________________________________

INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHENINTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT,
INAND FORORANGECOUNTY,FLORIDA
SUNTRUSTBANK,
CASENO.2009-CA-013333-0
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SCOTTSCOVILANDLIASCOVIL,
ETAL.
DEFENDANTS.
~
DEFENDANT'SEMERGENCYMOTIONTOCANCELSALESCHEDULEDFOR
AUGUST4,VACATEFINALJUDGMENT,ANDSETASIDEDEFAULT
COMENOW,theDefendants,SCOTTSCOVILANDLIABSCOVILbyandthrough
theundersignedcounselandherebyfilesthisEmergencyMotiontoCancelSaleScheduledfor
Wednesday,August4,2010,VacateFinalJudgment,andSetAsideDefaultandstatesas
follows:
FACTS
1. This is an action to foreclosure upon real property. The Complaintwas filed by the
PlaintiffonoraroundApril29,2009.
2. OnoraroundMay 1,2009,Plaintifflssueda20DaySummonsto DefendantsScott
andLiaScovil
3. Amere6(six)dayslateronoraround May7, 2009theSummonswerereturned
unservedastotheDefendants.
4. OnoraroundMay 15,2009,Plaintifffiled anAffidavitofConstructiveService
statinginrelevantpartthatadiligentsearchandinquiryhasbeenmadetodiscover
thenameandresidenceofSCOTTandLIA B. SCOVIL.
e
F
i
l
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
l
e
r
k

o
f

C
o
u
r
t
,

O
r
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

F
l
o
r
i
d
a


2
0
1
0

J
u
l

3
0

0
5
:
0
9

P
M


L
y
d
i
a

G
a
r
d
n
e
r
8.
Moreover,duringthependencyofthis lawsuit, Defendantswererentingtheproperty
toatenantwhowasinregularcommunicationwiththem. Defendantscouldhave
easilybeenlocatedby Plaintiffby contactingtherentersoftheproperty,butno
requestofthetenantswasevermadebyanyagentactingonbehalfofPlaintiff.
9. First Attorneyengagedand regularand frequent communication with the Plaintiffor
its agents which communications Defendants reasonably believed represented a
resolutionofthe issuescontainedwithinthe instantlawsuit.
10. Defendantshonestly believedthat: (1) FirstAttorneywas actingontheirbehalfinthe
instantaction; and(2) FirstAttorneyrepresentedtothemat asuccessfulresolutionof
thiscasewasonthehorizon.
11. But for First Attorney's fraudulent misrepresentations, the Defendants would have
adequately responded to the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendants' complete
inaction with respect to this lawsuit was one ofreasonable misunderstanding on the
partofanuninformedconsumerwho wasrelying onthe representationsofamember
ofthelegal communitywhichshouldrendersummaryjudgmentatthisstageproper.
12. Upon realizing that they were going to lose their home, Defendants retained the
undersigned attorney Matthew Weidner and provided the above-referenced
documentation and the attorney filed these pleadings withthis Court within tendays
ofbeinghiredbytheDefendant.
13. The Defendant was totally unaware that the foreclosure case wasproceeding against
them, believing instead that his First Attorney was working with the lender for a
mortgage modificationandthat this resolved the issuescontained within the lawsuit.
The Defendant reasonably believed that work done by First Attorney fulfilled his
obligations to respond to the lawsuit. See the Defendant's Affidavit labeled Exhibit
"A."
14. On August 31, 2009 the Clerk ofentered a Default Judgment for the Plaintiff. The
CourtsetaSaleDateofthepropertyatissueintheinstantactionforAugust4, 2010.
15. Your undersigned counsel has directed the defendant to file complaints with the
Florida Bar and with the Florida Attorney General's Office to investigate the exact
nature ofthe services rendered by First Attorney. Your undersigned respectfully
requests that default and summary judgment be set aside until such time as facts
relatedto thisoutofstatelawyer'srepresentationarefully developed.
I. SETTING ASSIDE DEFAULT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS
16. Statutes governing service of proves are to be strictly construed to assure that
defendants are notified ofthe proceedings and have the opportunity to protect their
rights. Shurman v. Alt. Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001);
Shepheardv. DeutscheBankTrustCo. Ams., 922 So.2d340(Fla. 5
th
DCA2006); see
also Redfield Inv. A.V.V. v. ViII. OfPinecret, 990 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
(holding that because lack ofpersonal service implicates due process concerns, the
plaintiffmust strictly comply with the statutory requirements); Floyd v. Fed. Nat'l
Mortgage Ass'n, 704 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 1998) (holding that constructive
service statutes require strict compliance). Additionally, "[t]he failure to strictly
adhere to the statutes' required deprives the court ofjurisdiction over the defendant
improperlyserviced."Shepheard,at343.
17. Although service of process by publication in a foreclosure action is permitted
(Florida Statutes49.011), amortgageholdermay only resortto serviceofprocessby
publication "[w]here personal service ofprocess or ....service ofprocess under s.
48.194 cannot be had."Emphasis added. See Taylorv. Lopez, 358 So.2d69 (Fla. 3
rd
DCA 1978 (holding that Florida Statutes 49.021 only authorizes service by
publicationwhentheplaintiffcannoteffectpersonalserviceonadefendant.
18. Additionally, althougha mortgage holdersubmitsan affidavit ofdiligent search, this
does not end the inquiry. Shepheard, at 343. The trial court must still determine
whetherthe mortgage holderactually conducteda diligent search. Redfield, at 1188.
Gironv. UglyMortgage, Inc., 935 So.2d580(Fla. 3
rd
DCA2006); Demarsv. Vill. Of
Sandalwood Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, 625 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
"[W]hen a plaintiff seeks service of process by publication, 'an honest and
conscientious effort, reasonably appropriate to the circumstances, must be made to
acquire the information necessary to fully comply with the controlling statutes.'"
Gans v. Healthgate-Sunflower Homeowners Ass'n, 593 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA
1992) (quoting Klingerv. MiltonHoldingCo., 186So. 526(Fla. 1938).
19. Thetest thatcourtsuseto determinewhetherthe plaintiffconductedadiligentsearch
is "whether the complainant reasonably employed the knowledge at his command,
made diligent inquiry, and exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to
the circumstances to acquire the information necessary to enable him to effect
personal serviceonthedefendant."Conzonierov. Conzoniero,305 So.2d801.
20. In the instantcase, Plaintifffailed to employ the knowledge at itsdisposal to make a
diligent inquiry into the location ofDefendants. The PlaintiffsAffidavitofDue and
Diligent Search as to each defendant indicates that the attempts at service were, at
best,grosslyinadequate.
21. Forexample,bothAffidavitofDueandDiligentSearchesprovidenoreferencetoany
attempt to serve Defendants at a Georgiaaddress. However, the very document that
the Plaintiff is suing upon, the Mortgage, lists the Defendants' address as 940
TivertonLane, Alpharetta,GA 30022.
22. Moreover, both Affidavit of Due and Diligent Searches state "during the
investigation, the subjects' marital status could not be verified." However, the
Mortgage that the Plaintiffis suingupon describes as "AMARRIED MAN JOINED
BY SPOUSE, LIA. B. SCOVIL." Yet, the Affidavit ofDue and Diligent Searches
makenoefforttofindthesefactsoutthemselves.
23. Furthermore, the Defendants were renting the property out the tenants and the
AffidavitofDueand Diligent Searchesmakeno reference ofany attempts to ask the
tenants about the whereabouts ofthe Defendants at the time the lawsuit should have
beenproperlyserved.
24. Finally, the Defendants' First Attorney was in communication with the Plaintiffin
negotiating a short sale as ofOctober of2009. The Affidavit ofDue and Diligent
Search to LiaScovil, filed on oraround November 10, 2009, makes no reference to
these communications. If Plaintiff truly wanted to ascertain the location of the
Defendants, it needed not look further than its own correspondence with the
Defendants.
25. It is an error to deny a motion to vacate default and final summary judgment of
foreclosure when there was defective service ofprocess and the mortgage holder
failed to follow leads likely to reveal the defendant. See Shepheard, at 345 Finding
that the default judgment entered against Ms. Shepheard was void due to defective
service ofprocess where the mortgage holder failed to follow leads likely to reveal
herresidence.)
26. Here, it would there was a defective serVIce of process for the reasons already
mentioned because the Plaintifffailed to follow numerous leads would have likely
revealedthe locationofthe Defendants. Additionally, only 14 days elapsedfrom the
date the Summons for Scott Scovil was issued and the date the Affidavit of
Constructive Service wassigned for Scott Scovil. The Plaintiffdid nottake the time
orenergytomakeadiligentsearchforthe Defendants.
27. A judgment against a defendant based upon improper service by publication lacks
authority oflaw. Shepheard, at 345; Batchinv. Barnett Bank ofSw. Fla., 647 So.2d
211 (Fla. 2
nd
DCA 1994)."Suchimproperservicerendersthejudgmenteithervoidor
voidable." Shepheard, at 345; see also Decker v. Kaplus, 763 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 5
th
DCA2000); Reinav. Barnett Bank, N.A., 766 So.2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA2000). Ifthe
service is irregular or defective but the defendant actually receives notice ofthe
proceedings,thejudgmentis voidable. Shepheard,at 345. Decker,at 1230. However,
where the service of process is so defective that it amounts to no notice of
proceedings, it is void. Reina, at 292. A void judgment is a nullity. M.L. Builders,
Inc. v. Reserve Developers, LLP, 769 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing
RamagliRealtyCo. v. Craver, 121 So.2d648(Fla. 1960).
28. The judgment here was so defective or irregular that it amounted to the defendant
receivingnonoticeoftheproceedingsand isthereforevoidandanullity.
29. WHEREFORE. the record establishes that the mortgage company's service by
publication was void, the Defendants prey that the court will cancel the sale
scheduled for August 4, vacate final judgmentagainst the Defendants, and set aside
default.
II. SETTINGASIDEDEFAULTAND SUMMARYJUDGMENT
PROCEDURE
30. Fla.R.Civ.P. l.SOO(a) providesthataCourtmayentereddefault:
[w]henapartyagainstwhomaffirmativereliefis soughthas failedtofile orserve
anypaperintheaction,thepartyseekingreliefmayhavetheclerkenteradefault
againstthepartyfailingto serveorfile suchpaper.
31. Under Florida law, summary judgment is proper if, and only if, based on an
examination ofevidence, no genuine issue ofmaterial fact exists and the movant is
entitled to judgmentas a matter oflaw. See The Florida Bar v. Green, 926 So. 2d
119S, 1200 (Fla. 2006); VolusiaCountyv. AberdeenatOrmondBeach, L.P., 760 So.
2d126, 130(Fla. 2000).
Furthermore,pursuantto Rule 1.S10 ofthe FloridaRulesofCivil Procedure, aCourt
may grant summaryjudgmentif, andonly if, "thepleadings,depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions onfile together with the affidavits, ifany, showthat
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact andthatthe moving party is entitled
to ajudgmentasamatteroflaw." Fla. R. Civ. P. l.S10(c).
Finally, the Courtmusttake all the facts thatthe non-movant statesas true and must
draw all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe non-moving party. See Bradford v.
Bernstein, S10 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Petruska v. Smartparks-Silver
Springs, Inc.,914So.2dS02(Fla. SthDCA200S).
32. TheCourtmaysetasidedefaultandsummaryjudgmentunderFla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(d).'
1 Fla.R.Civ.P.states thatdefaultmaybesetaside in accordancewith rule 1.S40(b).
33. "'Floridapublicpolicyfavorsthesettingasideofdefaultssothatcontroversiesmay
bedecidedonthemerits.'" Jeyanandarajanv. Freeman,863 So.2d432,at433 (Fla.
4th DCA2003)(quoting Llyod'sUnderwriter'satLondonv. Ruby,Inc., 801 So.2d
l38,at l39).
34. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.540(b)providesthatif thetermsarejust,thecourtmayrelieveaparty
fromafinal orderformistake,inadvertence,surprise,orexcusable neglect. To set
asidethedefaultpursuantto thisrule,theCourtmustdetermine: "(1) whetherthe
defendanthasdemonstratedexcusableneglectinfailingto respond[;] (2)whetherthe
defendanthasdemonstratedameritoriousdefense[;] and(3) whetherthedefendant,
subsequentto learningofthedefault,haddemonstratedduediligenceinseeking
relief" Halpernv. Houser,949So.2d 1155, 1157(Fla. 4th DCA2007)(citing
Schwartzv. Bus. CardsTomorrow,Inc.,644So.2d611,at611 (Fla.4th DCA1994.
LA W AND ARGUMENT
1. EXCUSABLE NEGLECT
35. Excusableneglectisfound"whereinactionresultsfrom clericalorsecretarialerror,
reasonablemisunderstandings,asystemgoneawryoranyotherofthefoiblesto
whichhumannatureisheir."Somerov. HendrvGen. Hosp.,467So.2d 1103,at1106
(Fla.4th DCA1985).
36. Courtshaveheldthatalthoughignoranceof thelawandfailuretounderstand
consequencesarenotviableexcuses,"areasonablemisunderstandingbetween
attorneysregardingsettlementnegotiationsdoesconstituteexcusableneglect
sufficienttovacateadefault:'GablesClubMarina,LLCv. GablesCondo. & Club
Ass'nInc.,948 So.2d21, at23-24 (Fla.3
rd
DCA2006)(InGablesClub,theparties'
attorneyswereengagedinsettlementtalks, andthecourtfound itreasonablethatthe
defendantbelievedit didnotneedtofileananswertotheplaintiff'scomplaint.)
37. "'Excusableneglectmustbeprovenbyswornstatementsoraffidavits.'" Geerv.
Jacobsen,880So.2d717,at720(Fla. 2
nd
DCA2004)(quotingDisarriov. Mills, 711
So.2d 1355, 1356(Fla.2
nd
DCA 1988).
38. Here,theDefendantsfiled aswornaffidavitalongwiththismotionwhich
demonstratesthatthepartieswereengagedinsettlementnegotiationsandthePlaintiff
hastorebuttheDefendants'claims.
39. Defendants' swornaffidavitsthattheyhiredanattorneywhotheybelievedwas
respondingtothelitigationleadtotheirreasonablemisunderstandingthattherewas
anextensionoftimeinthe lawsuitandhishomewasnotindangerofbeing
foreclosedagainst.
40. InGibsonTrust,Inc. v. Officeof theAttorneyGeneral,883 So.2d370,382(Fla.4th
DCA2004),theCourtvacatedadefaultenteredbythetrialcourt,statingthe
"[b ]ecausethedefendants' affidavitswereuncontradictedandestablishedthatthere
wasa'misunderstanding'regardingwhetheranextensionhadbeenagreedupon,we
concludethatexcusableneglectwasshown."Additionally,whereadefendantfilesa
verifiedmotionthatindicatestheybeganaworkoutagreementwiththebank,andthe
bankrefusedtofileanyrefutingaffidavits,thedefendant'suncontradictedverified
motionestablishedexcusableneglect. Elliottv. AuroraLoanServ.,4D08-4362(Fla.
4th DCA4-7-2010).
41. Similarly,inthiscaseDefendantsestablishedexcusableneglectherebecausethey
filedanaffidavitinsupportof thefact thatFirstAttorneywasactivelyengagedin
settlementnegotiationsandbelievedthatthelawsuitwaseitherpostponedordelayed
duetothesettlementnegotiations.
42. Moreover, the Defendants First Attorney is not licensed in the State ofFlorida and
acted in direct violation ofRule 4-5.5(b) ofthe Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
providesthat
Alawyerwho isnotadmittedto practiceinFloridashallnot:
(1) except as authorized by otherlaw, establish an office orotherregular
presenceinFloridaforthepracticeoflaw;
(2)holdouttothepublicorotherwiserepresentthatthelawyeris admitted
to practicelawinFlorida;or
(3) appear in court, before an administrative agency, or before any other
tribunal unlessauthorizedto do so bythe court, administrativeagency, or
tribunal pursuant to the applicable rules of the court, administrative
agency,ortribunal.
43. The Defendants good faith beliefthat First Attorney would be representing them in
this matter is evidenced by numerous communications and emails between first
attorneyandDefendants.
44. Therefore, the Defendants inactivity with respect to this lawsuit was due to a
reasonable misunderstanding. The Courts decision in Gables Club tells us that these
sortsofmisunderstandingsconstituteexcusableneglect.
II. MERITORIOUS DEFENSE
45. Ameritoriousdefenseisestablishedwherea"proposedanswer[is] attachedtoits
motiontovacate, whichanswersetsoutindetailanumberofaffirmativedefenses."
FortuneIns. Co. v. Sanchez,490So.2d249,at249(Fla. 3
rd
DCA1986). Similarly,
whereaparty"immediatelyfiledaproposedanswerwithaffirmativedefensesupon
receiptoftheplaintiffs'motionto setthecausefortrailondamages,"the
meritorious-defenseanddue-diligenceelementsweremet. BrowardCountyv.
Perdue,432 So.2d742, 743 (Fla.4
th
DCA 1983).
46. TheCourtinElliotheldthataverifiedmotiontovacatedefaultthatcontaineda
proposedanswerandaffinnativedefenseseffectivelymetthemeritorious-defense
elementofaofHalpern'sthreepartruleforsettingasidedefault.Elliottv. Aurora
LoanServ.,4008-4362(Fla.4th DCA4-7-2010)
47. Here,the Defendants'verifiedmotiontovacatedefaultcontainedaproposedanswer
andaffinnativedefenses,whichmeetsthemeritoriousdefenseelementofHalpern.
III DUE DILIGENCE
48. Thetestforduediligenceis oneofreasonablenessandmustbeevaluatedbasedon
thefacts oftheparticularcase. Franklinv. Franklin,573 So.2d401,403 (Fla. 3
rd
DCA1991).
49. Duediligencemustbeestablishedwithevidence,whichincludesaswornaffidavit.
CedarMountainEstates,LLCv. LoanOne,LLC,4So.3d 15, 17(Fla. 5
th
DCA2009).
50. Inthiscase,defaultwasenteredonAugust31,2009.Therewereanumberof
proceduralissuesthatoccurredbetweenthedateof defaultandpresentincludinga
cancelledsale. Upondiscoveringthedefaultandthesalescheduledfor August4,
2010,theDefendantfiled averifiedmotiontovacatethedefault,alongwitha
proposedanswerandaffinnative e f e n s e s ~ whichwasdatedJuly29,2010. Onlya
fewdays elapsedbetweenthetimethedefaultand saledatewasdiscovered andthis
timethemotiontovacatewasfiled.
51. It hasbeenheldthatsix-day,seven-day,andfifteen-daytime lapsesbetweenthe
discoveryofadefaultand the filingofamotiontovacatethatdefaultshoweddue
diligence. SeeAllstateFloridianIns. Co. v. RoncoInventions, LLC,890So.2d300,
303 (Fla. 2
nd
DCA 1990)(six-daydelay));Elliottv. AuroraLoanServ.,4D08-4362
(Fla. 4th DCA4-7-2010)(six-daydelay);CoquinaBeachClubCondo.Ass'nv.
Wagner, 813 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2
nd
DCA2002)(seven-daydelay);MarshallDavis,
Inc. v. Incapco,Inc.,558 So.2d206(Fla.2
nd
DCA1990)(fifteen-daydelay)).
52. Based onthe fact that the Defendants didinfact file a verified motionto vacate the
default along with a proposed answer and affirmative defenses within a reasonable
periodof discoveringdefault,theyactedwithduediligence.
IV CONCLUSION
53. TheDefendantshasdemonstratedthatdefaultshouldbesetasidepursuantto
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(d)byprovingthethreeelementsofexcusableneglectin
accordancewiththerulesetoutbythecourtinHalpern.
WHEREFORE,the Defendantswouldrespectfully requestthatthishonorableCourtgrantthis
Emergency Motion to Set Aside the Default, Cancel Sale, Vacate Final Judgment, grant
attorneys fees, along with such other relief as the court finds just and proper given the
circumstances.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby that a true andcorrectcopyoftheforegoing hasbeenfurnished by U.S.
Mail on July, 2010 to GALINA BOYTCHEV, Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A., 2901
Stirling Rd, Ft. Lauderdale, FI 333]2-6525, PAUL HINCKLEY, Taylor & Carls, P.A., 150 N.
WestmonteDr.,AltamonteSprings,FI32714-3342. __- ____
/'
Attorneyfor Defendant(s)
1229CentralAvenue
S1. Petersburg,FL 33705
(727)894-3159
BarNo.: ]85957
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHENINTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT,
INANDFORORANGECOUNTY,FLORIDA
SUNTRUSTBANK,
CASENO.2009-CA-013333-0
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SCOVIL,ETAL.
DEFENDANTS.
________________________________1
DEFENDANTS'ANSWERANDAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES
TOPLAINTIFF'SAMENDEDCOMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Defendants, SCOTT SCOVIL AND LIA B SCOVIL (hereinafter
"Defendants"), by and through undersigned counsel MATTHEW D. WEIDNER, and files this
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, and in support
thereof states:
COUNT I-FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE
1. Admitted.
2. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
3. Denied.
4. Admitted.
5. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
6. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
7. Denied.
8. Denied.
9. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
10. Denied.
11. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
12. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
13. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
14. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
COUNTI-FORECLOSUREOFMORTGAGE
15. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
16. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
17. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
18. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
19. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
20. Withoutknowledgeandthereforedenied.
DEFENDANT'SAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES
AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSEI
Withregardtoallcountsinthecomplaint,thePlaintiff'sclaimsarebarredinwholeorin
partbecauseofthePlaintiff'sfailuretocomplywiththeforbearance, mortgagemodification,and
otherforeclosure preventionloanservicingrequirementsimposedonitbytheFederalHousing
Administration,andregulationsimposedbytheHousingandUrbanDevelopmentAgency,
pursuanttotheFederalHousingAct, 12U.S.c.171O(a)and 12 U.S.C. 1701. Asaresult,the
Plaintifffailedtoestablishcompliancewithastatutoryandcontractualconditionprecedentto
thisforeclosurebecauseof thePlaintiff'sfailuretocomplywithfederal regulationsmore
particularlydescribedbelow:
a) Defendantdefaultedonthisresidentialmortgagewhichisthesubjectofthecauseof
actionduetoreasonsbeyondtheborrower'scontrol.
b) ThePlaintiffisrequiredunderfederal lawtoadaptitscollectionandloanservicing
practicestothisDefendant'sindividualcircumstancesandfailedtodo so.
c) ThePlaintiffdidnotmakeareasonableeffortasrequiredbyfederallawtoarrangeaface
tofacemeetingwiththeDefendantbeforethreemonthlyinstallmentswereunpaidas
requiredby24C.F.R. 203.604.
d) ThePlaintiffisrequiredunderfederal lawtoevaluateallavailablelossmitigation
techniquesandtore-evaluatethesetechniqueseachmonthafterdefaultandfailed todo
so. 24C.F.R. 203.605.
e) TheDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmenthasdeterminedthatthe
requirementsof24C.F.RPart203(c)aretobe followed beforeanymortgagee
foreclosure.
f) Plaintiffhasnovalidcauseofactionforforeclosure unlessanduntilPlaintiffcan
demonstratecompliancewithregulations24C.F.R.part203(c).
g) ThisDefendantmadesignificanteffortstoaccessforeclosurepreventionservicesfrom
Plaintiffandtomakepayments,butPlaintiffdeniedthisDefendanttherequired
opportunitytoaccessandobtainmortgageservicingoptionsdesignedtoavoid
foreclosureof thismortgage.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11
Withregardto allcountsinthecomplaint,thePlaintiff'sclaimsarebarredinwholeorin
partbecausethePlaintiffcomestotheCourtwithuncleanhandsasaresultofitsfailuresand
omissionsassetforth inthestatementoffacts assertedinAtlirmativeDefenseIand
incorporatedherein.ThePlaintiffisprohibitedbyreasonthereoffromobtainingtheequitable
reliefof foreclosurefromthisCourt.ThePlaintiff'suncleanhandsresultgenerallyfromthe
Plaintiff'sintentionalandrecklessfailuretoproperlyservicethismortgagepursuanttothe
federalregulationsandspecificallybyfilingthisforeclosurebeforeofferingDefendantanyof
thefederallyrequiredforeclosureavoidanceoptions.AsamatterofequitythisCourtshould
refusetoforeclosurethismortgagebecauseaccelerationof thenotewouldbeinequitable,unjust,
andthecircumstancesofthiscaserenderaccelerationunconscionable.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE III
With regard to all counts of the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in
part because the Defendant affirmatively questions the veracity and authenticity of the
endorsements and signatures made on the purported promissory note, allonges and mortgage at
issue attached to the Plaintiffs notice of filing original note and mortgage pursuant to Fla. Stat.
673.3081 (2006). The documents themselves do not show Plaintiff as the owners and holder of
the note and mortgage.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IV
With regard to all counts of the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in
part because the Mortgage lacks a valid Assignment of Mortgage which assigns the Mortgage in
question to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, SUNTRUST BANK has failed to offer any evidence
which suggests that it has any interest in the Mortgage. The further, there are no assignments of
mortgage attached to the complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE V
With regard to all of the counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiff's claims are barred in
whole or in part, because the Plaintiff lacks standing.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I cJl-? that a true and correct copy of the for.egoing has been furnished by U.S.
Mail on this of July, 2010 to GAUNA BOYTCHEV, Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A., 2901
Stirling Rd, Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33312-6525, PAUL HINCKLEY, Taylor & Carls, P.A., 150 N.
Westmonte Dr., Altamonte Springs, FI32714-3342.

Attorney for Defendants
1229 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
(727) 894-3159
FBN: 0185957