Home Star Mortgage v. Kolbe, et al, No. 8:2003cv00355 - Document 241 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 178 Motion for summary judgment as to Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson, Aaron Kolbe, Kelly Abercrombie, Mary Bolan and Kolbe Construction Services, Inc. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff Opteum Financial Services, LLC in the amount of $4,997,406.97 against Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson-Kolbe, Aaron Kolbe, Kelly Abercrombie, Mary Bolan and Kolbe Construction Services, Inc . The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to Defendant Todd Kerber. Plaintiffs shall notify the Court within five days of Plaintiffs' intended dispositin of the remaining counts of the Second Amended Complaint.. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document) (JM)

Download PDF

Home Star Mortgage v. Kolbe, et al Case No. Doc. 241 Att. 1 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS sufficient to establish "closed-end" continuity. 4. Injury to Plaintiff It is not necessary that Plaintiff allege or prove a separate injury apart from injuries caused by the predicate acts of racketeering activity. U.S. 479 (1985). See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Plaintiff's damages are those damages proximately caused by Defendants' commission of the criminal acts which constitute the "pattern of criminal activity." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 473 1964(d); 1499 (11th Cir. 1991), Pelletier v. Zweifel. See Title 921 F.2d 1465, cert, den. , 502 U.S. 855 (1991). In pursuing a civil RICO claim based on mail or wire fraud, it is not necessary to prove detrimental reliance on misrepresentations made in Indemn. furtherance Co., of 128 S.Ct. the scheme. 2131 Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & (2008). Plaintiff Opteum requests entry of summary judgment as to the RICO claims based on substantial evidence (Dkt. 179, Affidavit of David E. Siegwald), considered together with the extensive invocation of rights, of the RICO Defendants' Fifth Amendment and the stipulated factual basis for the plea agreements Defendants in the associated criminal cases. The Court notes that Defendant Todd Kolbe argues that the target of the fraudulent scheme was Fannie Mae, and not Plaintiff Opteum (Dkt. 221). Defendant Todd Kolbe does not dispute that Plaintiff Opteum issued the subject mortgage loans, many of which were subsequently sold to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae required Plaintiff Opteum to repurchase the fraudulent loans. sustained the loss for the fraudulent scheme, not Opteum Fannie Mae. In 19 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS the related criminal cases, the Court determined that Plaintiff Opteum Financial, then known as Home Star Mortgage Services, LLC was the victim of the fraudulent scheme. The RICO statute is directed to long-term criminal activity. To establish a RICO violation, it is critical that the facts support a finding of "continuity." In this case, given the absence of continuity due to the insubstantial amount of time during which the predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud were carried out, and given the presence of one scheme (the Lakewood loans) to defraud a single victim, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot prevail on Count I. After consideration, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Summary Judgment as to the federal RICO claim (Count I) as to Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson, Mary Bolan and Kelly Abercrombie. D. Count IV - Florida The elements of a RICO Claim claim under Florida's RICO statute are: 1) conduct or participation in an enterprise; and 2) a pattern of racketeering activity. See Nicor Intern. Corp. v. El Paso Corp., 318 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1169 (S.D. Fla. 2004)(quoting Lugo v. State, 845 So.2d 74, 97 (Fla. 2003)). As to the Florida RICO claim, the Court notes that Florida RICO jurisprudence echoes the requirements of federal RICO jurisprudence. 18 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 1994). Jones v. Childers, Violation of the Florida RICO statute requires allegations of predicate acts that violate Florida law, rather than federal law. Under Sec. 895.02, Florida Statutes, "racketeering activity" means the commission of "any crime which is chargeable by indictment or information" under the enumerated provisions of the Florida Statutes, and "any conduct 20 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS defined as Sec. 'racketeering activity' 895.02(1)(a)-(b), under 18 U.S.C. Florida Statutes. Sec. 1961(1)." Mail fraud and wire fraud are crimes which are included in racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. 895.02(1)(b), Statutes, Sec. 1961(1), and are therefore within Sec. Florida Statutes. Fraud under Ch. is included under Sec. 895.02(1)(a), 817, Florida Florida Statutes. Plaintiff Opteum relies on the same facts alleged in support of the federal RICO claim in seeking entry of summary judgment as to the Florida RICO claim in Count IV. After consideration, for the reason stated above as to Count I, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement as to the Florida RICO claim, Count IV as to Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson, Mary Bolan and Kelly Abercrombie. E. Count II - RICO Conspiracy Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) provides: It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) 18 U.S.C. of this section. Sec. 1962(d). To state a cause of action for civil conspiracy, must demonstrate: a plaintiff 1) an agreement between two or more parties to achieve an illegal objective; 2) an overt act in furtherance of that illegal objective; and 3) resulting injury. Software Systems, F.Supp.2d 1276, Florida Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 1283 (M.D. of a RICO conspiracy claim, Fla. 1999). However, 46 in the context a plaintiff need not show that a 21 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS conspirator engaged in an overt act. States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997). See Salinas v. United The Court may infer agreement to participate in the conspiracy from participation in the predicate acts. Plaintiff Opteum requests entry of summary judgment as to the RICO conspiracy claims under Section 1962(d), arguing that it is beyond dispute that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to further the real estate flip scheme and induce Plaintiff to extend mortgage loans in connection with the artificially inflated values of the properties at issue. Plaintiff argues that, in every transaction, Defendants acted in various combinations, Kolbe, and always at the direction of Defendant Todd in an effort to convince Plaintiff to rely on their fraudulent misrepresentations and lend Defendants money in excess of the value of the collateral property. The function of a civil RICO conspiracy claim, criminal RICO conspiracy claim, unlike a is to impute liability. A civil conspiracy plaintiff must establish that someone in the conspiracy committed a tortious act that proximately caused his injury, and can then hold all members of the conspiracy liable for that injury. The Court has Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090 (11th Cir. 1998). determined as a matter of law that the undisputed facts cannot support a federal RICO violation. The record establishes that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff. However, substantive RICO claim, where the facts do not support a the facts cannot support a determination of the presence of a RICO conspiracy. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II. 22 Case F. No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS Count VI - Fraud Count X - Fraud (Lakewood loans) (Sovereign loans] Plaintiff seeks the entry of summary judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's claims Under Florida law, of fraud under Florida law. to establish a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must demonstrate: 1. that the or omission 2. defendant made of material a false statement fact; that by making the statement or omission, the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act; that the plaintiff relied upon the 3. statement; 4. that the plaintiff suffered damages. See Brouoh v. 2002); 539 Imperial Sterling Limited, 297 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. First Interstate Dev. (Fla. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So.2d 536, 1987) . Plaintiff Opteum argues that the record evidence establishes that Defendants made false statements in every mortgage loan application submitted to Plaintiff, with the intention of procuring mortgage loans for amounts inflated beyond the fair market value of the property offered as collateral for the mortgages. Plaintiff relies on the David Siegwald Affidavit (Dkt. 208). Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in the amount of $3,997,406.97, Plaintiff which represents the amount advanced to ($6,168,450.00), less losses recouped through foreclosure. 23 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS As to the Lakewood loans, the undisputed record evidence establishes that twenty five separate transactions were completed during six months. From the successful completion of twenty five separate transactions, the Court can infer intent to defraud as to all Defendants who participated in the scheme. Sovereign loans, transactions, As to the based on the completion of the three the Court infers intent to defraud as to all Defendants who participated in the scheme. Defendant Todd Kolbe argues that Peter Norden, CEO, Home Star's knew about and approved Defendant Kolbe's conduct, that Plaintiffs made the nominee mortgage loans at issue based on appraisals that did not comply with Plaintiffs' policies, internal and with the knowledge that Defendant Todd Kolbe was in bankruptcy and could not afford the loans. in Case No. 8:04-CR-486-T-23MAP, USA v. The Court notes that Todd A Kolbe, conducted an evidentiary sentencing hearing, the Court at which Defendant Kolbe presented evidence on these issues to the Court (Dkt. 91). Defendant Kolbe admitted the facts in Defendant's plea agreement, and, in awarding restitution to Home Star Mortgage Services LLC, the Court determined that Defendant Kolbe's acts within the scope of the conspiracy caused Home Star's losses. In Case No. 8:05-CR-342-T-24TGW, Defendant Kelly Abercrombie argued that Home Star approved the loans "notwithstanding substantial issues and poor documentation because they were submitted and documented by Todd Kolbe, Star Vice President, Norden." then a respected Home Florida Regional Manager, and fried of Peter Defendant Abercrombie denied that the signatures she placed on the appraisals contributed to the loan approvals. 106, pp. 13-15). (Dkt. In awarding restitution, the Court found that 24 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS Defendant Abercrombie's acts within the scope of the conspiracy caused Home Star's losses. After consideration of the factual basis of the plea agreements, as well as the other record evidence, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the fraud claims, Count VI and Count X, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson, It is not clear to as to Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Mary Bolan and Kelly Abercrombie. the Court whether Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment includes the constructive fraud claim in Count VII, relating to the Lakewood loans, and the Sovereign loans. to the actual Count XI, relating to The Court has granted summary judgment as fraud claims. Since the constructive duplicate the actual fraud claims, fraud claims the Court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts VI and Count XI. G. Count IX - Negligent Misrepresentation Count XIII - Negligent Misrepresentation Plaintiff seeks entry of summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation. Under Florida law, a plaintiff seeking recovery for negligent misrepresentation must prove: 1) a false statement concerning a material fact; 2) that the representor reasonably should have known of the statement's falsity; 3) an intention that the representation induce another to act on it; 25 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS 4) consequent injury to the party acting in reliance on the misrepresentation. See Rogers v. Cisco Systems, (N.D. Fla. Inc., 268 F.Supp.2d, 1305, 1312 2003). Plaintiff argues that the claim for negligent misrepresentation is predicated on the same facts as the claim for fraud, and the record contains no evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to this claim. The factual basis of the plea agreements and the twenty-five successful transactions fraud by Defendants, are sufficient to establish intentional and the Court has granted the Motion for Summary Judgment as to that issue. Intentional fraud is not factually consistent with a claim of negligence. The Court therefore denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation, Count IX and Count XIII, Bolan, H. as to Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Amy Samelson, Kirk McVey, Mary and Kelly Abercrombie. Count VIII - Unjust Enrichment Count XII - Unjust Enrichment Plaintiff seeks entry of summary judgment as a matter of law in the amount of $3,997,406.97 as to the claim for unjust enrichment. To prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, must a plaintiff establish: 1) a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff; 26 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS 2) the defendant's appreciation of the benefit; 3) the defendant's acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof. See Florida Power Corp. v. City of Winter Park, 887 So.2d 1237, 1242 n. 4 (Fla. Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment 2004). is based on Defendants' execution of the fraudulent scheme by which Defendants defrauded Plaintiff of $5,000,000 in mortgage proceeds, which Defendants obtained by artificially inflating the value of the properties at issue through fraudulent real estate appraisals, and securing Plaintiff's loans based on those inflated appraisals. Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot point to any record evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact about any element of this claim. The mortgage loans at issue are contracts. Upon submission of the applications for mortgage loans, Plaintiff transferred the loan proceeds to Defendants, to a management agreement. and paid fees to Defendants pursuant Where the undisputed facts establish that funds were transferred and fees were paid pursuant specific contracts, and/or contracts implied in fact, it is not appropriate to grant relief based on a contract implied in law or a quasi-contract theory. Commerce Partnership v. Partnership v. Eouitv Contracting Company, (4eh DCA 1997). Inc., 8098 Limited 695 So.2d 383 The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count VIII and Count XII for unjust enrichment. 27 Case No. I. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS Conversion - Count XV Under Florida law, a conversion is "an unauthorized act which deprives another of his property permanently or for an indefinite time." Fogade v. ENB Irrevocable Trust, 263 F.3d 1274, 1291 (11th Cir. 2001) . Plaintiff Opteum requests entry of judgment as a matter of law in the amount of $3,997,406.97, as Defendants cannot point to any record evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to any element of the claim for conversion. The substance of the fraud claim is that Defendants fraudulent mortgage applications to Plaintiff, Plaintiff to extend mortgage loans. the loan applications, made to induce Based on the information in Plaintiff voluntarily entered into loan agreements with Defendants, to the fraudulent loans. and gave funds to Defendants pursuant The mortgage loans are contracts, and the facts in this case do not establish specifically identifiable funds. These facts do not meet the requirements for a claim of conversion. See Belford Trucking Co. v. Zaqar, 243 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) . After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count XV for conversion. J. Other 1. Todd Issues Kerber and Aaron Kolbe Plaintiff Opteum seeks entry of summary judgment as to Defendant Todd Kerber and Defendant Aaron Kolbe as to Count II, 28 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS RICO conspiracy, Count VI, Fraud, and Count VIII, Unjust Enrichment. The Court has denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II, RICO conspiracy, due to the absence of facts which support a substantive RICO violation. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement on Count II, Conspiracy, RICO as to Defendants Todd Kerber and Aaron Kolbe. As to Count VII, Fraud, Plaintiff seeks entry of summary judgment as to Defendants Todd Kerber and Aaron Kolbe based on the independent record evidence of their involvement in the fraudulent scheme, and their blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment during discovery, which would permit the Court to draw an adverse inference. One provision of Defendant Kelly Abercrombie's plea agreement provided that Defendant Todd Kerber would be dismissed from the criminal case, and offered Pretrial Diversion. Defendant Todd Kerber was dismissed without prejudice. A provision of Defendant Amy Samelson-Kolbe's plea agreement provided that Defendant Aaron Kolbe would be offered Pretrial Diversion. A pretrial diversion agreement is analogous to a plea agreement. 1979). United States v. Warren, 594 F.2d 1046, 1049 (5th Cir. Pretrial diversion is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision administered by the U.S. Probation Office. will not be charged, Participants who complete the program or if charged, will have the charges against 29 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS them dismissed; unsuccessful participants are returned for prosecution. The major objectives of pretrial diversion are: 1) to prevent future criminal activity among certain offenders by diverting them from traditional processing into community supervision and services; 2) to save prosecutive and judicial resources for concentration on major cases and 3)to provide, where appropriate, victims of crime. a vehicle for restitution to communities and See United States Attorney's Manual, Sec 9- 22.01. The Pretrial Diversion Agreements of Defendant Todd Kerber and Defendant Aaron Kolbe have not been made a part of the record before the Court, other Defendants. unlike the plea agreements entered into by The inclusion of the provisions in the Abercrombie and Samelson-Kolbe plea agreements suggests that Pretrial Diversion was to be offered as a way to save prosecutorial resources, rather than because Defendants were not in fact guilty of the charges. However, since the Agreements are not part of the record evidence, and the Court does not know the terms of the Pretrial Diversion Agreements, and the circumstances surrounding the execution of such Agreements, the Court cannot accord preclusive effect to the Agreements. The Court will consider whether entry of summary judgment as to Todd Kerber and Aaron Kolbe is appropriate, based on independent record evidence and Defendants' assertion of the Fifth Amendment during discovery. 30 Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS This case was commenced in 2002 in New Jersey. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Orlando, and then to Tampa, A case management and scheduling order was on February 27, 2003. entered on October 3, 2003, January 30, February 27, 3004, 2004 February 11, setting a discovery cutoff for on and due date for dispositive motions on (Dkt. 71). filed on October 14, 2003. November 12, 2004 Florida (Dkt. 2005, A Second Amended Complaint was The discovery cutoff was extended to 119). The discovery cutoff was extended and the due date for dispositive motions was extended to 3/14/2005 (Dkt. 148). on March 3, 2005. Defendant Kerber was deposed Defendant Kerber moved for entry of summary judgment on May 11, 2005 (Dkt. 172) to v/hich Plaintiff responded on May 25, 2005 (Dkt. 187). summary judgment on May 12, Plaintiff Opteum moved for entry of 2005 (Dkt. 178). Defendant Kerber filed a response on August 29, 2005 (Dkt. 214). Defendant Kerber moved to stay this case on September 23, 2005 (Dkt. completion of criminal proceedings in Case No. 24TGW. 218), 8:05-CR-342-T- A stay was granted until 3/1/2006 (Dkt. 222). 27, 2006, the Court heard oral argument. pending On April Defendant Kerber filed a supplemental affidavit on June 19, 2006 (Dkt. 235). The general rule is that when the Fifth Amendment is asserted by a party in a civil case, the Court may presume the party intends to withhold damaging information that is material to the litigation. The Court may not draw an adverse inference if assertion of Fifth Amendment the is the sole basis for a plaintiff's prima facie case or will result in the automatic entry of summary judgment. United States v. Premises Located at Route 13, (11th Cir. 946 F.2d 749, 756 31 1991). Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS The Court (Dkt. 235) Judgment, notes Defendant Kerber filed an Amended Affidavit in Support of Defendant Kerber's Motion for Summary which raises a genuine issue of material disputed fact as to Defendant Kerber's knowledge of any false documentation, and the authenticity of Defendant Kerber's signature which appears on documents involved in the fraudulent scheme. Court declines Kerber's to draw an adverse inference assertion of the Fifth Amendment. The from Defendant The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Kerber. As to Defendant Aaron Kolbe, independent evidence of record, including Defendant Kolbe's signature on numerous documents, Exhibits) based on the substantial (Dkt. 179, Siegwald Affidavit, and the adverse inference the Court draws from Defendant Aaron Kolbe's invocation of the Defendant's deposition, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count VI, Plaintiff's 2. Fraud, Fifth Amendment in and otherwise denies Motion. Kolbe Construction Services, Inc. Defendant Kolbe Construction Services, Count X, Fraud, Inc. Count XI, Constructive Fraud, is named in Count XII, Unjust Enrichment, and Count XIII, Negligent Misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges that Kolbe Construction Services, Inc. participated in the fraudulent scheme as to the Sovereign loan transactions. Defendant Todd A. Kolbe is the sole officer and director of Kolbe Construction Services, Inc. (Dkt. 179, Siegwald Affidavit), and executed documents in his capacity as President of Kolbe Construction Services, 32 Inc. There is record Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS evidence of deposits of loan proceeds into the bank account of Kolbe Construction Services, After consideration, Inc. based on the undisputed record evidence, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count X, 3. Fraud. Other Counts Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment addresses only some of the Counts of the Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants. and only some of Plaintiff shall notify the Court as to Plaintiff's intended disposition of the remaining Counts of the Second Amended Complaint, by filing a response to this Order within five days of the date of this Order. 4. Damages Plaintiffs seek the entry of judgment in the amount of $3,997,406.97 for the fraud claims. The Court notes that some funds have been recovered by way of settlement. enter a final judgment, fourteen days. The Court will and any motion to amend is due within The parties shall confer and attempt to reach a stipulation prior to filing a motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Opteum is granted in part and denied in part as to Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson (Samelson-Kolbe), Aaron Kolbe, Kelly Abercrombie, Mary Bolan and Kolbe Construction Services, Inc. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff Opteum Financial Services, 33 LLC in the Case No. 8:03-CV-355-T-17MSS amount of $3,997,406.97 and against Defendants Todd A. Kolbe, Kirk McVey, Amy Samelson-Kolbe, Aaron Kolbe, Kelly Abercrombie, Mary Bolan and Kolbe Construction Services, ORDERED that Plaintiffs' denied as to Defendant Todd Inc. It is further Motion for Summary Judgment is Kerber. ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall notify the Court within five days of Plaintiffs' intended disposition of the remaining counts of the Second Amended Complaint. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, 22nd day of September, in Tampa, Florida on this 2010. ELIZABETH A7ICOVACHEVICIJ. UNITED STATES DISTRICTEDGE Copies to: All parties and counsel of record 34 108,140 25/ISS Assessed P.BJPr A Side Sales Price 140,000 00 142.900 00 165.7000.00 141.191 106.747 135.000.00 152.921 139.900 00 106,235 30/12 1679/1777 114.770 32/45 1679/1777 119.149 30/12 121.218 139.211 115.071 25/185 25/185 28/137 96.987 29/28 140.000 1693/4105 131.600 00 140.000 1693MI05 146,000 00 131.600 00 140.000 25/85 1693/4105 122,600 00 129.000 00 163.000 00 169.900.00 138.975 25/48 140.551 124,086 111,959 35/7 37/74 136.617 30/122 138,090 35/7 140.861 30/179 152,000 00 152,000.00 119,693 130,473 30/127 150.000 00 150.000 00 30/12 29/36 183,000 00 188.900.00 183.500 00 179.900.00 226,700 00 181.70000 163.000 00 >f Hip Mortgage 102,000.00 97.100.00 105,100.00 80.000.00 99JOO.00 99.000.00 9OJ00.00 90.300.00 99,300.00 11.000.00 82,000.00 103,350.00 95.000.00 EXHIBIT A LAKEWOOD ENTERPRISE "REAL ESTATE FLIP"TRANSACTIONS BSIde S«les Price 328.500.00 327.50000 327.50000 359.900.00 3 54.900 00 328.00.00 299.900.00 299.900.00 299.900.00 326.500.00 329.00000 369.500.00 339.200.00 363.900.00 120,000.00 120.000.00 92.000.00 369.000 00 128.750.00 88.100.00 91.500.00 651.100.00 48.300.00 93J00.00 112.000.00 362.000.00 367.50000 369.500 00 368.00000 339.20000 374.900 00 369.900 00 370.000.00 of nip Ml*. 242.000 00 240.000.00 245.000.00 265.00000 26S.OOOOO 245.000.00 221.900 00 221.900.00 221.900 00 240,000.00 245.000.00 273.750.00 245.000.00 273.750.00 272.00000 272.000 00 275.00000 275.000.00 275.000 00 245.000 00 275.000 01) 275.000 275.000 00 Fannie Mae Property Address 5210 72" Suect East 4679 73,J Street East l2243HollybushTcr 7131 Boca Grove Pl»201 7115 Boca Grove PIIT203 4934 2""Ct East 7109 Cedar Hollow T202 7107 Cedar Hollow B20I 7111 Cedar Hollow 0101 4943 78" Si. East 7I08 52-Dr East 6443 GoldcnlcaTo Ct 7102 52" Dr East" 12309 Wood Sage Ter 12345 Wood Sage Ter 12307 Tall Pines Way 84l8ldlcwoodCt 7211 Spikerush Court 674S Oak Manor Di II202 Parkside Place 6216 Macaw Glenn 11503Pimpernel Dr 4132 Dover Dr Cit> Oradcnlon Bradcnion Dradcnitin Bradcnion Bradcnton Brademon Bradcnton Dradenton Bradcnion Brademon Bradcnion Brademon Brademon Bradcnion Bradcnion Bradcnion Bradcnion Bradcnion Bradcnion Bradcnion Loan* 1679081195 1679106438 1679106440 1679106437 1679106435 1679106439 1679106445 1679106442 1679106441 1679081196 1679106436 1679106443 1679106444 I6780I0I7I 1678010169 1678010170 1678010168 1678291666 1678291663 1678134069 Bradcnion Brademon Borrower McVey.Kirk McVey. Kirk McVey. Kiik McVey. Kill McVey. Kiik McVey, Kirk Samelson.Amy Samelson, Amy Samelson, Amy Samelson. Amy Samelson. Amy Samelson, Amy Kolbe. Aaron McVey.Kirk McVey. Kitk McVey. McVey. McVey. McVey. McVey. McVey. McVey. Kirk Kirk Kiik Kirk Kirk Kirk Kiik Kolbe. Aaron Bradcnton Home Slat i Home Lender MortgageServices.LLC Stat 1Mortgage Services, LLC Services. LLC Mortgage Services. LLC Home Slat Mortgage i Home Star i Home Stat MortgageServices.LLC r Home Star Mortgage Services. LLC r Home Star Mortgage Services. LLC r Home Star Mortgage Services. LLC r Services, LLC Home Stat Mortgage f Home Star Mortgage f Services. LLC Home Star Mortgage Services. LLC r Home Star Mortgage Services. LLC r Services. LLC Home Stat Mortgage r HomeS ide Lending.Inc : HomeSide SLending, Inc. HomeSide Lending. Inc : HomeSide Lending.Inc : Lending. Inc HomeSide : HomeSide Lending.Inc e HomeSide Lending. Inc : 1301-241 Lender Loin » I3O10OO232 1301000233 13OI0OO235 1301000231 1301000226 1301000234 1301000254 1301000237 1301000236 1301000239 1301000230 1301000238 1301000240 14416154 14416145 I44I6IS3 14416144 976540 976496 14416943 1301-240 < LU I uo LO CO o o I > o I CO o 00 O) »Se<745vt 10741J-17O9! •J) to o

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.