Not A Certified Copy: Filing# 61018964 E-Filed 08/28/2017 03:37:24 PM

Filing# 61018964 E-Filed 08/28/2017 03:37:24 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292
DIVISION AW
FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as

successor by merger to Bank of
PY
Coral Gables, LLC,
Plaintiff,
O
V.
C
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, et al.,
ED
Defendants.
_______________/
FI
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
EMERGENCY REQUEST
TI
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK ("First American" or

ER
"Plaintiff'), by and through its undersigned counsel, and in accordance with the applicable
C
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (particularly
A
Fla. R. App. P. 9.310), hereby files this its Response in Opposition to Defendants',
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER (collectively the

T
"Schneiders" or "Defendants"), Emergency Request for Temporary Restraining Order1

O
N
Although the signature block on the Emergency Request for a Temporary Restraining Order reflects
that it was being submitted by both Laurence S. Schneider, prose and Stephanie L. Schneider, prose, only
Laurence S. Schneider signed the Request. Laurence S. Schneider is not authorized to practice law in the
State of Florida and is not otherwise authorized to represent Stephanie L. Schneider in the proceedings
before this Court. While the signature block represents she is proceeding pro se, her signature does not
appear. Accordingly, it does not appear that Stephanie L. Schneider has joined her husband in requesting
a stay of the foreclosure sale.
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 08/28/2017 03:37:24 PM
(Exhibit "A") (which this Court is treating "as a Motion for Stay of the Foreclosure Sale,
pending the appeal filed by the Defendant[s]" 2 (Exhibit "B").
This Response is submitted for consideration by the Court prior to the specially-
set hour-long evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Stay of the Foreclosure Sale set for
September 1, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Id.
PY
Background
On June 26, 2017, this Court granted First American's Motion for Summary
O
Judgment and entered a Final Judgment of Foreclosure. 3 A true and correct copy of the
C
certified/recorded Final Judgment in Foreclosure is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." The
ED
Final Judgment of Foreclosure: (1) provided that the Foreclosure Sale of the property
would be conducted on August 10, 2017, (2) found that First American "is entitled to
FI
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with this action"
TI
and (3) retained jurisdiction "to determine the total amounts of attorneys' fees, costs and
ER
expenses to which Plaintiff is entitled." Ex. "C" at 3.
On June 30, 2017, this Court entered its Amended Final Judgment awarding
C
money damages in favor of First American against Defendant, Laurence S. Schneider. 4

A
A true and correct copy of the certified/recorded Amended Final Judgment is attached
T
hereto as Exhibit "D." Like the Final Judgment of Foreclosure, the Amended Final
O
Judgment determined that First American "is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
N
2
Throughout this Response, First American will refer to the Emergency Request for a Temporary
Restraining Order as the "Motion for Stay of Foreclosure Sale Pending Appeal."
3
The Final Judgment of Foreclosure was entered against both Laurence S. Schneider and
Stephanie L. Schneider based on Count I of the Verified Foreclosure Complaint.
4
The Amended Final Judgment for money damages was entered only against Defendant, Laurence
S. Schneider, based on Count II of the Verified Foreclosure Complaint.
Page 2 of 13
and expenses incurred in connection with this action" and retained jurisdiction "to
determine the total amounts of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to which Plaintiff is
entitled." Ex. "D" at 2.
On July 11, 2017, the Schneiders filed a Motion for Rehearing pursuant to Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.530 and 1.540 (Exhibit "E"). That Motion for Rehearing was denied by this Court
PY
on July 18, 2017 (Exhibit "F") - at which time the June 26, 2017 Final Judgment of
Foreclosure and the Amended Final Judgment became "final orders".
O
The Schneiders filed their Notices of Appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal
C
("4th DCA") on July 18, 2017.
ED
On August 7, 2017, Defendants filed their Motion for Stay of Foreclosure Sale
Pending Appeal (Exhibit "A"). In their Motion, Defendants purport to object to the
FI
foreclosure sale and seek an "emergency injunction to prevent said sale" "pursuant to
TI
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) ... based on mistake." [When the Notice of
ER
Appeal was filed, however, exclusive jurisdiction over any and all asserted irregularities
or deficiencies that occurred at any point during the course of the foreclosure proceedings
C
before this Court became vested in the 4 th DCA; this Court no longer has jurisdiction over
A
any of those issues.]

T
On August 8, 2017, this Court's Order cancelled the August 10, 2017 foreclosure
O
sale and reset the foreclosure sale for September 12, 2017 (Exhibit "B"). The Order also
N
scheduled a one hour hearing on the Motion for Stay of Foreclosure Sale Pending Appeal
at 1:30 p.m. on September 1, 2017; the Order stated that the Court will hear arguments
as to:
(1) whether the foreclosure action should be stayed pending

appellate review; and
Page 3 of 13
(2) if a stay is entered, what supersedeas bond amount and other
conditions should be required.
First American respectfully submits that the answers to these questions are:
(1) The foreclosure action (and the scheduled September 12, 2017
Foreclosure Sale) should not be stayed pending appeal.
(2) If the Court elects to stay the foreclosure action, the Defendants
should be required to post a substantial supersedeas bond and
PY
the property should remain subject to monthly inspections by First
American.
O
Both issues identified by the Court in its August 8, 2017 Order will be addressed in greater
C
detail below.
ED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Stay Pending Review - Standard

FI
The grant or denial of stay pending appeal is committed to the discretion of the trial
TI
court. Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(a). If a trial court determines that a stay is appropriate, it
may condition the stay "on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other conditions, or
ER
both." Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(a). "A good and sufficient bond is a bond with a principal
C
and a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, or cash deposited
in the circuit court clerk's office." Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(c)(1).

A
The conditions of a bond shall include a condition to pay or

T
comply with the order in full, including costs; interest; fees;

and damages for delay, use, detention and depreciation of
O
property, if the review is dismissed or order affirmed; and may

include such other conditions as may be required by the lower
N
tribunal.
Fla. R. App. P. 9.31 0(c)(2).
II. A Stay is Not Warranted
On a motion to stay pending appeal, two factors must be considered by the trial
court: "the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, and the likelihood of harm
Page 4 of 13
should a stay not be granted." Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 91-92, n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA
1999) citing State Ex Rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So. 2d 1037, 38-39, n. 3 (Fla. 1980).
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
With respect to the first of these two factors, First American respectfully suggests
that the Schneiders' likelihood of prevailing on their appeal to the 4th DCA is slim.
PY
Defendants have repeatedly admitted they defaulted under the Note and Mortgage
by, among other things:
O
(a) Failing to pay the monthly interest payment due on May 1, 2016 and all
C
subsequent monthly payments. 5
ED
(b) Failing to pay the entire balance owing in a single balloon payment on July 28,
2016. 6
FI
(c) Failing to pay the Florida Ad Valorem/real property taxes on the Property for
TI
2014, 2015 and 2016. 7

ER
5
Defendants, in their Answer to First American's Verified Foreclosure Complaint, admitted "that all
payments have not been made and/or that one or more payments was not timely made." [D.E. 32, ,r14 and
C
D.E. 61, ,r14]. See also the Transcript of the March 28, 2017 Evidentiary Hearing, at p. 13-14 (during the
March 28, 2017 evidentiary hearing, Defendant stipulated that they have not made any monthly payments
since April 2016). A true and correct copy of portion the Transcript of the March 28, 2017 Evidentiary
A
Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "G."
6
See [D.E. 32 ,r,r10 & 14 and D.E. 61, ,r,r 10 (Defendants admit that Defendant, Laurence S.
T
Schneider, "promised to pay any and all amounts borrowed from the $1,500,000.00 Credit Agreement by
making a single balloon payment on July 28, 2016.") & 14 ("Defendants admit that all payments have not
O
been made")]. See also Ex. "G" at p. 17 (during the March 28, 2017 evidentiary hearing, Defendants
stipulated that the balloon payment "has not been made").
N
7
Defendant, Laurence S. Schneider, in his Objections and Responses to First American's First Set
of Interrogatories, specifically Interrogatory No. 4, stated "I did not pay the taxes before First American paid
them." A true and correct copy of Defendant's sworn Objections and Responses to Plaintiff First American
Bank's First Set of Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit "H." Furthermore, Defendants, in their
Response to First American's Request for Admissions (specifically Request for Admission Nos. 4 & 5),
admitted that they failed to pay the Property's Ad Valorem/Real Property Taxes for 2014 and 2015. A true
and correct copy of First American's First Request for Admissions and Defendants' Response to First
American's Request for Admissions is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "I." See also Ex. "G" at p. 15
& 25 (during the March 28, 2017 evidentiary hearing, Defendants stipulated that they did not pay the
property taxes).
Page 5 of 13
On May 25, 2017, First American filed/served its Motion for Summary Judgment
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, along with an Affidavit of Indebtedness and its
summary judgment evidence detailing the series of defaults which the Schneiders made
under the terms of the Note and Mortgage. Well before First American's Motion for
Summary Judgment was filed, and well before the Court entered the Final Judgment of
PY
Foreclosure and the Amended Final Judgment, all of the Schneiders' Affirmative
Defenses and all of Laurence S. Schneider's Counterclaims were repeatedly
O
stricken/dismissed "with prejudice."
C
The only monetary amounts sought by First American in its Motion for Summary
ED
Judgment were (1) the unpaid principal balance - $1,488,554.76 (which the Schneiders
never disputed), (2) interest on the unpaid principal balance between March 16, 2016 and
FI
June 26, 2017 - $69,646.52 and (3) Florida Ad Valorem real property taxes for the years
TI
2014, 2015 and 2016 - $66,870.93 (which the Schneiders admitted First American paid).
ER
The Schneiders never filed a response controverting First American's Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Schneiders never identified any documents/evidence they

C
intended to rely on in opposing First American's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Fla.
A
R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). The Schneiders did not appear, or attempt to otherwise participate
T
in, the June 26, 2017 hearing on First American's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
O
Court, in accordance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), entered a Final Judgment of

N
Foreclosure against the Schneiders and an Amended Final Judgment against Laurence
S. Schneider on the Breach of Contract claim, both in the amount of $1,625,072.71 (Exs.
"C" and "D").
As an appellate court cannot consider matters outside the record, and given that
the Schneiders did not controvert First American's summary judgment evidence, the
Page 6 of 13
appellate court will in all likelihood affirm this Court's entry of the Final Judgment of
Foreclosure and the Amended Final Judgment. See Hillsborough County Board of
County Commissioners v. Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n, 424 So. 2d 132, 134 (Fla.
1st DCA 1982)("An appellate court will not consider evidence that was not presented to
the lower tribunal because the function of the appellate court is to determine whether the
PY
lower tribunal committed error based on the issues and evidence before it").
Further, both the Final Judgment in Foreclosure (Ex. "C") and the Amended Final
O
Judgment (Ex. "D") determined that First American is entitled to an award of attorneys'
C
fees and costs with respect to having to pursue collection of the Note and Mortgage via
ED
litigation. The quantum of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses has not yet been
determined. If the Schneiders' Motion for Stay of the Foreclosure Sale Pending Appeal
FI
is granted before this Court determines the quantum of fees, costs and expenses to be
TI
awarded to First American, First American will suffer a substantial hardship - once the 4th
ER
DCA affirms this Court's entry of the Final Judgment of Foreclosure and the Amended
Final Judgment and this Court determines the quantum of fees, costs and expenses to
C
which First American is entitled, the Schneiders, in all probability will seek to appeal the
A
award of fees, costs and expenses and further delay resolution of this litigation. 8
T
B. Likelihood of Harm to the Schneiders

O
Insofar as the second factor (likelihood of harm to the Schneiders should a stay
N
not be granted) is concerned, there is virtually no possibility of any such harm since the
property being foreclosed has been empty/deserted for almost ten months (since the
8
As detailed in First American's Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with this Court's Order
(bearing a Certificate of Service date of March 1, 2016) [D.E. 60], the Schneiders and their former counsel
have imposed numerous extension requests and improperly removed this action to federal court [D.E. 120],
primarily, if not solely for the purpose of delay.
Page 7 of 13
Schneiders evicted their paying tenant at the end of October 2016). Despite Laurence
Schneider's October 12, 2016 sworn Affidavit (Exhibit "J"), wherein he attested, under
oath, that he and his wife were in the process of moving back into that residence, no steps
or actions were ever taken to effectuate the intentions expressed in that Affidavit.
Further, any possible appreciation in the value of the property that might occur
PY
while this matter is on appeal will simply never exceed the 5.05% interest rate which the
Final Judgment in Foreclosure is presently incurring. First American submits that it is in
O
the best interests of both First American and the Schneiders to have the property in
C
question expeditiously sold in accordance with Florida law so as to "stop the bleeding" of
ED
interest and expenses (i.e., future ad valorem property taxes and insurance premiums).
It is understood by both First American and the Schneiders that the residential
FI
property being foreclosed is "under water" in that the current fair market value of the
TI
property is only about $1,200,000.00-$1,500,000.00 9 versus the amount owed via the
ER
Final Judgment of Foreclosure (even before attorneys' fees, costs and expenses are
added) of $1,625,072.21.
C
Accordingly, First American submits that there are no legal or equitable grounds
A
that justify staying this action or the foreclosure sale scheduled to take place on
T
September 12, 2017.

O
N
9
As detailed in First American's Motion to Compel Access to Property (bearing a Certificate of
Service date of August 23, 2017) (Exhibit "K"), earlier this month First American attempted to commission
an appraisal of the property. However, the Schneiders would not allow First American's designated
independent/licensed property appraiser access to the property for purposes of determining the property's
"present fair market value."
Page 8 of 13
Ill. If a Stay is Granted, It Must be Premised
on the Posting of a Good and Sufficient Bond
and Monthly Inspections of the Property
A. Controlling Law
The purpose of conditioning any stay of proceedings pending appeal on the
posting of a bond is that:
PY
... the guiding principle in setting a supersedeas bond is to
protect the party in whose favor judgment was entered by
assuring its payment in the event the judgment is affirmed on
O
appeal. [Citations omitted.] To this end, the proper amount
and conditions of the supersedeas bond are determined by
C
the facts of the particular case.
ED
Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In this regard:
"Both the burden of proof and persuasion to impose

conditions that do not guarantee the full payment of the
FI
judgment at the conclusion of the appeal should be upon the
judgment debtor."
TI
Platt v. Russek, 921 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004).

ER
B. Defendants' Willingness to
Post a Supersedeas Bond
C
It should be noted at the outset that the Schneiders' supposed willingness to post
a bond(" ... Defendants are prepared to post a bond ... ," see, Ex. "A" at p. 3), are belied
A
by an earlier statement in that same pleading that:

T
"Should it please the Court, Defendants are prepared to

O
deposit with the Clerk of the Court a nominal bond pending

further redress, .... "
N
Ex. "A" at p. 2. In this same regard, it is worth noting that the Schneiders, in their Request
for Stay Pending Appeal dated August 2, 2017 (Exhibit "L") (improperly filed with the
Fourth District Court of Appeal), made no mention whatsoever of posting even a "nominal
bond" but stated only:
Page 9 of 13
"Appellants's willingness to pay property taxes and property
insurance while the appeal is pending - as a condition of the
stay - reflects their good faith and shows that Appellee will
suffer no harm by a stay."
Shortly stated, it would not appear that the Schneiders are at all serious about posting a
meaningful Supersedeas Bond. See Pabian, supra.
C. Amount of Supersedeas Bond
PY
In the case at hand, First American recognizes that the real property being
O
foreclosed has an inherent/intrinsic value which this Court must take into consideration
C
when determining the amount of the Supersedeas Bond. It is extremely unlikely that the
ED
residential property in Boca Raton, Florida being foreclosed has a present fair market
value anywhere near the amount of First American's Final Judgment, $1,625,072.21.
FI
The Fourth District opinion in Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA
TI
1981) makes it clear that the "present fair market value" is one of the most important
factors that has to be taken into consideration by this Court when determining the amount
ER
of a Supersedeas Bond that the Defendants will have to post in order to stay further
C
foreclosure proceedings pending appeal.
In mid-August, First American attempted to commission an appraisal of the

A
property being foreclosed. However, the Schneiders have repeatedly refused to allow
T
First American's designated independent/licensed property appraiser access to the

O
property for purposes of determining the property's "present fair market value." See First
N
American's Motion to Compel Access to Property (Exhibit "K"). It is, apparently, the
position of the Defendants that this Court should consider the Palm Beach County
Page 10 of 13
Property Appraiser's Assessed Value of the property ($1,154,556.00 - Exhibit "M") and
then take a "guess" at the property's "present fair market value." 10
As a condition of staying these foreclosure proceedings pending appeal, First
American is entitled to have the Court require the posting by the Defendants of a
Supersedeas Bond in the aggregate of the following amounts:
PY
1. The difference between the amount of First American's
Final Judgment of Foreclosure ($1,625,072.71) and the
present fair market value that this Court determines the
O
property to have at the conclusion of the September 1,
2017 evidentiary hearing. [Because the Defendants have
C
refused to allow First American to appraise the property,
the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's $1,154,556.00
ED
Assessed Value is all that exists vis-a-vis the property's
present fair market value.] $470,516.71
2. Interest at 5.05% for two years $164,132.34

FI
3. Two years of ad valorem property taxes (estimated)
TI
for 2017 and 2018 ($40,000.00); and $40,000.00
4. First American's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses $285,587.41

ER
$960,236.46
C
Fla. R. App. P. 9.31 0(c)(2). See also One 1980 53 Foot Hatteras Vessel v. Roscioli Yacht
Sales, 642 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994 ).

A
D. Continued Right to Inspect Property

T
As a further condition of staying this proceeding, First American requests that First
O
American continue to have the right to inspect the Property on a monthly basis and that
N
Defendants shall arrange access to the property by the inspector. On March 28, 2017,
10
"Defendants informed Plaintiff's counsel that they would be willing to stipulate to the most recent
taxable assessed value from the Palm Beach County, so that a neutral third-party can make a determination
as to the property's present market value .... " (Exhibit "N" at p. 2). It would seem that the Defendants are
suggesting that this Court is that "neutral third-party."
Page 11 of 13
this Court granted First American's ore tenus Motion to Inspect the Property, and, ordered
that First American "has the right to inspect the property on a monthly basis." (Exhibit
"O").
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, respectfully requests the
Court enter an Order: (1) denying the Defendants' Request for a Stay Pending Appeal,
PY
or, in the alternative, (2) conditioning the stay on the Schneiders posting a good and
sufficient Supersedeas Bond in accordance with Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(a) in the amount
O
of $960,236.46 by no later than the close of business on Friday, September 8, 2017, (3)
C
allow continuing monthly inspections of the property by First American in order to oversee
ED
and protect the property and (4) ordering that the Schneiders' failure to post the required
Supersedeas Bond or failure to allow access to the property (in order to conduct a monthly
FI
inspection) will result in the automatic vacating of the stay, together with such further and
TI
other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
ER
Respectfully submitted,
C
KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff
121 Majorca Avenue, #200
A
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 529-8500
T
Telefax: (305) 529-0228

Email: hbolz@kellerbolz.com
O
N
By: s/Henry H. Bolz, Ill

Henry H. Bolz, Ill
Florida Bar No. 260071
Page 12 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response in
Opposition to Emergency Request for Temporary Restraining Order was delivered to:
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, (larry@sacapitalpartners.com), 360 E. Coconut Palm
Road, Boca Raton, FL 33432; STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER
PY
(steffschneider13@gmail.com), 360 E. Coconut Palm Road, Boca Raton, FL 33432; and
JAYS. LEVIN, ESQ.(foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com), Sachs, Sax, Caplan, Attorneys for
O
Oaks at Boca Raton, 6111 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., #200, Boca Raton, FL 33487
C
via the E-filing Portal on this 28th day of August, 2017.
ED
KELLER & BOLZ, LLP
FI
TI
By: s/Henry H. Bolz. Ill

Henry H. Bolz, Ill
ER
C
A
T
O
N
Page 13 of 13
Filing# 60065632 E-Filed 08/07JL,v17 04:12:52 PM

THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIALCIRCUIT
IN AND FOE. PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as Case No.: 50-2016-CA-009292

successor by merger to Bank of Coral
Gables, LLC,
PY
Plaintiff
O
Vs.
C
LAURENCE SCHNEIDER, STEPHANIE L.
ED
SCHNEIDER, et. Al.
Defendants
FI
TI
EMERGENCY REQUEST FORA TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ER
COME NOW Laurence Schneider and Stephanie L Schneider, Defendants, and hereby
objects to the foreclosure sa.le currently scheduled for August 10, 2017, and move for an
C
emergency injunction to prevent said sale. A proposed Order is attached herewith.

A
Good cause exists for the injunctive relief tequested, as Defendants have timely filed both a
notice of appeal in this matter, which. set f01ih the multitude of manifest errors of law ultimately
T
O
resulting in judgment to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Defendants filed a stay pending appeal in the
N
matter.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendants bring this emergency motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
l .54Q(b), which sets a one-year time limitfor a party to challenge a final judgment, decree, order,
or proceeding based on a mistake. Fla. R. Civ. P. l .540(b).
Exhibit "A"
This matter was entered well within the statuary guidelines jmposed by Fla. R. Civ. P.
l .540(b), and, as such, this Court has the power by which to cancel and/or postpone the sale.
Should it please the Court, Defendants are prepared to deposit with the Clerk of the Court a
nominal bond pending further redress, which Defendants r.emitted to the Court on a rehearing of
the matter.
PY
There is a body of law applying rule l .540(b) as a basis for cancelling and/or stopping a
O
foreclosure sale. See Virgo 'R Nat'l City Mortg. Co., 115 So. 3d 1072, 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA2013)
C
(analyzing an objection to sale pursuant to rule l.540(b)); see also Chase Home Loans, LLC v.
Sosa, 104 So. 3d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA2012);Am. Nat'! Bank v. Lau, 268 So. 2d 567,568
ED
(Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
Defendants cont~nd a11d construe this motion to be an objection to the foreclosure sale
FI
which is being made within ten days of the sale; as required by section 45.031(5), Florida
TI
Statutes (2013). Notl':lbly, 1he sale is scheduled for August 10, 2017, and absentjudicial
ER
intervention, will.take place.
Defendants further contend that, despite multiple requests for a payoff figt1re on the loan
C
obligations, have yet to be provided with such documentation, further necessitating this Motion
A
be granted, as :Plaintiff's counsel has not been Willing to even provide a payoff amount, which
T
Defendants are prepared to post as a bond. Defendants allege that Plaintiff, and Counsel for
O
Plaintiff, are delib~rately, willfully, and maliciously, failing to provide this payoff amount due to
N
the allegation that said amount provided in the payoff request wo,uld vastly contradict Plaintiff's
Con:1plaint, as well as the. alleged amount Plaintiff claims Defendants owe.
I
As such, Defendants pray for an order canceling and/or postponing the August I 0, 2017
sale until either Plaintiff provides an accurate payoff statement, or the amended rehearing request
and motion for reconsideration can be heard.
As noted, Defendants are prepared to post a bond, should it please the Court, to prevent a
manifest injustice to Defendants.
PY
Respectfully Submitted,
O
Date: August 7, 2017
Boca Raton, FL
C
=--
ED
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, Pro Se
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, Pro Se
360 E. COCONUT PALM DRIVE
BOCA RA TON, FL 33432
FI
larry(@sacapitalpartners.com
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
3
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Henry H. Bolz III, 121 Majorca
Ave. #200. Coral Gables, FL 33134, by mail this J1h day of August 2017.
PY
Laurence Schneider, pro se
O
C
ED
FI
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
4

Gables, LLC,
PY
Plaintiff
O
Vs.
C
ED
SCHNEIDER, et. Al.
Defendants
FI
TI
[PROPOSED] ORDER
ER
THIS MATTER having come before the Court for review on Defendants' Emergency
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order cancelling and/or postponing the foreclosure sale
C
scheduled for August I 0, 2017, and based upon the review of Defendants' Motion, and the Court
A
being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Defendants' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order cancelling and/or postponing the
T
O
foreclosure sale scheduled for August I 0, 20 I 7 is GRANTED

N
DONE AND ORDERED, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this_
day of August 2017.
Hon. Susan Lubitz

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FORECLOSURE DIVISION AW
CASE NO.50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB
FIRST AMERICAN BANK,
Plaintiff/Petitioner
vs.
LAURENCE S SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER,
PY
JEFFREY MARC HERMAN,
et al.,
Defendant/Respondents.
O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
C
ORDER ON DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER'S MOTION FOR STAY OF
FORECLOSURE SALE PENDING APPEAL
ED
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Prose Defendant's Laurence and Stephanie L
Schneider's " Emergency Request for a Temporary Restraining Order." The Court will treat this
FI
as a Motion for Stay of the Foreclosures Sale, pending the appeal filed by the Def~ndant in
TI
which they seek an appellate review of the Amended Final Judgment entered on June 30, 2017.
At present, the foreclosure sale of the Defendant real property is scheduled for August
ER
10, 2017. That sale is cancelled and reset for Sept 12, 2017 at 10:00am at
www.mypalmbeachclerk.clerkauction.com.
C
Prior to that date on Friday, September 1, 2017 at 1:30 p.m(l hour reserved) in Courtroom
A
lOA, the Court will conduct a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay the Foreclosure Sales. At
that time the Court will hear arguments as to whether the action should be stayed pending
T
appellate review. If so, the Comt will take evidence as to whether the stay should be
O
conditioned on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, or other conditions , and what the
N
amom1t of that bond should be.
Exhibit "B"
Page 1 of2
Case No.50-2016-CA-O, -92-XXXX-MB
DONE AND ORDERED, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 8th day
of August, 2017.
50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB 08/08/2017
James T. Ferrara
Cir01it Judge
PY
COPIES TO:
O
HENRYH.BOLZ 121 MAJORCA AVE HBOLZ@KELLERBOLZ.C O
SUITE200 M
C
CORAL GABLES, FL33134 ahart@ke llerbo lz .com
JAYS. LEVIN 6111 BROKEN SOUND jlevin@s sc lawfin11.co m
ED
PKWYNW foreclosures@ssclawfinn.c om
#200 jaylevin.esq@grnail.com
BOCA RATON, FL33487
FI
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER 360 EAST COCONUT PALM LARRY@SACAPITALPAR T
ROAD NERS.COM
BOCA RATON, FL33432
TI
STEPHANIE L. 360 EAST COCONUT PALM LARRY@SACAPITALPAR T

SCHNEIDER ROAD NERS.COM
ER
BOCA RATON, FL 33432

C
A
T
O
N
Page 2 of2
CFN 20170234535
OR BK 29187 PG 1515
RECORDED 06/28/201716:31:38
Palm Beach County, Florida
AMT
Sharon R. Bock
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLERK & COMPTROLLER
THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Pgs 1515- 1518 ; (4 Pgs)
CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292
DIVISION AW
PY
Coral Gables, LLC,
O
Plaintiff,
C
V.
ED
--
0
FI
... Defendants.
00
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
TI
FINAL JUDGMENT
ER
THIS CAUSE came on before this Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by First American Bank which was heard by the Court at a 45-minute specially set
-o(/)
~
C
).>::i:
hearing on Monday, June 26, 2017, and the Court, having heard and consid~e<:f _,
C")cr,~ ~
~~~ Nz
A
argument from First American Bank, it is

c:n•
~::C::;:.J -.J r
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: £:gg ""tJ rn
T
< c:: ~ ::ic

CJ
1. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, and clg~t cg
O
..,,:::o c:>
,-::,:::: en
Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER and THE OAKS
N
AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
2. Amounts Due. Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, 2295 Galiano Street, Coral
Gables, Florida 33134, is due:
Principal ............................................................................................. $1,488,554.76
Exhibit "C"
CFN 20170234535
BOOK 29187 PAGE 1516
20F4
Interest from March 16, 2016 to date of this Judgment ..... .. .. .... ........ $69,646.52
Florida Ad Valorem/real property taxes for 2014, 2015 and 2016 ..... $66,870.93
Total .................................................................................................. $1,625,072.21
That shall bear interest at the rate of 5.05% per year.
3. Lien of Property. Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, holds a lien for the total
PY
sum superior to all claims or estates of Defendants, on the following described property
O
in Palm Beach County, Florida:
C
"Lot 37 of the Fox Hill Estates of Boca Raton, according to the Plat thereof,
as recorded in Plat Book 87, Page 4, of the Public Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida."
ED
Commonly known as 17685 Circle Pond Court, Boca Raton, Florida 33496-1002
FI
("Property").
4. Sale of Property. If the total sum with interest at the rate described in Paragraph
TI
2 and all costs accrued subsequent to this Judgment are not paid, the Clerk of this Court
ER
shall sell the Property at public sale on a.......c ~ \D Q_C\1, to the highest bidder for
~ I
cash, except as prescribed in Paragraph 5, at the Courthouse located at 205 N. Dixie

C
Highway in Palm Beach County in West Palm Beach, Florida, in accordance with section
A
45.031, Florida Statutes (2013), using the following method: By electronic sale beginning
T
at\O',ttt>fl'fw\, at the prescribed date at https://mypalmbeachclerk.clerkauction.com.

O
5. Costs. Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, shall advance all subsequent costs of
N
this action and shall be reimbursed for them by the Clerk if Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN
BANK, is not the purchaser of the Property for sale, provided that the purchaser of the
Property for sale shall be responsible for the documentary stamps payable on the
certificate of title. If Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, is the purchaser, the Clerk shall
Page 2 of 4
CFN 20170234535
3 OF4
credit Plaintiff's bid with the total sum with interest and costs accruing subsequent to this
Judgment, or such part of it as is necessary to pay the bid in full.
6. Distribution of Proceeds. On filing the certificate of title the Clerk shall distribute
the proceeds of the sale, so far as they are sufficient, by paying: first, all of Plaintiff's
costs; second, documentary stamps affixed to the certificate; third, Plaintiff's attorneys'
PY
fees; fourth, the total sum due to plaintiff, less the items paid, plus interest at the rate
O
prescribed in Paragraph 2 from this date to the date of the sale; and by retaining any
C
remaining amount pending further order of this Court.
7. Right of Redemption/Right of Possession. On filing the certificate of sale,
ED
Defendants and all persons claiming under or against Defendants since the filing of the
FI
Notice of Lis Pendens shall be foreclosed of all estate or claim in the Property and
Defendants' right of redemption as prescribed by section 45.0315, Florida Statutes (2013)

TI
shall be terminated, except as to claims or rights under chapter 718 or chapter 720,
ER
Florida Statutes, if any. Upon the filing of the certificate of title, the persona named on
the certificate of title shall be let into possession of the Property.

C
8. Attorneys' Fees. The Court finds that Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, is
A
entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with
T
this action. The Court will retain jurisdiction to determine the total amounts of attorneys'
O
fees, costs and expenses to which Plaintiff is entitled.

N
9. Jurisdiction Retained. Jurisdiction of this action is retained to enter further
orders that are proper including, without limitation, a deficiency judgment.
IF THIS PROPERTY IS SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION, THERE MAY BE
ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THE SALE AFTER PAYMENT OF PERSONS WHO ARE
Page 3 of 4
CFN 20170234535
40F4
ENTITLED TO BE PAID FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS PURSUANT TO THE FINAL
JUDGMENT.
IF YOU ARE A SUBORDINATE LIENHOLDER CLAIMING A RIGHT TO FUNDS
REMAINING AFTER THE SALE, YOU MUST FILE A CLAIM WITH THE CLERK NO
LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE SALE. IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A CLAIM, YOU WILL
NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REMAINING FUNDS.
PY
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Palm Beach County, Florida on this 'l...~
dayof~ 2017.
O
I
C
Circuit Court J~e
Copies furnished to:
ED
FI
Henry H. Bolz, Ill, Esq.
Keller & Bolz, LLP
Attorneys for First American Bank
TI

ER
Laurence S. Schneider
360 E Coconut Palm Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
C
Stephanie L. Schneider
A
Jay S. Levin, Esq.

T
Sachs, Sax, Caplan

Attorneys for The Oaks at Boca Raton Property Owners' Association, Inc.
O
6111 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., #200,

N
Page 4 of 4
I hereby certify the foregoing is a true copy of the record in my office

with redactions, if any as required by law as of this day, Jul 27, 2017.
Share R. B k, Cle and Oom roller, Palm Beach County, Florida
"-
BY _:z:::::~::::::::::::~~~:::::::::i.:~~~:l:::::::,...- Deputy Clerk
J) , CFN 20170244727
OR BK 29205 PG 1606
/ Filing# 58504652 E-Filed 06/30/2017 02:13:33 PM RECORDED 07/10/2017 10:32:15
Palm Beach County, Florida
AMT
Sharon R. Bock
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLERK & COMPTROLLER
1606 1607 2
THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Pgs - : ( Pgs)
CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292
DIVISION AW
PY
Coral Gables, LLC,
O
Plaintiff,
C
V.
ED
Defendants.
FI
------- ------- --''
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
TI
THIS CAUSE came before this Court on June 26, 2017 upon Plaintiff's, FIRST
ER
AMERICAN BANK, Motion for Summary Judgment (bearing a Certificate of Service dated
May 25, 2017) and the Court having ·granted the aforementioned Motion,
C
IT IS ADJUDGED that:
A
1. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, and against

T
Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER.

O
2. Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, 2295 GaHano Street, Coral Gables, Florida
N
33134, recover from Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, 360 E Coconut Palm Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432, Social Security No. , the sum of $1,625,072.21,
which shall bear interest at the rate of5.05% per year, for which let execution issue.
Exhibit "D"
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 06/30/2017 02:13:33 PM
CFN 20170244727
20F2
3. The Court finds that Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, is entitled to reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with this action. The Court
will retain jurisdiction to determine the total amounts of attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses to which Plaintiff is entitled.
ORDERED in Chambers.in Palm Beach County, Florida on this .so day of_ _
PY
~l<k:iw!- t 2017.
O
Copies furnished to:
C
Henry H. Bolz, Ill, Esq.
ED
Keller & Bolz, LLP
Attorneys for First American Bank
FI
Laurence S. Schneider
TI
Stephanie L. Schneider
ER

Jay S. Levin, Esq.

C
Sachs, Sax, Caplan

Attorneys for The Oaks at Boca Raton Property Owners' Association, Inc.
6111 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., #200,
A

T
O
N
Page 2 of 2
I hereby certify the foregoing is a true copy of the record in my office

with redactions, if any as required by law as of this day, Jul 27, 2017.
Shar f. B,Rc,k, ~~rk aJ)d Co ptroller, Palm Beach County, Florida
BY .. ' · ~ ~ " " ' t : · Deputy Clerk
Filin g# 58879716 E-Filed 07/L ... 017 09:14:52 PM
IN THE CIRC UIT COU RT OF

THE FIFT EENT H JUDI CIAL CIRC UIT
.IN AND FOR PALM BEAC H COU NTY, FLOR IDA
FIRS T AME RICA N BANK , as Case No.: 50-2016-CA-009292

succe ssor by merg er to Bank of Coral
Gable s, LLC, . DEFE NDAN TS' MOT ION FOR
PY
REHEARING AND TO VACATE
Plain tiff JUDG MEN T
O
Vs.
C
LAUR ENCE SCHN EIDE R, STEPHANIE.L.
ED
SCHN EIDE R, et. Al.
Defendants
FI
TI
COM ES NOW Defendants Laurenc.e Schneider and Stepha

rrie L Schneider, appearing
ER
Pro Se in the above captioned case, and hereby file thi.s motion for
rehearing and. to vacate the
judgm ent entered in this matter. Defendants bring this motion,
pursua11t to Fla. R. Civ. P. Rules
C
l .530(a) and l.540( b) and in support would state the following

unto the Court :
A
1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l .540(a) provides: "A new

trial may be granted to all or any
T
of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. On a motion for

a rehearing of matters heard
O
\¾ithout a jury, including summary judgments, the court may

open the judgm ent if one has
N
been entered, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgm

ent"
2. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.540(b) provides in pertin
ent part: "On motion and upon
such terms as are just, the court may relieve a paity or a party'
s legal representative from a
final judgment; decree, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons ... (3) Fraud (whether
Exhibit "E"
heretofore denominated intrinsic or exiTinsic), misrepresentation
, or other misconduct of an
adverse party; (4} that the judgm ent or decree is void. This rule
does not limit the power of a
court to entertain an indep enden t action to relieve a pru1y from
a judgm ent, decree, order, or
proceeding.or to set aside ajudg ment or decree for fraud upon
the court."
3. Defendants allege that the judgm ent is void, due to the multip
le triable issues in this matter,
PY
and, notwithstanding Defen dants' previous submissions in oppos
ition, judgm ent was entered
in favor of Plaintiff.
O
4. c,If a judgm ent is 'void' then under rule 1.540(b) it can be attack
C
ed at any time, butif it is
only 'voida ble' then it must be attacked within a year of
entry of the judgment." Condo.
ED
Ass!n of La lvfer Estates, Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
, 137 So. 3d 396, 398 (Fla.
4th DCA2 014).
FI
5. In the instru1t case, Defendru1ts are bringing this Motion within
the allotted time.
TI
6. Florid a courts have long drawn a distinction between a

''void " judgm ent and a "voidable"
ER
judgm ent. A void judgm ent is one entered i:i1 the absen ce of
the court's jurisdiction over the
subject matte r or the person. See, e.g., Sterling Factors C01p.
v. US. Bc:mk Nat'l Ass'n, 968
C
So. 2d 658, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Paliner v. Palmer, 479

So. 2d 221,2 21 (Fla. 5th DCA
A
1985). Miller v. Preejer, I So. 3d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
.
7. "In contrast, a voidable judgm ent is a judgm ent that has
T
been entered based upon some error

O
in proce dure that allows a party to have the judgm ent vacate
d, but the judgm ent has legal
N
force and effect unless ru1d until it is vacated." Zitani v. Reed,

992 So. 2d 403, 409 (Fla. 2d
DCA2 008) (citing Sterling Factors, 968 So. 2d at 665)).
8. While a borrower is allowed to object to a foreclosure

sale under section 45.031, Florida
Statutes (2013), "the substance of an objection to a foreclosure
sale under sectio n 45.031(5)
2
must be directed toward condu ct that occurred at, or which related
to, the foreclosure sale
itself." IndyMac Fed Bank FSB v. Hagan, 104 So. 3d 1232, 1236
(Fla. 3d DCA 2012); see
also In4ian River Farms ,~ YBF Partners, 777 So. 2d 1096, l 098 (Fla.
4th DCA 2001 ).
Defendants, by way of this Motion, which is to be constrned as
an objection, has met this
burden.
PY
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that this Honorable Court Grant
Defen dants' motion for
rehear ing and to vacate the judgm ent. Defen dants further request a
O
hearing on the matter, and for
any other such relief as may be afforded at this time.
C
ED
Respe ctfully Submi tted this _l_l Day of July20 17
FI
.:;;z;:m,
TI
LAUR ENCE S. SCHNEIDER, Pro Se.

360 E. COCO NUT PALM DRNE
ER
Iarry@sacapita1partners.com
C
A
T
O
N
3
IN Tl-IE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL cm.CU IT
TN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
FORECLOSURE DIVISION AW
CASE NO.50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB
Plaintiff/Petitioner
vs.
LAURENCE S SCHNEIDER,
PY
JEFFREY MARC I·:lERMAN,
et al.,
Defendant/Respondents.
O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
C
l\'lOTION FOR REHEARING AND TO VACATE JUDGMENT
ED
THIS MATTER, having come before the Cowt for revie\v on Defendants' Motion for
Rehearing and to Va~ate Jµdginent. Based upon the review of on Defend1ints' Motion and the
Cmut being othetwise fully advised in the premises, it is,
FI
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:o n Defendants' Motion for Rehearing and to Vacate
Judgment is GRANTED/~
TI
ER
C
DONE AND ORDERED, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this _l_i_
day of July, 2017.
A
T
O
N
Exhibit "F"
Page 1 of 2
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
2 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 CASE NO: 50-2016 CA 009292
5 FIRST AMERICAN BANK,
6 Plaintiff.
PY
7 vs.
8 LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, ET AL.,
O
9 Defendants.
C
10 ___________________/
ED
11 Proceedings had and taken place before the
12 Honorable THOMAS BARKDULL, one of the Judges of

FI
13 said Court, at Palm Beach Courthouse, 205 North
14 Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,on

TI
15 Tuesday, the 28th day of March, 2017, commencing

ER
16 at the hour of 1:15 p.m., and being a Hearing.
17
C
18
19
A
20
T
21
O
22
N
23
24
25
JULIO A. MOCEGA & ASSOCIATES (305) 374-0181
Exhibit "G"
1 APPEARANCES:
2 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff:
3 KELLER BOLZ, LLP

121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 200
4 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
305-529-8500
5 Jkeller@kellerbolz.com
BY: HENRY H. BOLZ III, ESQUIRE
PY
6
Appearing on behalf of the Defendant:
7
KENNETH ERIC TRENT, P.A.
O
8 831 E Oakland Park Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334-2752
9 954-567-5877
C
Trentlawoffice@yahoo.com
10 BY: KENNETH E. TRENT, ESQUIRE
ED
11
12
FI
13
14
TI
15
ER
16
17
C
18
19
A
20
T
21
O
22
N
23
24
25

13
1 originals or --
2 THE COURT: No. If he testifies he has them,
3 I don't want to accept them because we're not at
4 the conclusion of the case, but as long as he has
PY
5 them, I'll accept that.
6 BY MR. BOLZ:
O
7 Q I'd like to briefly talk about payments and
C
8 some defaults that have occurred, at least been
ED
9 alleged, and ask you to testify about those.
10 From the bank's records, when did Mr.

FI
11 Schneider and his wife miss making their monthly
12 payments under the HELOC?

TI
13 A May of '16.
14 MR. TRENT: Your Honor, I would just object

ER
15 to this question on relevance grounds. It's not
16 we're not here -- there's no question but that

C
17 there has been a cessation in payments and that

A
18 the balloon payment has not been made, which
Doesn't mean we don't

T
19 purports to be required.
O
20 have defenses, but it is true, and we wouldn't
21 quibble with the plaintiff's characterization with

N
22 regard to the last payment made.
23 THE COURT: Well, and I appreciate, Mr.
24 Trent, you making that point; however, he does
25 need to make a showing, though, that there is a

14
1 fairly good chance that they're going to prevail
2 in the case, and I think what he's trying to
3 demonstrate, basically, is the basis for the
4 foreclosure action and get some testimony from the
PY
5 president. If you are willing to stipulate that
6 -- I'm looking for the precise wording that is
O
7 necessary -- that --
C
8 MR. BOLZ: Your Honor, if I may, essentially,
ED
9 no payments have been made after April of 2016.
10 THE COURT: FI Okay.
11 MR. BOLZ: And I -- you know, Mr. Eggland
12 will testify that there have been no monthly

TI
13 payments made, that the balloon payment, the
ten-year anniversary payment, was missed and that

ER
14
15 no funds at all have been paid by Mr. Schneider to
16 First American Bank since April of 1916.

C
17 THE COURT: Mr. Trent, can you stipulate to

A
18 that fact?
T
19 MR. TRENT: Yes, albeit with the caveat that

O
20 it's 2016, not 1916.
21 THE COURT: That would be the oldest case in

N
22 this division, but okay. We have a stipulation
23 with regards to what the status is of the
24 payments. So --
25 MR. BOLZ: Okay. If we may then, Your Honor,

15
1 let's -- Mr. Eggland
2 THE COURT: Why don't we get to the portions
3 about what payments have not been made to the
4 homeowners' association and to the taxes, because
PY
5 I know that was kind of the gist of your argument.
6 MR. BOLZ: Okay. Again, we'll go to the
O
7 taxes first.
C
8 THE COURT: Okay.
ED
9 BY MR. BOLZ:
10 Q Mr. Eggland, did Mr. Schneider pay the

FI
11 property taxes for the property that's being foreclosed
12 for the years 2014, 2015, or 2016?

TI
13 A No.
ER
14 Q He has not?
15 A No.
16 All right. Were those tax -- property taxes

C
17 paid?
A
18 A Yes.
T
19 Q Who paid them?

O
20 A First American Bank.
21 And what was the -- do you know what the

N
22 total of those payments were?
23 A It's around $60,000.
24 Q All right, sir.
25 MR. BOLZ: Your Honor, I'd just like to --

16
1 might as well get the numbers correct.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. BOLZ: It was for 2016, the calendar year
4 that the amount was $20,722.76.
PY
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. BOLZ: And for the years 2014 and 2015,
O
7 the bank paid 46
C
8 MR. TREN~: Your Honor, I don't know that the
ED
9 exact numbers are relevant. I mean, they didn't
10 pay for those

FI
11 MR. BOLZ: There's essentially $20,000 --
12 THE COURT: I think -- I think we're working

TI
13 on a stipulation that three years of taxes --

ER
14 MR. BOLZ: Right. And they were $20,000 a
15 year. But they were in arrears, so that's why we

C
16 had to pay.
17 THE COURT: Okay.

A
18 MR. BOLZ: Like $25,000 for the two years,

T
19 and then 20 for the third. So it's a total of

O
20 about 65 or 66 thousand dollars. Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on to the

N
21
22 issue of homeowners' association assessments.
23 Unless, Mr. Trent, you can stipulate that those
24 have not been paid for a while, but I don't want
25 to force you into anything.

17
1 MR. TRENT: Okay. I believe if I could just
2 ask my client.
3 THE COURT: Sure.
4 MR. TRENT: Mr. Schneider would stipulate
PY
5 without being exact that he hasn't paid the
6 association payments for several months and same
O
7 thing, I guess, albeit maybe a bit late, he's
C
8 telling me that the date of the last payment is
ED
9 not correct on the mortgage payments. But,
10 nonetheless, it's still been several months, and

FI
11 there was a balloon payment that has not been
12 made, so we can continue to stipulate in that

TI
13 regard.
ER
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. BOLZ: If we could, Your Honor, I would
16 then -- opposing counsel -- the homeowners'

C
17 association has filed a claim for lien of

A
18 assessments. We now have $8,192.21. I cannot get

T
19 this document entered into evidence through Mr.

O
20 Eggland. I was planning on calling Mr. Schneider
21 and assume that he is aware of what his assessment

N
22 status is.
23 THE COURT: How is it that Mr. Eggland's
24 going to be able -- going to have the capability
25 of introducing the document that you

25
1 LAURENCE SCHNEIDER
2 Having been first duly sworn and responding,
3 "I do," was examined and testified as follows:
4 THE COURT: All right.
PY
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. BOLZ:
O
7 Q All right. Would you please state your full
C
8 name for the record, sir?
ED
9 A Laurence Scott Schneider.
10 Q I would like to -- let me ask you a question.

FI
11 Do you know whether the property tax on the property
12 being foreclosed is the property insurance current

TI
13 and up to date?
ER
14 MR. TRENT: Objection. We've already
15 stipulated that the property tax has not been
16 paid.
C
17 MR. BOLZ: No, not property tax, I'm sorry.

A
18 Property insurance.
T
19 MR. TRENT: Okay. I stand corrected.

O
20 Proceed, Counsel.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't believe that --

N
22 actually, I take that back. I believe I do have
23 the blanket policy. I know for sure it was
24 active, at least through the end of last year;
25 it's with PURE AIG, if it's still in place. But

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Coral Gables, LLC, Case No. 50-2016-CA-009292
Division AW
Plaintiff,
v.
PY
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER ,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER ,
O
UNKNOWN TENANT #1, UNKNOWN
C
TENANT #2 and THE OAKS AT BOCA
RATON PROPERTY
OVlNERS' ASSOCIATIO N, INC.,
ED
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
FI
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
FIRST AlvIERICAN BANK'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TI
ER
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
L Defendants objects to each interrogatory: (1) insofar as it seeks information not

C
in Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control; (2) insofar as it seeks information which is

A
publicly available or otherwise equally available and/or uniquely or equally available
from third patties

T
O
2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek infonnation
N
that may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client or other privileges, or the
work product doctrine.
3. By responding to the Inten-ogatories, Defendant does not adopt the definitions
given within, or concede that the documents demanded are relevant to the subject
Exhibit "H"
matter of the lawsuit or the claims and defenses, nor do they concede that the requests
are proportional to the needs of the case, the resources of the parties or take into
account the relative access of the pmiies to relevant infonnation.
4. All responses submitted herein are based on the information now known to
Plaintif f and belief of Defendants at this stage of discovery without waiving any
PY
further objections to, or admitting the relevancy or materiality of, any of the
infonnation requested and are provided subject to such infonnation as may be recalled
O
or produced in the future. Defendants reserve the right to revise or amend their
C
responses as more infonna tion becomes known.
ED
Interrogatories
FI
TI
I. Who owns the Property which is subject matter of this foreclosure?

ER
ANSWER: Laurence S. Schneider.

C
2. Please explain all facts (and identify all documents) that support LAURENCE S.
A
SCHNE IDER's contention that non-payment or late payment by LAURENCE S. SCHNE

IDER
does not constitute a default under Florida law (as is alleged in Paragraph 14 of the
T
Answer
O
(Exhibit "C")).
N
Objection. This inte1rngatory calls for a legal conclusion by a layman. This interrogatory
is
overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Moreover, Defendant objects in that the request calls
for all facts and identification of all documents which Plaintiff cannot reasonably comply with
at this stage as discovery is ongoing.

ANSWER : Without waiving that objection, First American Bank implemented flawed
boarding of my loan that resulted in a series of errors such as sending any and all documents
to the wrong address until about June 2015. I did not receive statements all these months and
am sure that mail was lost and others got to me months later. The letter of June 5, 2015 from
the bank admits the clerical error. First American also continuously misapplied payments since
PY
taking over the servicing of the loan from Coral Gables· Bank. First American changed the
payment due date requirements consistently charging late fees before the actual payment due
O
date, added late fees and misapplied payments towards these late charges instead of being
C
applied to interest. First American had a botched system and didn't correct it. I repo1ted each
ED
mistake to First American and each correction was only to con-ect past data tape but not to the
erroneous calculation methodol ogy made for every single monthly statement despite scores of
FI
written and oral notices that the statements were wrong. First American acknowledged fixing
TI
the data mistake but did not fix the calculations so the errors kept getting creating monthly.
ER
All my payments were to interest and none should have been applied to principal. First
American misapplied all my payments received in a continuous reckless manner. First

C
American erroneous ly stated payments were Jate when they were not so, misapplied monthly
A
payments of interest towards reduction of principal, never responded appropriately in writing
showing the calculations for how the interest, costs and application of payments to principal
T
was being made in response to my questions regarding the misapplication of payments. No

O
one at the customer service telephone number was able to provide the actual calculations for
N
how the payments were being applied or detennine the actual status of my account.
Neither I nor Coral Gables Bank anticipated that the bank or a successor/assignee would
itself systemati cally misapply payments, change terms, flawed boarding of my loan, flawed
system of records and inability of its employees to understand and remediate First American
Bank's own problem creating an image of me as a bad lending Iisk when the errors were not
mine and I had not breached. First Ameiican has never repo1ted me as timely on my payments
since they merged with Coral Gables Bank. The documents currently identified include the
credit agreement, each and every monthly statement and account histories as well as all the
letters and co1Tespondence to and from First American Bartle and others evidence the wrong.
PY
Most if not all the documents are in Plaintiffs possession already as they originated from
O
Plaintiff, some of the ones received and then archived by Defendant are produced in the
C
response to Plaintiff's Request for Production.
ED
3. Identify all facts (and identify all documents) that support LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's
FI
contention that he is excused from making all payments due under the Credit Agreement (Exhibit
"A") and/or Mortgage (Exhibit "B") (as is alleged in Paragraph 14 of the Answer (Exhibit "C")).
TI
Objection. This inten-ogatory calls for a legal conclusion by a layman. The interrogatory is
ER
also overly broad, and unduly burdensome in that the request calls also for all facts and
identification of all documents which Plaintiff cannot reasonably comply with at this stage as
C
discovery is ongoing.
A
ANSWER: Without waiving that objection, I made all the interest payments due every month
T
and First American continuously misapplied my payments and contended 1 was late. First
O
American Bank defectively boarded the Coral Gables Bank HELOC, failed to send statements
N
to the correct address, incorporated flawed processes that misapplied payments, changed the
due dates on payments, added additional costs and expenses not explained and in excess of the
loan amounts, and chronically continued misapplication of payments and en-oneously stating
I was late even after notification to stop. First American Bank unilaterally changed payment
due dates on more than one occasion. First American Bank unilaterally changed the calculation
and amounts of costs and payments due on more than one occasion. First American Bank
included in amounts due fees and costs that are not delineated in the contract and were not
agreed upon. First American Bank implemented flawed boarding of my loan, implemented
PY
inadequate processes and systems that caused inaccurate payment amounts due calculations,
inaccurate and/or unfair changing payment due dates, inaccurate and/or unfair costs and fees,
O
inaccurate postings of payments to principle and interest, and First American was unable or
C
unwilling to correct their systematic errors in the boarding of my loan, the servicing, and
ED
therefore contractual obligations. I have not received an accurate statement since the transfer
of the loan. First American Bank did not act in good faith in continuing the flawed procedures,
FI
failing to stop inaccurate processing, and persisting in creating statements showing me as
TI
late/delinquent. The documents currently available include statements and account histo1ies
ER
as well as letters and correspondence to and from First Ame1ican Bank which are produced in
the response to Plaintiffs Request for Production including those of electronic correspondence
C
between Laurence Schneider and Brian Hagan and Henry Box throughout 2015 and early 2016
some which were also sent to Garry Smith, James Berton, Frederick M. Snow.
A
T
O
4. Identify all facts (and identify all documents) that support LAURENCE S. SCI-fNEIDER's
N
contention that his non-payment of Ad Valorem/real property taxes on the Property for 2014 and
2015 did not constitute a default under the Credit Agreement (Exhibit "N') and/or Mortgage
(Exhibit "B") (as is alleged in Paragraph 15 of the Answer (Exhibit "C")).

Objection. This interrogatory is argumentative, it calls for a legal conclusion by a layman as to
what is default. The interrogatory is also argumentative, vague and ambiguous because Defendant
made a denial to First American's entire pleading, and this interrogatory puts words into
Defendant's mouth not made. Specifically, Paragraph 15 of the Defendant's Answer was a denial
of Plaintiffs statement that 11 Defendant, Laurence S. Schneider defaulted under Credit Agreement
PY
and Mortgage by failing to pay the Florida Ad Valorem/real property taxes on the Property for
2014 and 2015, despite a demand made on him by FIRST AMERICAN BANK to pay those real
O
property taxes by no later than April 1, 2016." The inte1rngatory as asked differs materially from
C
the pleading that Defendant 'denied'.
ED
ANSWER: Without waiving objection to this interrogatory, I do not remembering receiving a
demand from First American Bank to pay the real estate property taxes no later than April I, 2016
FI
and in my answer I demanded that the Plaintiff present proof of its pleadings stating so and present
TI
proof that I was in default as a result. I did not pay the taxes before First American paid them.
ER
The credit agreement simply states that Coral Gables Bank could te1111inate my credit line account
and require me to pay the entire outstanding balance in one payment if my action adversely affected
C
the collateral or Coral Gables rights in the collateral. I believe that the collateral was not yet
A
adversely affected as I was in settlement negotiations, trying to do a short sale, fund any difference,
and have everything closed out quickly.

T
O
5. How did FIRST AMERICAN's alleged negligent conduct "substantially impair"

N
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's ability to make all payments due under the Credit Agreement
(Exhibit "A") and/or Mortgage (Exhibit "B") (as is alleged in Paragraph 14 of the Answer (Exhibit
"C"))?
OBJECTION: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as argumentative as there is a dispute
on what payments constituted 11 all payments due" under the Credit Agreement. Secondly,
Defendant object to this interrogatory as duplicative of interrogatories two (2) and three (3)
which Defendant has already answered.
ANSWER: Defendant would refer Plaintiff to answers to interrogatories 2 and 3 above. On
PY
numerous occasions willing to conect data mistakes but unwilling to correct improper
boarding and servicing e1rnrs and this created an innate impossibility for me to pay off the
O
balloon payment.
C
ED
6. Please set forth the complete factual basis (and identify documents) that support the
contention that FIRST AMERICAN's administration of the loan (Credit Agreement (Exhibit"A"))
FI
was "wrongful, grossly negligent and/or intentional and malicious" (as is alleged in Paragraph 14
TI
of the Answer (Exhibit "C")).

ER
OBJECTION: Defendant objects to this interrogatory in large pati as duplicative of
interrogatories two (2) and three (3) which Defendant has already answered. As such,
C
Defendant would refer Plaintiff to answers to interrogatories 2 and 3, 5 above.

A
ANSWER: Without waiving the objections, I would refer First American to the monthly
statements and the emails between myself and First American where I specifically write about
T
O
the crediting e1rnrs being made, the wrong application of moneys to principle and interest, the
N
changing of due dates, the failure to co1rnct the system en-ors so that there are no further
inaccurate postings and negative accountings, failure to withhold negative accounting dming
a qualified w1itten request.
Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit ''C")

7. Please identify with specificity each and every act of FIRST AMERICAN that you
contend constituted "inequitable conduct" (as is alleged in Paragraph 2 of the Af:fimiative
Defenses (Exhibit "C")). For each and every act of"inequitable conduct," state the person
or persons at FIRST AMERICAN who allegedly was/were involved, the date of each
alleged act of inequitable conduct and the identify by name and address any and all persons
PY
(not employed by FIRST AMERICAN) with knowledge of each act of alleged inequitable
conduct.
O
OBJECTION: The question is moot as the Affirmative Defense was stricken.
C
Overbroad and unduly burdensome.
ED
FI
8. What were the tem1S and the status of the "detailed settlement negotiations" that were
TI
allegedly being discussed between LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and FIRST AMERICAN at the
time of the filing of FIRST AMERICAN 's Verified Foreclosure Complaint (as is alleged in
ER
Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit "C"))?

C
OBJECTION. The question is moot as the Affirmative Defense was stricken.
ANSWER:
A
Without waiving the objection, detailed settlement negotiations consisted of
paperwork, electronic correspondence, and telephonic conforences between myself and Blian
T
T. Hagan during November 20 I 5 through June 2016 including fulfilling requests for my
O
finm1cial infonnation. The copies of the documents are produced in the responses to Requests
N
for Production. I was actually served the foreclosure notice while I was waiting to hear back
from Hagan.
9. Identify with specificity each and every monthly statement (or other document) on which
FIRST AMERICAN failed to accurately calculate the amount of LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's
monthly interest payment (as is alleged in Paragraph 2 of the Affinnative Defenses (Exhibit "C")).
OBJECTION: Discovery is ongoing and Defendant is unable at this time to asce1iain each and
every monthly statement involved.
PY
ANSWER: Without waiving said objection, Defendant refers Plaintiff to documents Defendant
has produced in the Plaintiffs First Request for Production that include emails, statements, and
O
written requests for corrections. I didn't start monthly statements until June 2015 and starting with
C
this statement, the payment application was erroneous.
ED
FI
10. How and when did FIRST AMERICAN fail to timely infonn LAURENCE S.
TI
SCHNEIDER of "the amount [he] would be required to pay each month" (as is alleged in
Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit "C"))?

ER
OBJECTION. This interrogatory is duplicative of interrogatory # 9. In addition, the

C
Affirmative Defense referred to was stricken therefore the question is moot.

A
1 l. How and when did FIRST AMERICAN fail to "disclose the calculations" giving rise to
T
"inflated and late-disclosed monthly charges" (as is alleged in Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative
O
Defens~s (Exhibit "C"))?

N
OBJECTION. Moot. Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defonses to which Plaintiff refers was
stricken. Without waiving the objection, First American has still not disclosed the specifics of
how it calculated the interest charged for every month nor why it was applied the way it did.
12. Identify with specificity each and every "inflated and late-disclosed monthly charge" that
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER contends was provided to him by FIRST AMERICAN (as is alleged
in Paragraph 2 of the Affinnative Defenses (Exhibit "C")).
PY
OBJECTION: Duplicative of interrogatory #9. Moot. Paragraph 2 of the Affinnative
O
Defenses to which Plaintiff refers was stricken.
C
ED
FI
TI
13. Who is/was the title/record av-mer of each of the "lien or liens" on real property that were
ER
aliegedly improperly released by FIRST AMERICAN (as is aHeged in Paragraph 2 of the
Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit "C"))?

C
OBJECTION: Moot. This Affirmative Defense was stricken and the question is not related to any
A
pending claim or defense. This question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
T
admissible evidence.
O
N
14. Who was the person or entity who applied for and received the "separate line of credit"
referred to in Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit "C")?
OBJECTION. Moot. This Affirmative Defense was stricken ·and the question is not related
to any pending claim or defense. This question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
PY
O
C
15. What is the name of the "corporate entity" in which LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER was "a
ED
substantial stakeholder" (as is alleged in Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit "C"))?
OBJECTION. Moot. This Affirmative Defense was stricken and the question is not related
FI
to any pending claim or defense. This question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
TI
discovery of admissible evidence.

ER
Counterclaim - Count 1 (Exhibit "C")

C
16. What "inaccurate infonnation" did FIRST AMERJCAN provide

A
"to the three major credit bureaus, about [LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER 's] creditworthiness" (as
is alleged in Paragraph 4, Count 1 of the Counterclaim (Exhibit "C"))?

T
OBJECTION. Moot. Defendant's Count 1 of the original Answer, Affimrntive Defenses and
O
Counterclaim was stricken.

N
17. On what date or dates did FIRST AMERICAN provide "inaccurate information" about
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's "creditworthiness" to "the three major credit bureaus (as is
alleged in Paragraph 4, Count 1 of the Counterclaim (Exhibit "C"))?
OBJECTION. Moot. Defendant's Count 1 of the original Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim was stricken.
PY
O
C
l 8. Identify with specificity each and every "business opportunit[y]" that LAURENCE S.
ED
SCHNEIDER lost as a result of FIRST AMERICAN's alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (as alleged in Paragraph 9, Count 1 of the Counterclaim (Exhibit "C"))?
FI
OBJECTION. Moot. Count 1 was stricken and the question is not related to any pending claim
TI
or defense. This question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
ER
C
A
19. Please set out with specificity exactly how FIRST AfvIERICAN's alleged violations of the
T
Fair Credh Reporting Act reduced LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's "probability of a recovery in

O
the tens of millions or more in one or more False Claims Act proceedings" in which LAURENCE
N
S. SCHNEIDER is involved (as alleged in Paragraph 9, Count l of the Counterclaim (Exl1ibit
"C"))?
OBJECTION. Moot. This was stricken and the question is not related to any pending claim or
defense. This question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
PY
20. How did FIRST AMERICAN's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act cause
O
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER to lose "available credit in the approximate amount of one million
C
dollars" (as alleged in Paragraph 9, Count 1 of the Counterclaim (Exhibit "C"))?
ED
OBJECTION. Moot. This was stricken and the question is not related to any pending claim or
defense. This question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
FI
evidence.
TI
ER
Counterclaim - Count 2 (Exhibit "C")

C
21. What were the specific "false statements of material fact" that LAURENCE S.
SCHNEIDER contends that FIRST AMERICAN allegedly made which it "knew or should have
A
known were false and of the sort likely to damage [LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER]" (as alleged in
T
Paragraph 12, Count 2 of the Counterclaim (Exhibit "C")) and identify by name, address and title
O
each person to whom those statements were made?

N
ANSWER: all statements FIRST AMERICAN has made that payments were late including
for example my October 2015 payment. As exemplary of this, FIRST AMERICAN falsely
stated that my payment due for October 2015 was $4,646.05 when it was not. FIRST
AMERICAN falsely claimed that my November 2015 payment due would be lower, despite
the fact that calculation of the amounts owed based on a 30 day billing cycle would result in a
larger amount due since the number of days in the November 2015 cycle were greater, FIRST
AMERIC AN falsely c1aimed on numerous additional occasions that I was late on payments
when I was not and billed late charges in advance of the payment due dates. FIRST
PY
AMERIC AN falsely claimed I was delinquent and falsely claimed to having sent me monthly
O
statements when it had not done so inc1uding statements not sent to the right address until July
C
2015. FIRST AMERIC AN falsely stated that my payment due for December 2015 and also
for January 2016. First American has incorrectly statement each and every single month since
ED
they merged with Coral Gables Bank that I have been late when I have not been late at all. I
paid every single payment of interest due in May, June and July 2016.
FI
TI
ER
22. Identify each and every "financial institution" that relied upon the infonnation FIRST
AMERIC AN furnished to credit bureaus about LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's account (as

C
alleged in Paragraphs J4 and 15, Count 2 of the Counterclaim (Exhibit "C"))?

A
ANSWER : BankUnited, American Express, and several private lenders.

T
O
N
I have read the foregoing Answers to Inten-ogatories and swear that they are true and
coITect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
PY
O
:ignature of Affiar / .'
C
/ _ a, U-rfo re )c b~ I c::~,-,
Print Name '
ED
Title
t=f
FI
STATEOF
: ss
COUNTY OF f?YO WWJ,
TI
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this:::;:> day of Af Y; J , J. /

ER
20
C
A
L
My Commission Expires:
T
SEAL
O
__ Personally known-OR- _.Produced Identification ~i:f.Ji.~ CAROUNE: IACINO

{~t~; MY COMMISSION# GG 77458
N
Type ofidentification Produced _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,_-_~?.9rm::,··· EXPIRES May 07, 2021

Filing# 51115002 E-Filed 01/1'.L,.,_,0l 7 03: 10:57 PM

CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292
DIVISION AW

PY
Coral Gables, LLC,
Plaintiff,
O
V.
C
ED
TENANT #2 and THE
FI
OAKS AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY
OWNERS' ASSOCIATIO N, INC.,
TI
Defendants.
_____ _____ ____,/
ER
Counter-Plaintiff,
C
V.
A

T
____ ____ ____ _/

Counter-Defendant.
O
FIRST AMERICAN'S FIRST

N
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, by and through its
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370 requests that Defendant,
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER , admit the truth about the following statements.
Composite Exhibit "I"

Instructions
A. Except as otherwise provided, each paragraph and subparagraph
constitutes a separate statement of fact and is to be admitted or denied separately.
Request for admissions concerning the genuineness of documents should be admitted or
denied for each individual document described in each paragraph or subparagraph in the
PY
request.
B. If in good faith you cannot admit the truth of the entire statement, but you
O
can admit the truth of part of the statement, you must specify which part(s) of the
C
statement are true and admit those parts.
ED
C. If you deny, or otherwise fail to admit the truth of a statement or part of a
statement, on the basis of your lack of information or knowledge concerning it, explain
FI
your response the reasonable inquiry that you have made concerning the matter and
TI
explain why the information known or readily obtainable by you is insufficient to enable
ER
you to admit or deny its truth.
D. Any denial of the truth of any of the statements must fairly meet the
C
substance of that statement. If in good faith you cannot admit the truth of a statement or
part of a statement, or deny the truth of a statement or part of a statement, but rather
A
believe you must admit or deny with a qualification, you must:

T
a. specify those parts of the statement which you admit as true,

O
b. specify those parts as to which your admission or denial is qualified along

N
with the nature of the qualification; and
c. specify which parts you deny.
Page 2 of 8
E. If you make any objection with respect to your response to all or part of any
statement, set forth that objection and state the reasons for the objection.
F. If you object based on a claim of privilege(s) with respect to all or part of
your response to any statement, you should provide:
a. the privilege(s) claimed, and
PY
b. a statement of the factual basis for the privilege.
G. If the claim of privilege is based on one or more allegedly confidential
O
communications, for each such communication specify the following information:
C
a. a brief description of the type and contents of each such communication,
ED
whether oral or written;
b. the name, occupation and position of the initiator of the communication;

FI
c. the name(s), occupation(s) and position(s) of each other person to whom
TI
the communication was furnished or who was made aware of its contents;
ER
and
d. the date of the communication and, if written, the number of pages in the
C
communication.
A
Definitions
A. The term "Credit Agreement" means the Credit Agreement between Bank
T
of Coral Gables and LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, dated July 28, 2006. A true and
O
correct copy of the Credit Agreement, dated July 28, 2006, is attached hereto as Exhibit
N
"A."
B. The term "Mortgage" means the Mortgage executed and delivered by
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER to Bank of Coral Gables,
Page 3 of 8
dated July 28, 2006. A true and correct copy of the Mortgage, dated July 28, 2006, is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
C. The term "Property" means the residential property located at 17685 Circle
Pond Court, Boca Raton, Florida 33496-1002, which is the subject matter of this
foreclosure.
PY
D. The term "Lease" means the Residential Lease for Single Home or Duplex
between LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and Jeff Herman (a/k/a Jeffrey Marc Herman). A
O
copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
C
E. The singular shall include the plural and vice versa; the terms "and" or "or"
ED
shall be both conjunctive and disjunctive; and the term "including" means including
without limitation.
FI
Requests for Admission
TI
Credit Agreement Payments
Admit that on May 1, 2016, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER failed to timely pay

ER
1.
the monthly interest payment due under the Credit Agreement (Exhibit "A").
C
2. Admit that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER failed to make any and all
subsequent monthly interest payments due after May 1, 2016, under the Credit
A
Agreement (Exhibit "A").

T
3. Admit that on July 28, 2016, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER failed to pay the
O
balloon payment due under the Credit Agreement (Exhibit "A").

N
Ad Valorem/Real Property Taxes
4. Admit that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and/or STEPHANIE L.
SCHNEIDER failed to pay the Property's Ad Valorem/Real Property Taxes for 2014.
Page 4 of 8
5. Admit that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and/or STEPHANIE L.
SCHNEIDER failed to pay the Property's Ad Valorem/Real Property Taxes for 2015.
Credit Agreement
6. Admit that FIRST AMERICAN is entitled to enforce the Credit Agreement
(Exhibit "A").
PY
Mortgage
7. Admit that FIRST AMERICAN is entitled to enforce the Mortgage (Exhibit
O
"8").
C
Lease
ED
8. Admit that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER handwrote the sentence on page 7
of the Lease (Exhibit "C") that states: "Tenant acknowledges that landlord's mortgage on
FI
subject property comes due on July 28, 2016."
TI
9. Admit that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER executed (by both signing and
initialing) page 7 of the Lease (Exhibit "C").

ER
Answer
(A copy of the SCHNEIDERS' Answer,
C
Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit "D.")
Admit that the "separate line-of-credit" referenced in Paragraph 14 of

A
10.
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and/or STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER's Answer (Exhibit "D")

T
was issued to S & A Capital Partners, Inc.

O
Second Affirmative Defense (Exhibit "D")

N
11. Admit that the record/title owner of the "lien or liens" referenced in
Paragraph 2 of LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and/or STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER's
Second Affirmative Defense (Exhibit "D") was S & A Capital Partners, Inc.
Page 5 of 8
12. Admit that the "separate line of credit" referenced in Paragraph 2 of
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and/or STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER's Second Affirmative
Defense (Exhibit "D") was issued to S & A Capital Partners, Inc.
13. Admit that S & A Capital Partners, Inc. physically delivered to the Bank of
Coral Gables (FIRST AMERICAN's predecessor in interest) the "lien or liens" referenced
PY
in Paragraph 2 of LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and/or STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER's
Second Affirmative Defense (Exhibit "D") as collateral for S&A Capital Partners, lnc.'s line
O
of credit.
C
14. Admit that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and FIRST AMERICAN were not
ED
"in the midst of detailed settlement negotiations" at the time that FIRST AMERICAN filed
its Verified Foreclosure Complaint against LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE

FI
L. SCHNEIDER.
TI
Counterclaim - Count 3 (Exhibit "D")
Admit that the owner of the "lien or liens" referenced in Paragraph 19 of

ER
15.
Count 3 of LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's Counterclaim (Exhibit "D") was S & A Capital

C
Partners, Inc.
16. Admit that the "separate line of credit" referenced in Paragraph 19 of Count
A
3 of LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's Counterclaim (Exhibit "D") was issued to S & A Capital

T
Partners, Inc.
O
17. Admit that the "corporate entity" referenced in Paragraph 19 of Count 3 of

N
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER's Counterclaim {Exhibit "D") is S & A Capital Partners, Inc.
Page 6 of 8
KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

Telephone: (305) 529-8500
Telefax: (305) 529-0228
PY
By: s/Henrv H. Bolz, Ill
O
Henry H. Bolz, Ill
C
ED
FI
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
Page 7 of 8
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, First
American's First Request for Admission to Laurence S. Schneider, was delivered to:
KENNETH ERIC TRENT, ESQ.(trentlawoffice@yahoo.com), Trent Law Office, Attorneys
for Laurence and Stephanie Schneider, 831 East Oakland Park Blvd., Fort Lauderdale,
PY
FL 33334; STUART S. MERMELSTEIN, ESQ. (smermelstein@hermanlaw.com,
mconnor@hermanlaw.com), Herman Law, Attorneys for Jeffrey Herman, 3351 NW Boca
O
Raton Blvd., Boca Raton, FL 33431; and JAY S. LEVIN, ESQ.
C
(foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com), Sachs, Sax, Caplan, Attorneys for Oaks at Boca Raton,
ED
6111 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., #200, Boca Raton, FL 33487 via the E-filing Portal
on this 12th day of January, 2017.

FI
TI
KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

ER
By: s/Henry H. Bolz. Ill

Henry H. Bolz, Ill
C
A
T
O
N
Page 8 of 8
. F'iling # 54581753 E-Filed 04/o/· 'O 17 09:59:58 PM
1N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN


Coral Gables, LLC, Case No. 50-20 I 6-CA-009292
Division AW
Plaintiff,
v.
PY
O
UNKNOWNTEN ANT#l, UNKNOWN
C
RA TON PROPERTY
OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ED
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
FI
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO FIRST AMERICAN'S
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
TI
COMES NOW, Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

ER
SCHNEIDER, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure 1.370 hereby respond and object to Plaintiffs, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, First
C
Request for Admissions from Plaintiffs'.

A
T
I. Denied. All monthly interest payments due under the Credit Agreement were all paid.
O
2. Denied. All subsequent monthly interest payments due after May 1, 2016 through the
N
end of the term under the Credit Agreement were paid.
3. Denied in that the balloon payment could not be properly_ calculated on July 28, 2016
because of misapplication of payments.

4. Admitted
5. Admitted.
6. Denied. First American has to substantiate their standing and then their application of
payments before they would be entitled to enforce the Credit Agreement.
7. Denied. First American has to substantiate their standing and then their application of
PY
payments before they would be entitled to enforce a mortgage pledged as security on the Credit
Agreement.
O
8. Admitted.
C
9. Objection: moot
ED
I 0. Objection: moot. Without waiving the objection the line of credit referred to by
Defendant's was entered into in 2008 and is the line of credit referred to by Plaintiff.
FI
1I. Objection: moot. Without waiving the objection the line of credit referred to by
TI
Defendant's was entered into in 2008 and is not the line of credit referred to by Plaintiff.
12. Objection: moot Without waiving the objection the line of credit referred to by
ER
C
A
14. Denied. In fact just days before I was served I had finalized sending over requested
T
disclosures to First American Bank as requested.

O
N
17. Objection: moot Without waiving the objection the line of credit referred to by Defendant's
was entered into in 2008 and is not the line of credit referred to by Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of April, 2017.
KENNETH ERIC TRENT

Attorney for L. and S. Schneider
831 East Oakland Park Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
PY
(954)567-5877; (954)567-5872 [fax]
O
By: _Isl Kenneth Eric Trent
Fla. Bar No. 693601
C
ED
Certificate of Service
FI
I hereby ce1tify that on this 3rd day of April, 2017 true and correct copies of the
foregoing were electronically served upon all counsel of record via the e-filing portal.
TI
KENNETH ERIC TRENT

Attorney for L. and S. Schneider
ER

(954)567-5877; (954)567-5872 (fax]
C
By: Isl Kenneth Eric Trent

A
Fla. Bar No. 69360 I

T
O
N
Filing# 47530061 E-Filed 10/12/2016 03: 15:20 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN

Coral Gables, LLC, Case No. 50-2016-CA-009292
Plaintiff,
V.
PY
O
RA TON PROPERTY
C
ED
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OF LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER IN
FI
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ASSIGNMENTS OF RENTS
TI
COMES NOW Defendant Laurence S. Schneider, by and through the undersigned
counsel, and provides notice to all concerned.of the filing of the attached affidavit in opposition.
ER
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of October, 2016.

C
KENNETH ERIC TRENT

Attorney for Defendants
A

(954)567-5877; (954)567-5872 [fax]
T
O

Fla. Bar No. 693601
N
Certificate. of Service
I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were electronically served
upon all counsel of record via thee-filing po11al on this 12th day of October, 2016.

Fla. Bar No. 693601
Exhibit "J"
fN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN

Coral Gables, LLC, Case No. 50-2016-CA-00929 2
Plaintiff,
PY
V.
LAURENCES. SCHNEIDER,
O
C
UNKNOWN TENANT #I, UNKNOWN
TENANT#2 and THE OAKS AT BOCA
RATON PROPERTY
ED
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
FI
AFFIDAVIT OF LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER IN OPPOSITION TO
TI
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ASSIGNMENTS OF RENTS
STATE OF FLORIDA
ER
COUNTY OF BROWARD
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Laurence S. Schneider, who,
C
upon being duly sworn, deposes and says:

A
1. I am the primary Defendant in the above-styled cause and I make this affidavit
upon my personal knowledge.

T
2. I am suffering from a number of severe financial exigencies which have

O
necessitated, among other things, placing my primary residence on the market. The financial
N
difficulties with which I and my family are presently confronted are largely attributable to the grossly
negligent and seemingly fraudulent actions ofthe Plaintiff herein, First American Bank. Such actions
are described, in part, in the correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by
reference.
3. Time constraint s do not permit a complete descriptio n of the bank's improper
and/or illegal actions and the series of negative consequen ces visited upon me as the result thereof.
4. However, one immediate ly pertinent con:;cquence of the bank's actions is the
l have terminateo his
PY
eviction of the reoant named as a De fondant herein: .Jeffrey Marc Herman.
tenancy in a mam1er consi;stent with Florida law. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the fi11eeo-day
O
notice and the associated certified mail receipts.
C
5. Due W the fact that 1 am forced to sd I my prii11al)' residence, I will be moving into
ED
the subject property as .soon. as possible.
FURHTER AFFTANT SA YETH NAUGHT.

FI
Laurt!nce S. Schneider
TI
Sworn to and suhsctibe d before me. the undersign ed authority, on this !._2_
day of October.
known to me. or who [] produced identificat ion
ER
2016 by Laurence S, Schneider who Gfis personally
C~~v' I~?---:
C
Notary Public, State of Florida

A
CAROLINE IACINO
MY COMMISSIO N #FF015539
EXPIRES M;ly 7, 201 7
,s-·,... 1 __ ;)_ 0 I 1
T
My commission expires: _ Ftond~NoturyS~rvico.com

O
N
2
N
O
T
A
C
ER
TI
FI E hibit 1
ED
C
O
PY
June 5,2015
PY
Mr. Laurence Schneider
360 E Coconur Palm Road
Boca Raton FL
O
RE: Acct Ending in -
C
Dear Mr. Schneider,
I hav.c received your 1-equcst ro not repon the delinquency the occurred on the above
ED
account in April of this year: lt appears that our billing address was not correct and your
payment was .late for this reason. Since this appeari; to be the result of a clerical error
during our recent merger with the Bank of Coral Gable~, we will continue report your to
account as paid as agreed.
FI
Today, we have asked the credit agencies to correct your credit file to satisfactory stams. It
may take up to 30 days for them to update your credit file, although it's usually much
quicker than that. For your convenience, l have included their contact information below.
TI
Experian Trans Union Equifax lnnovis

POBox 2002 PO Box 1000 PO Box 740241 PO Box 1358
ER
Allen, TX 75013 Chester PA 19022 Atfama, GA 30374 Columbus OH 43216

(888)397-3742 800)888-4213 (800)685-11 J l (800)540-2505
\~ ~-\ \\ ,\!'i!!_l;;\IJl i, '!k-:\!lll \\_II_\\ ,,11111:1\ l!.'Hl
.,
(//f'.J:· Ji~-
C
A
/ bz;i;h~r ~ndcrson
l/'V'(! Prcs.tdcnt
T
O
N
MEMBER FDIC 80 Slralford Drive, Bloomingdale. IL 60108,2219

Lar7 Schneider
From: Larry Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 7:48 PM
To: Brian T. Hagan (bhagan@firstambank.com)
Subject: FW: BankUnited-lst Fidelity Revolving LOC
Importance: High
Brian,
PY
between 1 Fidelity Loan Servicing and Bank
st
I want you to be aware that my banking relationship
rting of my HELOC by First American Bank. This
United has now been affected by the fraudulent repo
operating account but also a revolving line of
O
relationship with Bank United includes not only the
primary source of funding the RICO and False
credit which is the life line of the Company and the
wer retaliation to my entities by JPMorgan
C
Claim Cases against JPMorgan Chase, as the whistleblo
fering with the contractual relationships
Chase has significantly reduced my cash flow by inter
are owned by my entities. The Justice
between my entities and the borrowers whose loans
ED
have been relying on my continued litigation and ·
Department and numerous state attorney generals
when to intervene in the case, which is largely
progress in the FCA case· while it decides whether and
based on political factors.
FI
my HELOC by First American Bank, Bank United
However, due to the ongoing fraudulent reporting of
ly due to negative reporting on my personal
has suspended my business line of effective immediate
TI
other employees of First American Bank, over the

credit report. As I have advised you and numerous
dences, the bank is fraudulently misrepresenting
course of eight months, through scores of correspon
, this ongoing fraud and misrepresentation has
my payment history to the credit repositories. As such
ER
tal Partners regarding the Johnnie Washington

now caused harms to me individually, to S & A Capi st
1 Fidelity Loan Servicing revolving line of credit
fraudulent satisfaction, and the now the freezing of
to the United States Treasury, every tax payer
with Bank United. This is now causing indirect harm
mbia if I cannot fund the continuance of this
C
and the treasuries of 19 States and the District of Colu

litigation.
A
counsel for Bank United and with the Department

Our counsel has already corresponded with general
gence and potential criminal conduct in this
of Justice, concerning First American Banks gross negli
T
matter.
O
al and state regulatory agency, in addition to

In addition, we will be filing complaints with every feder
al court for the cease and desist of the banks'
the temporary injunction which we will be filing in feder
N
ulent misrepresentation in numerous these

fraud. I will expose the banks fraud and your fraud
litigations.
unications with you.
I have been instructed by counsel to cease all comm
Sincerely,
Larry Schneider
1
KELLER & BOL Z
Limited LlabDlly Pmnersl1ip
121 MAJORCA AVENUE TELEPHONE (305) 529-8500

JOHN W. KELLER, IJit· TELEPAX (305) 529-0228
HENRY H. BOLZ, III SUITE200
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134
WWW.KELLERBOLZ.COM
SHEYLAMESA
EMA.IL:hbolz@kellerbolz.com
*Board Certified in
Admiralty & Maritime Law
PY
Nove mber 30, 2015
VIA EMA IL and U.S. MAIL
O
C
Laurence Schn eider
360 East Coco nut Palm Road
ED
Re: First Amer ican Bank
A)
Octo ber 30, 2015 Email Directed to Brian Haga n (FCR
$1,50 0,000 .00 HELO C Loan -July 28, 2006
FI
Dear Mr. Schn eider :
TI
''). As you know, Bank

Keller & Bolz, LLP represents First American Bank ("FAB
in Dece mber 2014.
of Coral Gable s LLC merg ed into and became FAS
ER
This letter respo nds to that email which you sent

to Brian Hagan at 3:05 p.m. on
be viewe d as an attem pt by you to
Friday, Octob er 30, 2015. That email can arguably
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8) of the
dispute direc tly with FAB, in accordance with
t Reporting Act ("FCRA'1i information
Cons umer Cred it Protection Part of the Fair Credi
C
r this year.
that FAB provi ded to credi t reporting agencies earlie
an investigation and reviewed
A
In accor danc e with the FCRA, FAB has conducted

ct to the disputed late payment
that information in which you provided with respe
tigation, FAB communicated with all
information you identified. After completing its inves
T
advis ed them that all of your past

of the major /natio nal credi t reporting agencies and
you had been making all payments
due paym ent notice s have been reversed, and that
O
accor dance with 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. ·

as agreed. This letter is being timely sent to you in
N
mber 19, 2015 (4:37 p.m.

Your Nove mber 18, 2015 (7:48 p.m. EST) and Nove
on to "immediately remedlatlng the
EST) email s to Brian Hagan indicate that in additi
reporting errors" (done), FAB needs to "send any letters need ed to rectify the harms"
st ing Line of Credi t as having been
and identifies the Bank United-1 Fidelity revolv
Mr. Laurence Schneide r
November 30, 2015
Page 2
affected. Do you still want/need FAB to writ~ to Bank United (or might such a letter now
be unnecessary)? Please let me know.
All further requests for infonnation for documen ts in any fashion relate to any
PY
complaints or disputes that you might have pursuant to the FCRA should be addressed
to the undersign ed at the address on this correspondence.
O
C
ED
HHB/cp FI
cc: First American Bank
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
Larry Schneider
From: Larry Schneider

Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 5:53 PM
To: 'Henry Bolz'
(iberton@firstambank.com); Brian
Cc: Garry Smith (gsmith@firstambank.com); James Berton
Snow (fsnow@firstambank.com);
Hagan (bhagan@firstambank.com); Frederick M.
itman@chaitmanllp.com); Lance
Jennifer Walker; Jenn Foster; Helen Chaitman (hcha
Gotth offer (lgotthoffer@chaitmanllp.com)
Subject: RE: First American Bank HELOC Loan (FCRA)
PY
Hey folks,
ongoing and erroneous
came nt regarding obtaining financing due to the
Here we go again .... I am once again in a predi
O
the Bank of Coral
of qualit y contr ol since First American took over
servicing incompetency issues caused by the lack statem ents and falsely repor t my
you continuously send incorrect billing
Gables over a year ago. I finally figured out why take the time to
C
y at the bank would
. I still can't understand why nobod
account as delinq uent to the credi t repositories thirty (30) comm unica tions with
loan documents. This is despite over
investigate the account histor y and review the C accou nt as late, prior to a
bank regarding the repor ting my my HELO
numerous employees and mana geme nt of the
ED
paym ent actually being due.
are contin uing to falsely
th
with a payment due the follow ing mont h. You
My loan was origin ated on the 28 of a mont h st
late after the 1 of the mont h.
and repeatedly repor t my account as over 30 days
FI
reporting's
I was recently made aware .of these derog atory
TI
• January 9, 2016
nt as Not more than two payments past due (2).
FIRST AMERICAN BANK has flagged your accou
ER
Alert Date 1/9/2 016

Source EQUIFAX
Company FIRST AMERICAN BANK
PaymentStatus Not more than two payments past due. (2)
C
Status Date 1/1/2 016

Balance $1,498,138.00
Balance Date 12/1/ 2015
A
Address PO Box 794Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0794

T
• January 7, 2016
Alert Date 1/7/2 016
O
Source EXPERIAN
Company FIRST AMERICAN BANK
N
Payment Status 30 Days Past Due

Status Date 1/4/2 016
Balance $1,498,138.00
Balance Date N/A
Address 700 BUSSE RDELK GROVE VLG, IL 60007-2137
in a terrib le financial
problems over the past year, now you'v e put ·me
You have caused me some substantial financial age due on my prima ry
in the sand deadline, as I have a balloon mortg
predicament driven by a February 12, 2016, line
1
y to obtain conventional refinancing. As you are aware,
residence and this false report ing is the reason for my inabilit
First American's continued reporti ng.
there is not a blemish on my credit, with the exception of
time it
, I had a stellar banking relationship with them from the
Prior to First American acquiring the Bank of Coral Gables
opened its doors in 2006, over eight years.
false reporti ng of my account from all credit repositories.

Once again... 1demand that you immed iately retract the
deal structure, to rectify several issues including the

I am speaking with Brian, in an attemp t worko ut some sort of d in
n mortgage on my proper ty, which canno t not be rectifie
mortgage referenced above, the proble m with the .balloo
mortgage on my home (due to the torturo us timelines and
time to appease the private lender who owns the balloon S& A
and the collateralized loan from Bank of Coral Gables to
. verifications pursuant to the new Dodd-Frank provisions)
PY
Coral Gables includi ng a
banking relationship with the Bank of
Capital Partners, an entity of mine which also had a great l had been long since
ralized business loan with S & A Capita
collateralized business loan. As you are aware, the collate
d the collate ral assignment on the Johnnie Washington mortgage. A
paid off but the Bank of Coral Gables never release ers
First American representative did not recognize the borrow
title company called First American Bank, and since the
O
r research the situation by even looking at the "collat eral
name in your system of records, and didn't bother to furthe
the First American employee executed a satisfaction of the
Assignment" which provided our company contact info,
C
walked away from the proper ty withou t having to pay the
mortgage and underlying pra.missory note. The owner
mortgage, which was owned by S & A Capital.
ED
a collateralized business loan, so that we can clean the slate
Hopefully, Brian and I can work somet hing out regarding
plate thi{alte rnative !
and start a fresh banking relationship. I'd rather not contem
FI
TI
Regards,
ER
Larry Schneider
1st Fidelity Loan Servicing. LLC
C
2901 Clint Moore Road. Suite 410

A
Cell (305) 710-42 01

T
From: Henry Bolz [mailto:hbolz@kellerbolz.com]

O
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:40 PM

To: Larry Schneider
(jberton@firstarnbank.com); Brian Hagan
Cc: Garry Smith (gsmith@firstambank.com); James Berton
N
mbank.com)
(bhagan@firstc3mbank.com); Frederick M. Snow (fsnow@flrsta
Subject: First American Bank HELOC Loan (FCRA) .
Please see attached corres ponde nce of even date.
Regards,
2
Rj
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Online Security
password, or answers to challenge questions, in an email or any web
First American Bank will never ask you for your personal information, such as your login ID,
us. For more Information on how to protect yourself against onllne fraud, view our Online Security page al
page directly linked to an e-mail from
https:/Jwww.firstambank.com/General/Generallnfo /OnlineSecu rity/
Privacy Polley our Privacy Polley at

We do NOT disclose any information about you to anyone; except es permitted by law. For more detailed information, view
https://\wNl.firstambank.com/General/Generallnfo/PrivacyPolicy/
PY
From: Larry Schneider (mailto:Larry@sacapitalpartners.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Septemb er 30, 2015 3:.59 PM
O
To: Brian T. Hagan <bhagan@firstambank.com>
a@firstambank.com>; Jennifer L.
Cc: Milton W. Espinoza <MEspinoza@firstambank.com>; James A Kielbasa <JKielbas
C
Anderson <ianderson@firstambank.com>
Subject: HELOC #40000006
Importance: High
Brian,
ED
FI
Informati on In your servicing
Please find the September 2015 payment on the HELOC account. Despite the flawed
(for the purposes of the Fair Debt Credit Reporting Act). Please apply the
system of records, my acco.unt is current
TI
derogato ry reporting of my account to

payment accordingly. The bank has been and continues to make erroneous and
boarding errors which has affected
the credit repositories, despite numerou s requests to the bank to rectify the various
bank continues to violate this and numerou s other state. and federal,
my billing and subsequent payments. The
ER
mortgage servicing and consumer protectio n laws.

C
Sincerely,
Larry Schneider
A
1199 S. Federal Hwy, #369

305-710-4201
T
O
by Dyn~miCare E2.
This email mess.age has ~n delivered safely and archived onlinc. This email system is managed
N
Powered by. Mimecast
3
N
O
T
A
C
ER
TI
FI E hibit 2
ED
C
O
PY
NOT ICE FRO M LAN DLO RD TO TEN ANT
FIFT EEN DAY NOT ICE FOR POSS ESSI ON OF PREM ISES
To: Jeffrey Marc Hennari

17685 Circle Pond Cqurt
Boca Raton, FL 33496-1002
PY
Jeffrey Marc Herman c/o Herman Law
335 I NW Boca Raton Blvd.
Boca Raton. FL 33431-6623
O
YOU ARE- HER EBY NOTIFIED that your tenancy of the prem
C
ises
described as 17685 Circl e Pond Court , Boca Raton, FL 3349
6
Palm Beac h Coun ty
ED
Florida,
is hereby terminated as of October 15, 2016, pursuant to Section
83.57 Florida
Statutes, and you are to vacat e the premises on said date.
FI
PLEA SE GOV ERN YOU RSEL F ACC ORD INGL Y.
TI
Dated this
ER
C
A
T
O
N
PROO F OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, being at least 18 years of age, declare under penalty of

perjury that I served the notice to pay rent or move, of which this is a true copy,
on
the above mentioned tenant in possession in the manner(s) indicated below.
g))o n ~ l:&-,3)9.zo1Ja____, I ham!ed the notice ro the tenant.
PY
D l handed the. notice to a pers_on of suitable age and discretion at the tenant's
residence/business on.____--'-- ----- -' 20_ .
O
~ osted the notice in a conspicuous place at the tenant 's residence on
¥kr
-....:F-/-: ---!.-l.""'- -'s..£-q_, 2 0 j_,.,(....____
C
Executed on J0,20 ; le ,at L{,'Qj □ A.M.' grP.M .
ED
FI
Signature
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
FORM 24
. »,•. l ,., . ,
II
.
first-Class Milli
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Perniit No, G-10
• Sendet·ri:,le~Je print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
PY
O
C
ED
UNITED STATES PosTALSF.RVICE First-Cialls Mail
Postage & Fees'Paid
FI Il 11 USPS
Permit No. G- to
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
111 Complett.dtems 1, 2, and 3.
ltGm 4 if fles trlct ed Oolfvary lsAlso complete A 'S!glllllt.lro
111 desi red.
Pririt your name and add
. so that we can return the
ress on the reverse
ca,d to you.
X
. ~·
-.::-;
1 ;-.!/,.-<"i ...,.
J ~-· DA;;;;;;·
• Attach this card to the .,~.,,.~rl ..... __ .._.~ .._.-~·-·· □ Addrossoo
· , or on the front if spa ce back or the mailpiece
1. Artlclo Mdro,;sed 10:
p&Jnits. ' B. ;' . ;~_r.fi7!f/tl~Y ~ ,':,t ·J> ):_,:
o. rs doilvc:y add r~ dlffertllll
ltom ijem 1? 0 Yes
It YES, enter do/ivory aodtP.:ss be/ow:
0 No
I --·; [:- f:::. ~~~• C. i j(~ (~ <~2.
1
(\_ ; f-1 0 ;_.,1 :c I
" ' ( ,__:,
T? L ( ....-i r:-- 1
PY
3. SoMeeType
{:'.:/1 7'-...-:, "~ W Cartlllod Mail D E'xPIOSD Mall
D Ra{/lsteted Iii Ratum Receipt for M"rchandlse
D lnsuroc Milil O C.O.D.
2. Altic/<) Num ber 4. Restrtctod 0.,Jivory? (Extr
a Foe) □ Yes
O
(Thinster from servic& II!ba
fj
70 09 00 80 00 00 42 64
PSForm 3811, February 2004 67!:,7
Oomestlc flotum RC<:plp(;_>::":,' · ·. - .: u
,.
C
. 102595-0'.M.,..\5-00
ED
ill Colilp!Elt& items 1, 2, and
3.
Item 4 i! Restricted Deli\:ety Also complete A. Signaturo
111 Print yo1Jr name and add is desimd.
so that we can return the
ress on th.o reverse X• ',.I. _,·.•
, \. .'-\• .,r" \~-<--r~
\ \ l ...IN ,-,.,,.. .--,. ;:--\
/, J .I __,· ?:'9/i°'.1nt
card to you. ·
I Do,1·~?kit•tery
w--:1.\i'ii.W
FI l;soo
• Atta ch this card to tha
bac k of 8, Rocnived by ( Printed Na.-n
or on 1he front if spa ce permits.the mallpiece, ,,) -' C.
l. MicJ ~ Add resse d lo: -- -- -- -t . 0. Js dofive,y oodr=
dili"' 8nl from ~'"J':
1? 0 y.,, .... ·
TI
I( YES, enter delivery
addrn"-11 oolo\v: 0 No
ER
C
2, Mlclo Numbor
(Trnnm,; from S111V/co l,ibf. 70 09 00 80 DODO 42 64
PS Form 38.11, Feb ruar y &7 74
200 4
A
Domustfc RolUrn Receipt

T
O
N
ij
Filing# 60798929 E-Filed 08/2 __ -017 01 :58:24 PM

CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292
DIVISION AW
PY
Coral Gables, LLC,
O
Plaintiff,
C
V.
ED
______________
Defendants.
FI
/
FIRST AMERICAN BANK'S

TI
MOTION TO COMPEL
ACCESS TO PROPERTY
ER
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK ("First American"), by and
through its undersigned counsel, and in accordance with the applicable Florida Rules of
C
Civil Procedure, this Court's March 28, 2017 Order granting First American the right to
A
inspect the subject property on a monthly basis and this Court's August 8, 2017 Order
T
scheduling an hour long evidentiary hearing on Friday, September 1, 2017 on the

O
Defendant's "Motion for Stay of the Foreclosure Sale Pending Appeal," hereby files this
N
its Motion seeking an Order compelling the Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, to allow First American's designated independent/licensed
property appraiser with access to the property being foreclosed for the purpose of
determining the property's "present fair market value."
Exhibit "K"
This Court, in response to the Defendant's "Emergency Request for a Temporary
Restraining Order"/"Motion for Stay of the Foreclosure Sale Pending Appeal" (bearing a
Certificate of Service date of August 7, 2017), cancelled the August 10, 2017 foreclosure
sale reset that sale date for September 12, 2017. This Court's August 8, 2017 Order also
scheduled an evidentiary hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, September 1, 2017, indicating
PY
that the Court would "take evidence as to whether the stay should be conditioned on the
posting of a good and sufficient bond, or other conditions, and what the amount of the
O
bond should be."
C
On August 8, 2017, just two hours after this Court entered its April 8, 2017 Order,
ED
the Defendant, Laurence Schneider, sent an email to the undersigned which stated in
applicable part:
FI
It is imperative that FAB do their monthly inspection, as Judge
Ferrara had ordered, for the month of August, 2017. This way,
TI
the condition of the property 'should not' be in dispute. As

such, I suggest that the monthly inspection of the property
ER
should take place sometime between August 23, 2017 and

August 25, 2017. Please confirm a time and date for this
inspection. The importance of the property condition and the
integrity of any assertions provided to the court, as to the
C
property condition, as part of the September 1, 2017 hearing

is paramount.
A
First American, on August 17, 2017, sent an email to the Defendants advising that
T
First American had retained Jurgensen Appraisals, Inc. to perform an appraisal of the
O
property, scheduling that appraisal at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 23, 2017. A true
N
and correct copy of that email, as well as subsequent emails dealing with this subject
(through earlier today), are attached as Composite Exhibit "A." The long and the short of
this Motion to Compel is that the Defendants are now claiming that neither one of them
can adjust their schedules to accommodate an inspection/appraisal of the property
Page 2 of 4
anytime this week (within the "window" that the Defendants themselves established) but
that they will "get back" to First American after their attorneys depart on Friday.
Memorandum of Law
The Fourth District opinion in Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA
1981) makes it clear that the "present fair market value" is one of the most important
PY
factors that has to be taken into consideration by this Court when determining the amount
of a Supersedeas Bond that the Defendants will have to post in order to stay the
O
foreclosure proceedings pending appeal.
C
Given the precedent which must be followed by this Court and the parties, it is
ED
incumbent that the "present fair market value" of the property being determined by a
qualified/licensed Florida real property appraiser.

FI
The September 1, 2017 evidentiary hearing was scheduled as a direct result of the
TI
Defendants' "Emergency Request for a Temporary Restraining Order"/ "Motion for Stay
Despite the Defendants' extension of a

ER
of the Foreclosure Sale Pending Appeal."
seemingly good faith offer to allow the property to be inspected between August 23, 2017
C
and August 25, 2017, the Defendants are now doing their utmost to preclude First
American from developing the facts/evidence necessary for this Court to consider the
A
Defendants' Motion.
T
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, would respectfully request

O
this Court to enter an Order compelling the Defendants to make the property being
N
foreclosed available for appraisal/inspection immediately so that FIRST AMERICAN
BANK's independent real property appraiser can appraise/inspect the property, prepare
a formal Appraisal Report and be prepared to testify with respect to the present fair market
Page 3 of 4
value of the property at the September 1, 2017 hearing, together with such further and
other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

PY
Telephone: (305) 529-8500
Telefax: (305) 529-0228
O
C
Henry H. Bolz, Ill
ED
FI
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to
TI
Compel Access to Property was delivered to: LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,

ER
(larry@sacapitalpartners.com), 360 E. Coconut Palm Road, Boca Raton, FL 33432;
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER (steffschneider13@gmail.com), 360 E. Coconut Palm

C
Road, Boca Raton, FL 33432; and JAYS. LEVIN, ESQ. (foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com),

A
Sachs, Sax, Caplan, Attorneys for Oaks at Boca Raton, 6111 Broken Sound Parkway,
T
rd
N.W., #200, Boca Raton, FL 33487 via the E-filing Portal on this 23 day of August, 2017.
O
KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

N

Henry H. Bolz, Ill
Page 4 of 4
From: Larry Schneider < larry@sacapitalpartners.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 12:37 PM
To: Henry Bolz
Cc: Carlos E. Molestina; Garry Smith; Brian T. Hagan; JKielbasa@firstambank.com;
janderson@ firstambank .com; Milton W. Espinoza; akrauss@firstambank.com
Subject: RE: FAS v Laurence and Stephanie Schneider Inspection of Property 17685 Circle
Pond Court
Attachment s: order-50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB-5989c73cbb913.pdf; First American v. Schneider -
Final Judgment in Foreclosure - Upcoming Foreclosure Sale Date 8/10/17
PY
Dear,. Mr. Bolz,
Please be advised that Honorable Circuit Court Judge James T. Ferrara has canceled the August 10, 2017 foreclosure
O
sale. In addition, Judge Ferrara has scheduled a hearing on the matter on September 1, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.
C
I'm not sure by reading Judge Ferrara's order, whether it includes revisiting the second/Ren ewed Motion for
Reconsidera tion, or if you were correct in your analysis below, per your August 7, 2017 (3:41 P.M.) email to me. 1
I
ED
As was stated in First American's July 25, 2017 Response in Opposition (copy attached for ease of
I
reference) to your second/Re newed Motion for Reconsideration (which you filed on July 18, 2017), we I!
do not anticipate or expect the Palm Beach County Circuit Court (Trial Court) to enter an Order on your
second/Re newed Motion for Reconsideration. l
FI
;
It is imperative that FAB do their monthly inspection, as Judge Ferrara had ordered, for the month of August, 2017. This
TI
way, the condition of the property "should not" be in dispute. As such, I suggest that the monthly inspection of the
for
property should take place sometime between August 23. 2017 and August 25, 2017. Please confirm a time and date
this inspection. The importance of the property condition and the integrity of any assertions provided to the court, as
ER
to the property condition, as part of the September 1, 2017 hearing in paramount. As such, Mr. Molina or other FAB
representati ve will specifically NOT be permitted on the property without being accompanie d by me, personally. I've
instructed the guard gate to refuse any unaccompan ied entrance to the property accordingly.
C
Also, I once again request that I am provided with a payoff letter, good through August 11, 2017. All previous requests
have gone unanswered .
A
I expect to have legal counsel in place prior to the hearing. !'II inform you immediately upon engagement of
T
representat ion in this matter.

O
Sincerely,
N
Larry Schneider
. Composite Exhibit "A"

From: Henry Bolz
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 2:52 PM
To: 'Larry Schneider'; Stephanie Schneider (steffschneider13@gmail.com)
Cc: Robert Jurgensen (robertajurgensen@yahoo.com)
Subject: First American Bank v. Schneider - Property Inspection/Appraisal
Attachment s: RE: FAB v Laurence and Stephanie Schneider Inspection of Property 17685 Circle
Pond Court
Mr. and Mrs. Schneider,
PY
Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Ferrara has specially-set an hour-long evidentiary hearing on
your Emergenc y Request for a Temporar y Restraining Order (Motion for Stay of the Foreclosure Sale
Pending Appeal) for 1:30 p.m. on Friday, September 1, 2017.
O
FAB wants to have the property being foreclosed formally appraised prior to the September 1, 2017
C
hearing. To that end, First American Bank has selected Jurgensen Appraisals, Inc. to perform an
appraisal. Please note that this appraisal company is independent of First American Bank and that
ED
other than this formal appraisal, First American Bank will not be availing itself of its right to inspect
the property during the month of August 2017.
We are advised that Mr. Robert Jurgensen of Jurgensen Appraisals, Inc. will be available to meet with
FI
you and inspect/appraise the property at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 23, 2017. That time and
date is, of course, within the August 23, 2017-August 25, 2017 time frame that was set out in your
August 8, 2017 email (copy attached for ease of reference).
TI
Please confirm that you will be available to meet Mr. Jurgensen at the gatehouse at that time and
ER
date and then to let him into the house.
Regards,
C
Henry H. Bolz, III

Keller & Bolz, LLP
A

T
Telephone: (305) 529-8500

Telefax: (305) 529-0228
O
E-mail: hbolz@kellerbolz.com
N
OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS
IMPORTANT: THIS E-MAIL. AND ANY ATTACHMENTS THERETO. IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT
OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS E-MAIL IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE
N, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF
DELIVERING THE E-MAIL TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATIO
IMMEOIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER BY
THIS COMMUNICAT ION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE
ORIGINAL OR ANY PRINTOUTTHEREOF.
E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE (IF CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED) AND PERMANENTLY DELETE THE
1
i
\.
From: Larry Schneider <lauy@sacapitalpartners.com>

Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:36 PM
To: Henry Bolz
Cc: robertajurgensen@y ahoo.com; Garry Smith
Subject: RE: FAB v. Schneider Foreclosure Scheduled Wednesday Appraisal
Attachments: First American Bank v. Schneider - Property Inspection/Appraisal
Mr. Bolz,
I am in receipt of your email from August 17, 2017 (attached for your convenience).
PY
There is no reason to obtain an independent appraisal at this time. Thus, please do not schedule one. Should we find
the need to order an appraisal in the future, we can discuss a list of potential independent appraisers which I'm sure we
O
can agree upon.
C
Per your attached communication, you stated, First American Bank will not be availing itself of its right to inspect the
11
property during the month of August 2017."
ED
I am taking that as an assumption that there are not any property condition deficiencies which the bank is aware of or is
concerned about. If this is not the case, please let me know so we can address any possible concerns, so they are not
brought up as a surprise during the September 1, 2017 hearing, when they could easily be addressed by an FAB property
FI
inspection, which FAB has elected to waive.
The property remains in immaculate condition.

TI
Regards,
ER
Larry Schneider
C
A
T
O
N
!i
!
I
I
From: Henry Bolz
To: Larry Schneider
Cc: robertajurgensen@yahoo.com; Garry Smith
Subject: RE: FAS v. Schneider Foreclosure Scheduled Wednesday Appraisal
Mr. Schneide r:
a Supersedeas Bond that will have to be

One factor that the Circuit Court has to consider in determin ing the amount of
. That is the reason why it is
posted in this foreclosu re litigation is the "present fair market value" of the property
PY
, prepare a report and be available to
imperati ve that a qualified /licensed real property Appraise r look at the property
Court. Mr. Molestin a is not qualified to
testify at the Friday Septemb er 1,2017 evidentia ry hearing before the Circuit
testify about the present fair market value of the property .
O
Emergency Request for a Temporary
We do not have the time or luxury of agreeing on an Appraiser; you filed an
C
own Appraiser, you should feel free to
Restraining Order. You have put us on a tight schedule. If you want to hire your
do so.
ED
ay's inspectio n/Appraisal of the
Please let me know immedia tely if you are going to stand in the way of Wednesd
Court Judge Ferrara involved in First
property by Mr. Jurgensen. While it should not be necessary to have to get Circuit
us no other options.
American Bank's plan to have the property appraised, we will do so if you leave
FI
Please get back to me at your earliest opportun ity.
TI
Regards.
ER
C
Henry H. Bolz, III

Keller & Bolz, LLP
121. M~1jorca Avenue, #200
A

Telephone: (305) 529-8500
T
Telefax: (305) 529-0228

E-mail: hbolz@kellerbolz.com
O
N
FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS

IMPORTANT: THIS E-MAIL. AND ANY ATTACHME NTS THERETO. IS INTENDED
INFORMAT ION THAT IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGE D. CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
ADDRESS ED AND MAY CONTAIN
THIS E-MAIL IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT , OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPLICABL E LAW. IF THE READER OF
, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF
DELIVERIN G THE E-MAIL TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER BY
THIS COMMUNI CATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF
) AND PERMANEN TLY DELETE THE ORIGINAL OR ANY PRINTOUT THEREOF.
E-MAIL OR TELEPHON E (IF CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED
From: Larry Schneider < larry@sacapitalparlners.com>
To: Henry Bolz
Cc; Garry Smith
Subject: RE: FAB v. Schneider Foreclosure Scheduled Wednesday Appraisal
Attachments: www.co.palm-beach.fl.us_papa_Asps_PropertyDetail_PropertyDetail.pdf
Mr. Bolz,
I did some research and your answer to my questions makes sense. However, Judge Ferrara granted only one hour to
PY
hear the merits of the case and I would like every opportunity to present the facts. I am concerned that a big chunk of
time will get eaten up by the lengthy and unnecessary testimony of your property appraiser regarding the property
value.
O
Additionally, the appraisal will be just another expense added to the loan, in which I will be responsible for paying.
C
I'm going to have my hands full, just trying to articulate the cumbersome facts of the case and litigation, within Judge
ED
Ferrara's one hour hearing limit.
As such, I believe a fair and amica~fe solution, for the sole purpose of a good faith bond, which I am voluntarily willing to
submit to the court, would be to use the property market value as determined by the Palm Beach Property Appraiser's
FI
Office. For the tax year 2017, the Property Appraiser valued the property located at 17685 Circle Pond Court, Boca
Raton FL 33432 - (Parcel Control Number 00-42-46-31-01-000-0370} $1,154,556. http://www.co.pafm -
beach.fl.us/papa/As ps/PropertyDetail/P ropertyDetail.aspx? parcef=0042463101 0000370&
TI
At the very feast, it provides a reasonable valuation for the purposes you've described below.
ER
Thus, I am willing to stipulate to using the Palm Beach Property Appraiser's 2017 value of $1,154,556 for any bond
consideration determination, if necessitated by the court {and for no other purpose}. I'm sure that Mr. Molestina' s July
2017 inspection of the property did not reveal any factors which would call into question, whether the subject property
C
was inferior to that of the market. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have notified the court as such.
I appreciate your understanding and cooperation regarding this issue.

A
Regards.
T
O
Larry Schneider
Cell (305) 710-4201
N
From: Henry Bolz
To: Larry Schneider
Cc: Garry Smith
Subject : RE: FAB v. Schneider Foreclosure Scheduled Wednesday Appraisal
Mr. Schneid er:
Office's valuatio n of the propert y is

While your offer to stipulat e that the Palm Beach Propert y Appraiser's
tes the "presen t fair market value" of it.
PY
$1,154, 556.00 is the simples t solution , FAB does not believe it constitu
before next Friday's evident iary hearing. Mr.

Accordi ngly, FAB still intends to get the propert yforma lly appraised
w afternoo n.
Jurgens en is plannin g to meet you at the gatehouse at 1:00 p.m. tomorro
O
inside and out, available for his appraisal.
Please confirm that you will be there and make the propert y, both
C
Regards,
ED
Henry H. Bolz, III
Keller & Bolz, LLP
121 Majorc a Avenue, #200
FI
Telephone: (305) 529-8500
Telefax: (305) 529-0228
TI
E-mail: hbolz(a),kellerbolz.com
ER
IT IS
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH
IMPORTANT: THIS E-MAIL. AND ANY ATTACHM ENTS THERETO, IS NTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
INFORMA TION THAT IS LEGALLY PRIVILEG ED, CONFIDE
ADDRESS ED AND MAY CONTAIN IBLE FOR
INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONS
APPLICAB LE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS E-MAIL IS NOT THE ATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF
C
T, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMIN

DELIVERI NG THE E-MAIL TO THE INTENDE D RECIPIEN THE SENDER BY
RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
THIS COMMUN ICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE DELETE THE ORIGINAL OR ANY PRINTOUT THEREOF.
D) AND PERMANE NTLY
E-MAIL OR TELEPHO NE (IF CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDE
A
T
O
N
To: Henry Bolz; Stephanie Schneider (steffschneid erl3@gmail. com)
Cc: Garry Smith (gsmith@firs tambank.com )
Subject: RE: First American Bank ("FAB") v. Schneider
Mr. Bolz,
I am unavailable. I have attorneys coming in from D.C. and Boston.
PY
O
Regarcis,
C
Lany Schneider
1 51 Fiddily Loan Servicing, LLC
ED
2901 Clint .Moore Road. Suite 4.10
Boca Raton. FL :33496
FI
Cell (305) 710-4201
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
From: Henry Bolz
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:55 AM
To: Larry Schneider; Stephanie Schneider (steffschneider l3@gmail.com)
Cc: Garry Smith (gsmith@firstam bank.com)
Mr. Schneider:
You don't need to be there; what is your wife's schedule this afternoon?
PY
If not today, what about tomorrow or Friday. Your August 8, 2017 email indicated you could be available Wed-Fri,
August 23-25, 2017.
O
We should not need to get the Circuit Court involved in this ... but FAB is going to have the property appraised.
C
Please let me know.
Henry H. BoJz, III
ED
Keller & BoJz, LLP
FI
Telephone: (305) 529-8500
Telefax: (305) 529-0228
E-mail: hbolz@keller bolz.com
TI
ER
IT IS
IMPORTANT: THIS E-MAIL. AND ANY ATTACHMENTS THERETO. IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH
UNDER
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE
FOR
APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS E-MAIL IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE
OR COPYING OF
DELIVERING THE E-MAIL TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION
THE SENDER BY
THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
PRINTOUT THEREOF.
C
E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE (IF CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED) AND PERMANENTLY DELETE THE ORIGINAL OR ANY
A
T
O
N
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:00 -~M
To: Henry Bolz; Stephanie Schneider (steffschneider13@gmail.com)
Cc: Garry Smith (gsmith@firstambank.com)
Mr. Bolz,
My wife is a shareholder in the entities and her involvement in the very same meetings with the attorneys are critical to
t~e pending litigations, by some of the very entities in which FAB has caused harms, ie. S & A Capital (FAB release of lien)
PY
and 1st Fidelity causation of cessation of credit fine with Bank United) against JPMC in the SDNY and US Appeals Court for
the District of Columbia (as well as a supplemental Statement of Material Evidence to the United States Department of
Justice, Florida Department of Justice, Illinois Department of Justice, as well as numerous federal and state agencies).
O
The attorneys are here through Friday. i will get back to you then.
C
ED
Regards,
Larry Schneider
FI
Cell (305) 710-4201
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
Florida Courts E-filing Portal I of I
My Cases My Submissions : Sign Out
Pleading on Existing Case Case Initiation
Workbench ,:i;, My Alerts E-Filing Map
PY
Welcome - Henry H Bolz Ill
Last signed in on - 08/21/2017 01:56:47 PM
News & Information
O
• 04/01/2017 NEW! You can now e-file Satisfaction of Judgment and Release/Cancel of Lis Pendens via thee-portal. Read ore
C
• 10/01/2014 E-issuance of summons and clerk defaults now available ..... Read More ...
ED
Filing Received Confirmation
FI
1 document is successfully submitted for filing to Trial Court for Palm Beach County, Florida Circuit Civil Di isi,
Uniform Case# you have provided is 502016CA009292XXXXMB
Court Case# you have provided is 50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB
TI
Reference # for this filing is 60798929
Important: If you should contact the court about any document in this filing, please provide this Submissi n t
ER
You may want to print this page for your records. @i Print
C
Recent Filings
A
Pleading Proposed Order Submission/NEF I Case Style/Docket Court Case# Status

, ···················································I··························
50-2016- Received Palm 08/23/2017
T
I• 60798929 :I FIRST
/ AMERICAN BANK CA-009292- Beach 01 :58:24 PM
O
- SCHNEIDER, XXXX-MB
LAURENCE S
N
Terms Of Use I Privacy Statement I Accessibility I Request E-Filing Support I E-Filing Authority
© 2013 CiviTek
https://www.myflcourtaccess.co m/Courts/UIPages/FilingReceiv edFL. ... 8/23/17, 1:58 PM

FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA

successor by merger to Bank of Coral DCA Case No.: 4D17-2239
Gables, LLC, Lower Court Case No.:
50-2016-CA-009292
Plaintiff
PY
Vs.
O
C
SCHNEIDER, ct. AI.
ED
Appellant§
·--
1,·
i:,_
__ ,. .
t:..~-
FI
~--; ~;::~~
~.r :.:_ .... ~ REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
-
TI
_-;· , .....
I ::_::; 2~·. ~··:
Cr••
~-- ·;I.,aurenc;e Schneider and Stephanie L Schneider, (hereinafter referred to as "Appellants" or
::··. :. :~t~
-·
ER
( ,_
"Mr:·schncifder"
.
,,; , ..
or "Mrs. Schneider"), appearing prose, and pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.310,
move this Court for a stay pending appeal or review of the lower court's Order denying a stay
C
pending appeal, and submit the following in support:

A
INTRODUCTION
T
I. Appellants filed the instant appeal based upon a Final Judgment of Foreclosure which the lower
O
Court erroneously rendered on June 26, 2017.

N
2. On or about June 8, 2017, Mr. Schneider communicated with Appellee 's Counsel's Henry Bolz
(hereinafter referred to as "Bolz"), and his associates, Sheyla Mesa, by electronic mail
regarding a deposition of Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Schneider, as well as a special set trial
hearing which posed a scheduling conflict for Appellants.
Exhibit "L"
3. In said email, Mr. Schneider requested thatAppeUees' Motion for Specially Set Trial Date be
postponed to a mutually agreeable time, given Mr. Schneider's conflict of schedule, which
included a trip to Washington D.C. at the time of the hearing, at which judgment was entered.
4. Bolz was abundantly aware of this material fact, yet did not afford Appellants the opportunity
to even defend themselves at the Special Set Trial, resulting in judgment being entered against
PY
Appellants on June 26, 2017.
5. The judgment was based upon a granting of summary judgment, despite the material fact that
O
Appellants were blindsided by the Special Set Trial which ultimately wound up with the
C
judgment of foreclosure. ·
ED
6. Appellants allege that the Trial Court incorrectly granted Summary Judgment in favor of the
Appellee where genuine issues of material fact existed which were timely raised by the
FI
Appellants.
TI
7. Upon judgment being entered, Appellants timely filed a Motion for Rehearing on the matter,
ER
and a Motion to Vacate the Judgment, which Motions were denied by the Court.
8. Appellants subsequently filed an Amended Motion for Rehearing, along with a Motion for
C
Reconsideration, which laid forth the grounds and evidence in support that the trial court
A
abused its discretion and noted in said Motions that Appellants would be bringing this instant
Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal.

T
O
9. AppeHants understand that this Court receives many appeals with accompanying requests for
N
a stay. Appellants respectfully submit that the unique facts at bar justify a stay pending appeal
for two main reasons. First, summary judgment of foreclosure was inappropriate here,
especially given the multitude of unresolved issues of material fact, and the trial court should
not have entered a dispositive order while several items were left hanging at the pleading stage
2
of this matter. See e.g. Knight .Energy Services, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1995). Second, the loan history upon which the amounts awarded in the Final Judgment
by the trial court was predicated was unintelligible, padded with egregious fees and falsified
as more particularly described herein.
10. On the unique facts at bar, this Court should grant a stay pending appeal. See Fla. R. App. Pro.
PY
9.3 I 0.
ANALYSIS
O
11. Appellants are confident that their appeal in this cause will be meritorious. That argument,
C
though, is for another day. For now, this Court should grant a stay pending appeal, ensuring
ED
the foreclosure sale does not proceed on August 10, 2017, as presently scheduled.
12. The prejudice to Appellants ifthey are foreclosed and ultimately prevail on appeal is enormous.
FI
13. The prejudice to innocent third parties is likewise significant. Candidly, it would be awful if
TI
an innocent third party purchases this property at a foreclosure sale only to then be forced to
ER
leave because Appellants prevailed on appeal.
14. Conversely, the prejudice to Appellee if a stay is granted is negligible. Appellants are
C
maintaining the home and will continue to do so while an appeal is pending. In the event
A
Appellants do not prevail on the appeal, the property will still be there for Appellee to
foreclose.
T
O
15. The sale can simply be rescheduled and Appellee will have lost nothing. Appellants'
N
willingness to pay property taxes and property insurance while the appeal is pending - as a
condition of the stay - reflects their good faith and show that Appellee will suffer no harm by
a stay.
3
THIS COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A STAY OF EXECUTION
16. The judgment entered by the trial court included both injunctive relief and money damages.
17. Florida law is clear that when the same judgment includes both monetary and non-monetary
relief, the supersedeas bond requirements for automatically staying the execution of a purely
monetary judgment set forth in Fla. R. App. P. 9.3 lO(b)(l) do not applyif:!J{or.idci}F:o)i$f..Bcink' .
PY
,--~<jJJlifiifJi&.~rne)"kh'.v.•.Miiyd: ~JI:S.9.;2~tT@1~:IQJ.1:Ct1i:~1iliLir5JJ9·s_i)._•. f
18. Rather, in such circumstances, such as this matter, stays of execution pending appeal are
O
governed solely by Fla. R. App. P. 9.3 IO(a). Id. ("When monetary and other relief are granted
C
in the same judgment or order, then the Rule 9.310(b)(l) exception does not apply and the
ED
parties must proceed in accord with the provisions of Rule 9.3 lO(a)."); see also 2 Fla. Prac.,
Appellate Practice § 11:2 (2015 ed.) ("If the judgment grants any other form of relief in
FI
addition to ordering the payment of money, the trial court may exercise its discretion [under
TI
Rule 9.3 IO(a)] to grant or deny a stay.").

ER
19. Rule 9.310(a) provides that "a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review
shall file a motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its
C
discretion, to grant, modify, or deny such relief"

A
20. "A stay pending review may be conditioned on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other
conditions, or both." Rule 9.310(a). Thus, trial courts have "discretion under Rule 9.310(a) as
T
O
to the nature and extent of security to be posted for a stay." Zuckerman v. Ho.frichter & Quiat,
N
P.A., 622 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Wilson v. Woodward, 602 So. 2d 545, 546
(Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ("When the court on remand exercised its discretion under subdivision (a)
of rule 9.310, it was not bound to apply the formula provided in subdivision (b) for the
automatic stay of money judgments."); Lopez-Can/era,~ Lopez-Cantera, 578 So. 2d 726, 726
4
(Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("Upon motion for stay pending review pursuant to Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.3 IO(a), the trial court has discretion to grant, modify or deny such
relief.").
21. Notably, the Second District Court of Appeal has made clear that, even where a judgment is
only for money damages, trial courts also retain discretion to enter stays based upon conditions
PY
other than a supersedeas bond in the amount required for an automatic stay.
22. In particular, the appeals court has interpreted Rule 9 .31 O(b)(I) to mean that a trial court may
O
stay execution without requiring a bond at all, or by setting that bond at an amount it deems
C
reasonable under the circumstances. See Plattv. Russek, 921 So. 2d 5, 7-8 (Fla. 2d DCA2004);
ED
see also Waller v.. DSA Grp., Inc., 606 So. 2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ("a trial court
has authority upon motion of a party to enter a stay order upon conditions other than a bond").
FI
23. The Legislature has also now expressly granted trial courts the same discretion. See Fla. Stat.
TI
§ 45.045(2) ("The court, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown, may reduce the
ER
supersedeas bond or may set other conditions for the stay with or without a bond.").
24. In other words, when presented with a motion to stay execution of judgment under Rule
C
9.310(a), a trial court faces two questions: (1) should it enter a stay, and (2) under what
A
conditions?
25. In Appellants' Amended Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Vacate, Appellants laid out the
T
O
procedural issues which transpired before the trial court. Specifically, the Amended Motion to
N
Vacate laid out the multiple issues which ultimately resulted in the judgment being entered,
and the various and unscrupulous steps Appellee took to achieve that objective.
5
26. A true and correct copy of the filed Amended Motion for Rehearing and Motion for
Reconsideration is attached hereto, and incorporated fully throughout this Motion as "Exhibit
A".
A STAY IS REQUIRED BECAUSE APPELLANTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
27. In the circumstances of this case, a stay is required because pursuant to both the federal and
PY
Florida Constitutions, Appellants have a right to obtain appellate review of this judgment.
28. There are independent sources of that constitutional right: The federal Due Process Clause, and
O
two provisions of the Florida Constitution that guarantee access to appellate courts.
C
29. As multiple courts have recognized, that right would be infringed if the opposing party could
ED
immediately render an appellant financially destitute by executing on the judgment during the
pendency of an appeal.
FI
30. Indeed, even before the U.S. Supreme Court formally announced the rule requiring
TI
independent appellate review, the Fifth Circuit had concluded that the First Amendment does
ER
not tolerate that scenario. See Hemy v. First Nat 'l Bank ofClarksdale, 595 F.2d 291 (5th Cir.
1979) (affirming an injunction that barred plaintiffs from executing on a state court judgment
C
pending appeal).
A
Federal Due Process Also Requires a Meaningful Opportunity to Appeal
31. Though the federal Constitution does not contain a generalized right to appeal, the U.S.
T
O
Supreme Court has concluded that, once a state affirmatively chooses to provide a right of
N
appeal, it is a violation of due process for a defendant not to have "a fair opportunity to obtain
an adjudication on the merits of his appeal." Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387,405 (1985). .
32. As a result, multiple federal courts have concluded that bond requirements that are set so high
that they would effectively represent an "impermissible barrier to appeal" violate an appellant's
6
due process rights, unless they are relaxed to avoid that result. See, e.g., Adsani v. Miller, 139
F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Boddie 1~ Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,379 (1971)).
The Florida Constitution Guarantees Appellants a Meaningful Right to Appeal
33. Finally, this Court need not even reach any federal constitutional issue, because whatever due
process right the federal constitution guarantees in these circumstances, the Florida
PY
Constitution provides broader rights. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco inc., 487 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1~87)
(holding that a federal court should have abstained from enjoining Texas's bond requirement,
O
because the Texas Constitution's Open Courts provision may provide broader rights than the
C
federal due process clause); Henderson v. Crosby, 883 So. 2d 847, 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
ED
(holding that "article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution affords [the appellants] more
rights than does that implied from the federal constitution").

FI
34. Unlike the federal Constitution, the Florida Constitution unambiguously grants all litigants a
TI
right to appeal all final trial court orders, regardless of the circumstances. Amendments to the
ER
Fla. R. App. P., 696 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 1996) ("we construe the language of article V,
section 4(b) as a constitutional protection of the right to appeal"); T.A. Enters. v. Olarte, Inc.,
C
931 So. 2d l O16, 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("the Florida Constitution grants a constitutional
A
right to appeal 'as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts"') (citation
omitted); Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296, 298-99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("there is a Florida
T
O
constitutional right to appeal all final orders").

N
35. The right to appeal is guaranteed by both article V, section 4(b) and the open courts provision
of Article I, section 21 of the Declaration of Rights. Id. The "open courts" provision operates
as a "constitutional limitation on the legislature's power to limit the right to appeal." T.A.
Enters., 931 So. 2d at 1018.
7
36. Florida law therefore provides that "the legislature may implement this constitutional right and
place reasonable conditions upon it so long as they do not thwart the litigants' legitimate
appellate rights.,, Amendments to the Fla. R. App. P., 696 So. 2d at 1I 04-05 (emphasis added).
37. Indeed, just recently the Florida Supreme Court emphasized that "Appeals to ... the District
Courts of Appeal are constitutionally guaranteed rights in this State. This being true, it is
PY
.fundamental that statutes or rules regulating the exercise of such rights should be liberally
construed in favor of the appealing party and in the interest of manifest justice." McFadden v.
O
State, 177 So. 3d 562, 566 (Fla. 2015) (citation omitted).
C
38. Therefore, "[a] statutory condition that thwarts the litigants' legitimate appellate rights under
ED
Article V, section 4(b)(2) also violates the access-to-courts provision." T.A. Enters., 931 So. 2d
at 1018 (citation omitted). "[T]o .find a violation of the right of access, it is not necessary for
FI
[a] statute to produce a procedural hurdle which is absolutely impossible to surmount, only one
TI
which is significantly difficult." Id. (citation omitted).

ER
39. Applying these principles, this Court must in tum apply Rule 9.310 in a manner that is
"liberally construed in favor of' Appellants. McFadden, 177 So. 3d at 566.

C
40. Moreover, long before it was clear that there was a state constitutional right to appeal, the
A
Florida Supreme Court held that a requirement to post a bond to take an appeal from a
T
municipal to a circuit court was constitutional, only because it did not "place an unreasonable
O
or prohibitive burden on one seeking review by the circuit court." Austin v. Town of Oviedo,
N
92 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 1957).
41. Here, setting too high a bond amount would place an unreasonable and prohibitive burden on
Appellants.
42. Tn short, it would violate the Florida Constitution to apply Rule 9 .310 in any manner.
8
43. Therefore, this Court should grant a stay of execution, or in the alternative require AppeHants
to post alternative security.
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ALSO WEIGH IN FAVOR OF A STAY
44. To determine whether to issue a stay to maintain the status quo during an appellate proceeding
pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.310, Florida courts have traditionally considered: "[l] the moving
PY
party's likelihood of success on the merits, and [2] the likelihood of harm should a stay not be
granted." Sepich v. Papadoulos, 145 So. 3d 156, 157 n.6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), citing State ex.
O
rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1980).
C
45. Both factors weigh heavily in favor of staying execution of judgment pending appeal in this
ED
case, and cancelling or postponing the aforementioned foreclosure auction sale pending review.
There is a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits

FI
46. The reasons why Appellants are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal have been
TI
exhaustively addressed in their post-trial motions, and Exhibit A, and there is little to be served
ER
by repeating those points here. Rather, what is particularly relevant here is that there can be no
serious damage to either party pending a stay.

C
47. While the parties and the court may disagree about whether the District Court of Appeal's
A
rulings at the temporary injunction phase of this case are dispositive, there can be no serious
question that important and potentially dispositive issues in this case have "already been
T
O
significantly tested in the appellate fire," and, as a result, it is clear that Appellants' position on
N
the merits is hardly "implausible and farfetched."
48. Moreover, the wh;lly unprecedented magnitude of the judgment here also strongly weighs in
favor of a stay and points to a likelihood of success on the merits.
9
Appellants Will Unquestionably Be Harmed If a Stay Is Not Granted
49. The circumstances of this case also present certain - not merely likely - "harm should a stay
not be granted." Sepich, 145 So. 3d at 157.
50. An important consideration in applying this factor is whether the harm is "irremediable."
McCord, 380 So. 2d at 1039.
PY
51. Here, the failure to grant a stay would cause irreparable hann to Appellants, insomuch as they
would lose their property.
O
52. As other courts have recognized, that would amount to irreparable injury. Miami Intern. Realty
C
Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 874 (10 th Cir. 1986).
ED
53. Finally, staying execution of judgment pending appeal would also be in the public interest, as
the current posture of this case, like many other foreclosure proceedings where a judgment is
FI
entered without consideration of all parties' positions, is rampant in the trial courts.
TI
54. In light thereof, this Court should grant a stay pending appeal, allowing Appellants to pursue
ER
their appellate rights without fear of a foreclosure sale.
WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request reliefin accordance with the foregoing.

C
A

T
Boca Raton, FL
O
N
LAURENC S. SCHNEIDER, Pro Se

Iarry@sacapita]partners.com
10
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Henry H. Bolz III, 121 Majorca
Ave. #200. Coral Gables, FL 33134, by mail this 2 nd day of August 2017.
PY
Laurence Schneider, pro se
O
C
ED
FI
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
11
Municipality UNINCORPORATED
Parcel Control Number 00-42-46-31-01-000-0370
Subdivision FOX HILL ESTATES OF BOCA RATON
Official Records Book 28977 Page 1897
Sale Date MAR-2017
PY
Legal Description FOX HILL ESTATES OF BOCA RATON LT 37
Mailing address
Owners
360 E COCONUT PALM RD
O
LAURENCE S
BOCA RATON FL 33432 7916
C
Sales Date Price OR Book/Page Sale Type Owner
MAR-2017 SlO 28977/01897 QUITCLAIM SCHNEIDER LAURENCE S
ED
JUL-2006 S 1,761,360 20662 / 00249 WARRANTY DEED SCHNEIDER LAURENCE S &
No Exemption Information Available.

FI
*Total Square
Number of Units l 794 7 Acres 0.30
TI
Feet
0100 - SINGLE . AGR-PUD - Agricultural Reserve PUD ( 00-

Use Co d e Zoning
FAMILY UNINCORPORATED)
ER
Tax Year 2017 P 2016 2015
Improvement Value $945,081 $956,458 $1,091,290

C
Land Value $209,475 $199,500 $190,000
Total Market Value $1,154,556 $1,155,958 $1,281,290

A
P=
All values are as of January l st each year
Preliminary
T
Tax Year 2017 P 2016 2015

O
Assessed Value $1,154,556 $1,155,958 $1,281,290
Exemption Amount $0 $0 $0
N
Taxable Value $1,154,556 $1,155,958 $1,281,290
Tax Year 2017 P 2016 2015

Ad Valorem $20,286 $20,785 $23,824
Non Ad Valorem $367 $361 $357
Total tax $20,653 $21,146 $24,181
Exhibit "M"
Filing# 60852713 E-Filed 08/24/'.luJ7 12:37:12 PM


Gables, LLC, DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO
PY
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
Plaintiff COMPEL
O
Vs.
C
ED
SCHNEIDER, et. Al.
Defendants
FI
TI
COME NOW Laurence Schneider and Stephanie L Schneider, Defendants, and hereby
ER
files this response in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
C
In the latest demonstration of gamesmanship, counsel for Plaintiff, Henry H. Bolz, III,
A
brings yet another frivolous motion to the Court, while simultaneously misleading the Court and
T
Defendants by way of failing to offer a payoff amount to Defendants despite repeated request,
O
and by failing wholly to justify the exorbitant attorney's fees claimed.

N
Plaintiff First American Bank ("FAB"), via email from counsel, requested that Defendants
immediately cooperate with its request or an appraisal on the property to determine whether a
Supersedeas bond would be undertaken at the special set September I, 2017 hearing based upon
the granted injunction plead by Defendants and granted by this Court.
Exhibit "N"
While Defendants understand the rationale behind the appraisal, Defendants informed
Plaintiffs counsel that they would be willing to stipulate to the most recent taxable assessed
value from the Palm Beach County, so that a neutral third-party can make a determination as to
the property's present market value, as opposed to a company which Plaintiff has utilized.
Based on the multiple issues, misrepresentations, and abhorrent behavior of Plaintiff's
PY
counsel in these proceedings, Defendants refused to Plaintiffs choice of an appraiser and now
must oppose this frivolous motion.
O
A. Defendants Have No Obligation to Agree to Plaintiff's Demand
C
Given the multitude of "bad faith" motions, altering of judgments, concealments of
ED
payment(s) onto the account, as well as the botched accounting and lack of transparency from the
Plaintiff, it is not difficult for any reasonably prudent person to have a neutral, or court ordered
FI
party make an appraisal.
TI
As noted on the record, Plaintiff has attempted this "strong-arm" tactic before in these
ER
proceedings, namely by the amending of the judgment amount to suit counsel for Plaintiffs
needs. Furthermore, Plaintiffs employee Carlos Molestina previously provided false,

C
misleading, and fraudulent claims with respect to the upkeep of the property, which was swiftly
A
rebutted by Defendants, and countered by both the owners of the landscaping company and the
T
pool maintenance company whom provided written sworn statements as to the eight years in
O
which they meticulously maintained the property.

N
Given the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has no credibility based on the multiple
misrepresentations made, Defendants should not be required to jump through hoops to
accommodate Plaintiffs requests. Counsel for Plaintiff has misled nearly everyone in this action,
including his own client as to the items which have been repeatedly requested by Defendants.
2
Defendants have no obligation to entertain any further nonsense from Plaintifrs counsel
absent a court order, nor do Defendants have any desire to communicate with Plaintiff's counsel.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.310 establishes as a general rule that "[a] stay
pending review may be conditioned upon the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other
PY
conditions, or both." Specifically, at section (a) of Rule 9.310, Florida courts have found that the
O
lower tribunal is given considerable latitude in controlling the circumstances under which the
C
proceedings may be stayed pending review, with or without a bond.·
Plaintiff cites the holding in Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) to
ED
justify its position on the notion that the "present fair market value" is the most important factor
when determining the amount of a Supersedeas Bond that the Defendants will have to post in
FI
order to stay the foreclosure proceedings pending appeal.
TI
However, Plaintiffs argument is flawed from the outset, and Plaintiff chose to cherry pick
ER
portions of the opinion which are conducive to its argument, while leaving out crucial arguments.
Firstly, as noted in the Cerrito holding cited by Plaintiff, the Court has the ultimate latitude
C
on what, if any amount of a Supersedeas Bond would be required, notwithstanding the fair
A
market value of the property.

T
The Court stated the following in its opinion:

O
"Because of the rationale upon which we base reversal it is not necessary to determine
N
whethe1; under the circumstances, bond in the amount of $35,000 constitutes an abuse
of discretion per se. Nor would we be in a position to make such a determination even
if it were ripe for consideration. No facts have been brought forward to this Court
3
establishing the present fair market value of the property, the extent of other liens, if
any, or waste or other damages which may be occasioned by delay."
Pursuant to the above quotation, Plaintiff has once again attempted to twist the holding to
suit its narrative, while conveniently omitting the following excerpt from the Court:
"The rationale of Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Atlantic National Bank, 234
PY
So. 2d 736 (Fla.3d DCA 1970) while not necessarily controlling, may be helpful. The
O
stay we here impose shall terminate upon entry of a further order by the trial court
C
establishing the terms of supersedeas."
In Fidelity & Deposit Co, the Court unequivocally stated:
ED
"The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to protect the party adversely affected
FI
against the consequences of the stay."
Here there is no prejudice, nor harm which can come to a financial banking Plaintiff, and,
TI
as such, its argument that a County assessment is not enough to satisfy the Court, and that only
ER
Plaintiff's counsel has the authority and knowledge by which to have an appraisal conducted is in
direct contradiction to its own citations, and thus, for obvious reasons, the motion must be
C
denied.
A
Should the court wish to nominate and/or appoint an appraisal company or individual,
T
Defendants will have no issue whatsoever, however, Defendants have zero confidence in Plaintiff
O
and its counsel of record to have a fair, and impartial appraiser based on past behavior in these
N
proceedings, as well as the conduct described in Defendants' amended motion for rehearing.
WHEREFORE, for the above and foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully object to
Plaintiff's motion to compel and its choice of an appraiser. Should the court direct, nominate, or
order that a particular company and/or individual is to conduct an appraisal on the property in
4
order to determine the amount (if any) of the supersedeas bond, Defendants shall have no issue
and shall allow the appraisal to take place without delay.
PY
O
C
ED
FI
TI
ER
C
A
T
O
N
5

Boca Raton, FL
~
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, P,·o Se
PY
larry@sacapitalpartners.com
~ ::::;;, - ~
O
C
1arry@sacapitalpartners.com
ED
FI
TI
ER
C
CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy hereof11as been furnished to Henry H. Bolz III, 121 Majo
A
Ave. #200. Coral Gables, FL 33134, by mail this 23 rd day of August 2017.
T
O
N
Laurence Schneider, pro se -------
6
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA- CIRCUIT DIVISION ,4-i;..)
S7o-2oJfo·~C
CASE NO.: _ _ _ _ __ A-·
f,· r-rf Ah\f'\ri{Q h ~ai )1 )(
Plainliff(s)
PY
O
C
ED
ORDER GRANTIN~
FI
THIS CAUSE came before the C u
1 t . .,. l .
ll\-o
TI
t"'-O i
ER
and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDG that said motion be and the same i hereb GRANTED~
aJ.cl i1 lc.1
C
A
i'>-1f(1tV o r Cf ~ · - r-C!fi .Cl, w.- ir i:/J.

¥-
T
D_{?f EAND ORDERED~ Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida
this 2 :?- day of /\ii 4'\'.2i0 , 20 J±.
O
Names and addresses of L-- ----

N
copies furnished to:
,4(( row-5J 0 J- ¥7ro'\d!
Exhibit "O"
Form 50

Not A Certified Copy: Filing# 61018964 E-Filed 08/28/2017 03:37:24 PM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Not A Certified Copy: Filing# 61018964 E-Filed 08/28/2017 03:37:24 PM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing# 61018964 E-Filed 08/28/2017 03:37:24 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK ("First American" or

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER (collectively the

"Schneiders" or "Defendants"), Emergency Request for Temporary Restraining Order1

pending the appeal filed by the Defendant[s]" 2 (Exhibit "B").

September 1, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Id.

expenses to which Plaintiff is entitled." Ex. "C" at 3.

money damages in favor of First American against Defendant, Laurence S. Schneider. 4

entitled." Ex. "D" at 2.

Foreclosure and the Amended Final Judgment became "final orders".

any of those issues.]

(1) whether the foreclosure action should be stayed pending

I. Stay Pending Review - Standard

in the circuit court clerk's office." Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(c)(1).

The conditions of a bond shall include a condition to pay or

comply with the order in full, including costs; interest; fees;

property, if the review is dismissed or order affirmed; and may

Fla. R. App. P. 9.31 0(c)(2).

II. A Stay is Not Warranted

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

by, among other things:

2014, 2015 and 2016. 7

Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "G."

Defenses and all of Laurence S. Schneider's Counterclaims were repeatedly

Summary Judgment. The Schneiders never identified any documents/evidence they

Court, in accordance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), entered a Final Judgment of

"C" and "D").

B. Likelihood of Harm to the Schneiders

Final Judgment in Foreclosure is presently incurring. First American submits that it is in

September 12, 2017.

The purpose of conditioning any stay of proceedings pending appeal on the

posting of a bond is that:

"Both the burden of proof and persuasion to impose

Platt v. Russek, 921 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004).

by an earlier statement in that same pleading that:

"Should it please the Court, Defendants are prepared to

deposit with the Clerk of the Court a nominal bond pending

bond" but stated only:

meaningful Supersedeas Bond. See Pabian, supra.

C. Amount of Supersedeas Bond

foreclosure proceedings pending appeal.

In mid-August, First American attempted to commission an appraisal of the

First American's designated independent/licensed property appraiser access to the

then take a "guess" at the property's "present fair market value." 10

As a condition of staying these foreclosure proceedings pending appeal, First

Supersedeas Bond in the aggregate of the following amounts:

2. Interest at 5.05% for two years $164,132.34

for 2017 and 2018 ($40,000.00); and $40,000.00

4. First American's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses $285,587.41

Sales, 642 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994 ).

D. Continued Right to Inspect Property

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK, respectfully requests the

KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telefax: (305) 529-0228

By: s/Henry H. Bolz, Ill

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, (larry@sacapitalpartners.com), 360 E. Coconut Palm

Road, Boca Raton, FL 33432; STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER

JAYS. LEVIN, ESQ.(foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com), Sachs, Sax, Caplan, Attorneys for