Motion for Contempt Bank Violated Injunction

IN THE CIRCIDT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION REGIONS

BANK, PLAINTIFF(S), CASE NO.I0-000191-CI-U

v.
PAULA ROBERTS; ET. AL.,

DEFENDANT(S)

--------------------------------~/
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS Defendant PAULA ROBERTS (hereinafter "Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully files this MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b), and precedent case law, and as grounds thereof states! 1. This is an action for foreclosure of residential real property owned by Defendant. 2. On March 2, 2012, this Court rendered a temporary injunction enjoining REGIONS BANK (hereinafter "Plaintiff") or its agents from: (1) changing locks, winterizing the plumbing system, and entering inside the property of Defendant; and (2) threatening to change the locks, winterize the property, or threatening to enter the residential property. See attached Exhibit "A", ~2(a) and (b). 3. Despite this clear language, Plaintiff violated the temporary agents entered onto Plaintiff's property property and threatened injunction when it or its

to change the locks or winterize the A copy of this notice is

as evidenced by a written

notice placed on her door.

attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "B". 4. The March 2nd restraining order provides, in paragraph 4, that "any party violating this injunction may be subject to civil or indirect criminal contempt proceedings." Consequently,

Defendant respectfully requests contempt charges be levied against both Plaintiff and its agents for violation of the temporary injunction. 5. Moreover, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) provides, in pertinent part, that "[aJny party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to comply with these rules or any order of court." Bold emphasis. 6. A dismissal with prejudice is warranted when the factors articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) are present. 7. These factors include: (1) whether the actions were willful, deliberate, or contumacious; (2) whether the client was involved; and (3) whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration. 8. Here, Plaintiffs Id. at 818. actions were willfully, deliberately, and contumaciously in disregard of

this Court's March 2nd restraining order; Plaintiffs actions were directly attributable to it and not its attorneys; and Plaintiff s actions create significant problems of judicial administration

because it encourages willful non-compliance with orders of court and desecration of property rights. 9. Therefore, Plaintiffs action must be dismissed with prejudice for willful and

contumacious disregard for this Court's March 2nd order. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Defendant respectfully request this Court

hold Plaintiff and its agents in contempt of court for violation of the March 2nd temporary injunction; dismiss the action with prejudice for willful and contumacious disregard for this Court's March 2nd order; award attorney's fees and costs to Defendant pursuant to Fla. Stat. §S7.10S(7) and the subject loan documents for those fees so wrongfully incurred by the necessity of defense; and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand delivery and

u.s.

Mail on this

0/.0

~~

day of April, 2012 to Meghan Kenefic, Esq., Shapiro,

Fishman & Gache, 4630 Woodland Corporate Blvd., Suite 100, Tampa, FL 33614.

By:~P.:J~

Michael P. Fuino, Esq. MatthewD. Weidner, P.A. Attorney for Defendant 1229 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33705 (727) 894-3159 FBN: 84191

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION REGIONS BANK, PLAINTIFF(S), CASE NO.I0-000191-CI-ll

v.
PAULA ROBERTS; ET. AL~,

DEFENDANT(S) ----------------------------------------------------------------~/ ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCfION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant's Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Given the motions filed by the parties, this Court finds the following: a. The pleadings filed by Defendant assert that on or about January 6, 2011 agents acting on behalf of the Plaintiff broke into the property that is subject of this litigation without lawful order of any court and without any clear legal authority to forcibly enter the home of the Defendant. b. The Defendants next assert that a notice was attached to the subject property on or about February 24, 2012 which states that, "[t]he property may have its locks replaced and/or plumbing system winterized within the next several days," (Attached as Exhibit A) c. The court believes that no party not specifically authorized by the owner of a residential property should be permitted to forcibly gain access to a home without court order, exigent circumstances or clear legal authority. d. The Defendants seek an injunction to prevent the unauthorized entry into the residential property that is the subject of this suit and this court believes there is a substantial likelihood that the Defendant would prevail on the merits of a injunction prohibiting this act. e. There exists a substantial threat of irreparable injury to Defendant if her home were permitted to be broken into. f. That the threat of harm mentioned above outweighs any possible harm that this injunction may cause Plaintiff. g. That granting this injunction would not disserve the public interest.

EXHIBIT

II_A_"

2. Tills Court therefore Grants an injunction which prevents Plaintiff, or its agents, from: a. Changing the locks, winterizing the plumbing system, and entering inside

the residential Property of Defendant.
b. Threatening to change the locks, winterize the Property, or threatening to enter the residential property of Defendant c. Making any attempts to gain access to the interior of the property, trying door knobs, attempting to open window or doing anything else in furtherance of attempts to enter into the property. 3. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant an injunction which shall be effective until stipulation by the parties or further court order. 4. Any party violating this injunction may be subject to civil or indirect criminal contempt proceedings, including the imposition of a fine or imprisonment, and also may be charged with a crime punishable by a fine, jail, or both, as provided by Florida Statutes. 5. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, this 2ND day of March,2012.

lsi ORIGINAL SIGNED Honorable Pamela A.M. Campbell

CC:

Matt Weidner, Esq. Meghan Kenefic, Esq.

DATE:

(!JL~~\~ I

NOTICE:This prop-erty has been determined to be vacant. The information will be reported to the mortgage servicer. The mortgage servicer intends to protect this property from waste and or deterioratio-n. The property may have its locks replaced and/or plumbing system winterized within the next several days.
If this property is NOT VACANT, please call your mortgage servicer imrneoiately.

[R] I confirm the property was found vacant as of
the completion date of this visit.

Vendor Code: , Vendor

-----------------Name:
.::..;:15::;..;:5:;........ _

06038

Signature:

D. ~
EXHIBIT ..

Notice posted on behalf of your Mortgage Servicer.

B

n

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful