeavors, I am obligated to advise about this inquiry. Sincerely,

Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 (Office) 813/205-1198 (Mobile) E-mail: roderns@barkerrodemsandcook.com NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

RE: Regarding Rodems, 2012-10734 (13E) Ryan Rodems to: Theodore P Littlewood

02/22/201203:11 PM

Mr. Littlewood: Thank you for letting me know. I greatly appreciate not only the right of people to file inquiries/complaints, but also the opportunity to respond and the professional and thorough process by which these matters are resolved. Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 (Office) 813/205-1198 (Mobile) E-mail: rpdems@barkerrodemsandcook.com NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Theodore P Littlewood [mailto:tlittlew@flabar.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:49 PM To: Ryan Rodems Subject: RE: Regarding Rodems, 2012-10734 (13E) Mr. Rodems, We have not received a rebuttal from the complainant. Our letter, closing the complaint, will go out in the mail tomorrow.

Ted Littlewood Senior Attorney Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) 651 E. Jefferson St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

From To.

Ryan Rodems <Rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com> Theodore P Littlewood <tlittlew@flabar.orq>

Date, Subject

02/22/2012 10:55 AM RE: Regarding Rodems, 2012-10734 (13E)

Mr. Littlewood: By my calculation, the time for Mr. Montag's rebuttal has expired. Did he submit a rebuttal? If so, I have not received it. I thank you in advance for taking the time to respond.

Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 (Office) 813/205-1198 (Mobile) E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Theodore P Littlewood rniailto:tlittlew@flabar.orq1 Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:19 PM To: Ryan Rodems Subject: Re: Regarding Rodems, 2012-10734 (13E) Mr. Rodems, We have your response and are awaiting the complainant's rebuttal. The file will then be reviewed as soon as possible.

Ted Littlewood Senior Attorney Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) 651 E. Jefferson St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

Fronr ToSubject:

Ryan Rodems <Rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com> "tlittlew@flabar.org" <tlittlew@flabar.ora> 02/15/201201:59PM Regarding Rodems, 2012-10734 (13E)

Mr. Littlewood: Can you advise of the status of this matter? I am presently under consideration by the 13th Circuit JNC for nomination for a county court vacancy, and I am also in the process of applying for re-certification for Civil Trial law. In both of these endeavors, I am obligated to advise about this inquiry.

Sincerely, Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 Tampa, Florida 33602 813/489-1001 (Office) 813/205-1198 (Mobile) E-mail: rodems@barkerrodemsandcook.com NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is intended to be confidential, and is also protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privilege. It is not intended for review or use by third parties or unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete the data and destroy any physical copies. Any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

THE FLORIDA BAR
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300

850/561/5600
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG

February 23, 2012

Mr. Carl Montag 3444 Park Square East #4 Tampa, FL 33613 Re: Complaint by Carl Montag against Ryan Christopher Rodems The Florida Bar File No. 2012-10,734 (13E)

Dear Mr. Montag: All correspondence and documents submitted in this matter have been carefully reviewed. Mr. Rodems responded to your allegations by explaining the basis for his actions and asserting that his conduct was proper and in compliance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. As Mr. Rodems observed, many of the issues you raised are matters best addressed through the civil system. The Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that the disciplinary process and proceedings are not to be used as a substitute for civil proceedings and remedies. Mr. Rodems took issue with your allegation that he failed to treat you, a pro se party, with respect and reminded you that he believed he has always spoken to you in a polite manner. Mr. Rodems denied your allegation that he failed to cooperate with you regarding the scheduling of hearings and similar matters and reminded you of the communications he had with you. Mr. Rodems acknowledged that he submitted a proposed Order that required correction due to a typographical error, but reminded you that he sent you a copy of the revised proposed Order and transmittal letter. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has adopted standing policies, one of which (SBP 15.70) is that the Bar will not seek disciplinary action based on isolated instances of negligence. Mr. Rodems denied that he made any misrepresentation to the court regarding his client’s physical and mental condition. Mr. Rodems specifically denied drafting any powers of attorney for his clients or anyone on their behalf and further denied representing anyone in connection with the sale of any of his clients’ real property. The Florida Supreme Court has held that "[i]n order to find that an attorney acted with dishonesty, misrepresentation, deceit, or fraud, the Bar must show the necessary element of intent." Florida Bar v. Fredericks, 731 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla., 1999). Further, if the Bar seeks to discipline the lawyer, it is required by Supreme Court ruling to show, by “clear and convincing” evidence that there has been a violation of one or more of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as

Mr. Carl Montag February 23, 2012 Page 2

“evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the factfinder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” This burden of proof is heavier than the burden of proof required in an ordinary civil trial. In other words, to meet its burden of proof that the lawyer has lied, the Bar must be able to produce evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to persuade the referee that the lawyer intended to deceive. There is insufficient evidence from the materials provided that Mr. Rodems has violated any of the rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida which govern attorney discipline. Accordingly, continued disciplinary proceedings in this matter are inappropriate and our file has been closed. Pursuant to the Bar’s records retention schedule, the computer record and file will be disposed of one year from the date of closing. Sincerely,

Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707 cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems

Mr. Carl Montag 3444 Park Square East #4 Tampa, FL 33613

PERSONAL - FOR ADDRESSEE ONLY

Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker 501 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 790 Tampa, FL 33602-5237

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->