The Homeowner then argued the motion in limine. The court denied the. part of the motion regarding the Bank depriving the Homeowner of a deposition of

Similar documents
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT

5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. v. : Case No. : CA018991XXXX MB. v. :Case No.

FROM THE KORTE WARTMAN LAW FIRM. Page: 1 IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA (AW)

In the District Court of Appeal Fourth District of Florida

CASE NO. Appellant, US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RASC 2005KS10, et al. Appellees. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DEPOSITION OF KRISTA HIGGS BY BRIAN KORTE ESQ

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

No. 85 February 28, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Page 5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: All we have left is Number 5 and 3 then Mr. Stopa's. Are you ready to proceed? 4 MR. SPANOLIOS: Your Honor

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D16-53

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

This is one of the Lawyers in Brian Korte`s office, SUSANNA LEHMAN, ESQ. She makes the Plaintiff very confused and argued a very different angle of

INTRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AT TRIAL THE BASICS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 15 CV 030. v. : Judge Berens

Defendants Trial Brief - 1 -

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION (CPS Trial)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Plaintiff ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The plaintiff moves for summary judgment in an action for foreclosure

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION NOTICE OF PRODUCTION

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. JAN 1 12Gi2 CLERK OF COURT. Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In the District Court of Appeal Third District of Florida

Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE

Definitions of Terms Used in Small Claims Court


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. v. Case No.: CI

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: MARYANN SUMI, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded.

2017 IL App (2d) No Opinion filed November 14, 2017 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

Case 5:16-cv OLG Document 105 Filed 05/10/18 Page 1 of 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv RJS Document 283 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COLLECTING ON A JUDGMENT STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE. Leonard Elias, Esq. Consumer Advocate Miami-Dade Consumer Services Department

IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Case 3:15-cv HEH-RCY Document Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# Exhibit D

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION [Required For Bench Trials over two (2) hours]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS CIVIL COURT DEPARTMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE XXXXXXXXXX JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR XXXXXXXXX COUNTY, FLORIDA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) /

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII

Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Lawsuits: Standing, Damages, Doctor vs. Hospital Liability

CASE NO. 1D Douglas L. Smith of Burke, Blue, Hutchison, Walters & Smith, P.A., Panama City; Michael R. Reiter, Lynn Haven, for Appellant.

18 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT

CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013

RULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS

Page 1. 10:10 a.m. Veritext Legal Solutions

40609Nicoletti.txt. 7 MR. BRUTOCAO: Nicholas Brutocao appearing. 12 Honor. I'm counsel associated with Steve Krause and

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Transcript of Jones v Scruggs Sanctions Hearing (SF FCA) (2).TXT 5 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI 13 JONES, FUNDERBURG,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL DIV. : PART X RELIABLE ABSTRACT CO.

CASE NO. 1D David H. Charlip of Charlip Law Group, LC, Aventura, for Appellants.

CHAPTER 16 FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et al. v. Brunner, Jennifer, etc.

Case 1:02-cv EGS-JMF Document 560 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SMALL CLAIMS MANUAL. The following information has been made available through the office of the McHenry County Clerk of the

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/12/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2017

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO STRIKE

Argumentative Questions (Badgering) Assuming Facts Not in Evidence (Extrapolation) Irrelevant Evidence Hearsay Opinion Lack of Personal Knowledge

CASE NO. 1D Michael Wm Mead, Mead Law Firm, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellee.

***************************

mg Doc 9580 Filed 02/02/16 Entered 02/02/16 19:57:58 Main Document Pg 1 of 2 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

Form 2 Request for Social Security Number. One packet for your records containing the following completed forms:

Original Writing Privilege Relevance Authentication Hearsay. Donald Beskind, Raleigh Attorney

Exhibit 24 to Affidavit of Daniel M. Reilly in Support of Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Proposed Settlement

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

No Fault Divorce under 3301 (d) of the Divorce Code LIVING SEPARATE AND APART

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Case3:07-md SI Document7414 Filed12/21/12 Page1 of 9

[CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff TO:

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11

In the District Court of Appeal Second District of Florida

No pleading or other legal paper that complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2017

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2018 INDEX NO / :15 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 246 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2018

BYLAWS REDHAWK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION)

Superior Court of California County of Orange

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2010

Defense Motion for Mistrial

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Transcription:

simply a ploy to delay this case further. 18 The court (Judge Hubbart) denied the motion. 19 The Homeowner then argued the motion in limine. The court denied the part of the motion regarding the Bank depriving the Homeowner of a deposition of the Bank s witness based on Judge Hogan Scola s refusal to continue the case even though the deposition did not take place as she had ordered. 20 The court also denied the part of the motion based upon 90.956, Fla. Stat (Summaries), but left the door open to an objection whenever the Bank sought to introduce the compilation evidence. 21 D. The Bank s document reader. The Bank s only witness at trial was Peter Knapp. Mr. Knapp did not work for the Plaintiff Bank, but for its servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing. 22 His job in Ocwen s Legal Operations department involves the review [of] loan files in anticipation of testifying at trials, hearings and depositions. 23 In the past, he had 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 T. 8-9. 21 T. 5-8. 22 T. 13. 23 T. 13. 5

been employed in some unidentified capacity by the other two servicers who had handled the loan, Homecomings Financial and GMAC Mortgage. 24 Knapp testified, without elaboration, that he knew how information was entered into, and retrieved from, the Bank s computer system. 25 Over objection, Knapp answered a series of leading questions designed to establish a business records exception to hearsay regarding all the records he had reviewed in the case even though the specific documents had not yet been identified: Q. Okay. The records that you referred to, are they kept in the ordinary course of business? MR. BROTMAN: Objection. Hearsay. Lack of foundation, lack of knowledge of the procedures of the plaintiff or servicer. A. They are. Q. I'll just repeat the question. So they are kept in the ordinary course of business, the records we were just referring to? A. They are. 24 T. 14-15. 25 T. 15. 6

Q. They're kept by a person who is authorized to keep them? A. Yes. MR. BROTMAN: Objection. Lack of foundation. Q. Are the records kept by a person who is authorized to keep those records? MR. BROTMAN: Objection. Hearsay. Lack of foundation. MR. PETERS: You just overruled that. MR. BROTMAN: I have to preserve every objection, Your Honor. Q. I'll just repeat the same question. MR. BROTMAN: Same objection. Q. Are the records kept by a person who is authorized to keep them? A. Yes. Q. Are they kept and entered by a person who has knowledge of those records? MR. BROTMAN: Objection. Hearsay. He's testifying to what other people have done. 7

A. They are. Q. So you answered the affirmative. Okay. Are the records made at the time the information is transmitted and recorded by a person with knowledge? MR. BROTMAN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. Lack of foundation. A. They are. Q. Is it the regular practice of Ocwen Loan Servicing to keep those records that we're referring to? A. It is. 26 The Bank then handed Knapp a myriad of documents which were shuttled into evidence without further foundational testimony for a business records hearsay exception (or any other exception): 1. a note (endorsed differently than that attached to the complaint); 27 2. a mortgage; 28 3. a screen printout labeled Asset Detail; 29 26 T. 15-17. 27 Volume IV Record on Appeal ( Exhibits ), p. 2, compare R. 29. 28 Exhibits, p. 6. 29 Exhibits, p. 25. 8

4. a screen printout labeled Loan Summary; 30 5. a screen printout labeled Affidavit Checklist; 31 6. a screen printout labeled Display/History; 32 7. a document containing text that was purportedly in a default letter that was said to have been sent to the Homeowner; 33 On cross-examination, a different story emerged. Knapp testified that he had never worked in any of the departments where the digital records were created. For example, as to the Asset Detail (Exhibit 3), Knapp testified: Q. Who inputted the information that's in this record? A. An employee in the records department. Q. In the records department? Is that a separate department from the imaging department? A. Yes. Q. Do you work in the records department? A. I do not. Q. What department do you work in? A. I work in legal operations. 30 Exhibits, p. 26 (more legible copy at R. 395). 31 Exhibits p. 27. 32 Exhibits, p. 29. 33 Exhibits, p. 45. 9

Q. Have you ever worked in the records department? A. I have not. Q. Have you ever been in a management level in the records department? A. No, sir. 34 * * * Q. Were you able to find out in your research of this file who input these records in the loan detail? A. I don't know the specific person that inputted these records. 35 See also, as to Exhibit 5: T. 53-54 (witness did not work in, or have managerial responsibility for, default department where record was created); as to Exhibit 6: T. 56-57 (witness did not work in, or have supervisory capacity for, payment processing department of Homecomings Financial or GMAC Mortgage department where records were created); as to Exhibit 4: T. 41, 50 (witness did not work in the GMAC Mortgage imaging department that created the record). Nevertheless, the court denied the Homeowner s motions to strike these exhibits based on hearsay 34 T. 47-48. 35 T. 48-49. 10

and the failure to show that the witness was qualified to lay the foundation for a business records exception to hearsay. 36 E. The court admits data compilations into evidence over objection. Exhibit 4 was entitled Loan Summary. The court, nevertheless, admitted the document into evidence over the objection that it was a summary. 37 Knapp himself identified the Affidavit Checklist (Exhibit 5) as a compilation of the amounts due and owing for this loan pulled from our computer system. 38 Yet, the court summarily overruled an objection to both Exhibit 5 and the payment history (Exhibit 6) expressly based on 90.956, Fla. Stat. 39 On cross-examination, Knapp admitted that the Loan Summary (Exhibit 4) references the existence of document images, such as the name affidavit, the hazard insurance, the HUD-1 statement, the flood certificate, and the servicing transmittal, among others. 40 Knapp did not know what kind of document the hazard insurance would be, nor did he know what one of the 36 T. 81-87. 37 T. 23. 38 T. 25 (emphasis added). 39 T. 25-26. 40 T. 51-52. 11