Kelley Kronenberg - In the Know – Real Estate Edition - December 2021

IN THE

DECEMBER 2021

NOW

REAL ESTATE EDITION

IN THIS ISSUE: • • • • • •

Fla. 6th District of Appeal?

Hunstein: Ongoing FDCPA Saga FLSC Addresses Case Backlog Battle Retuning Originals Beware: 3rd Party Purchasers llinois Affirms Face-to-Face Requirements

EDITOR’S LETTER

WELCOME

“

Jason M. Vanslette Editor, and Business Unit Leader/Partner

I n prosperity, our friends know us; in adversity, we know our friends.

–John Churton Collins

The default mortgage industry has been

homeowners whom are counting on assistance

navigating through unprecedented adversity

to maintain their homes.

for nearly two years as lawmakers, health

It will be imperative for both the legal and

officials and local leaders try to endure the

the real estate industries to work together

Covid-19

national

to ensure another housing crisis does not

emergency, housing and real estate will always

reach our proverbial doorsteps. Although we

be a focal point of attention that can have long-

welcome the New Year and what challenges

lasting effects on the industry. As vaccinations

it may bring, we will continue to ensure

rates continue to rise, however, the real estate

compliance and safety are at the forefront of

market will once again normalize and the

our firm and our real estate clients.

pandemic.

During

any

governmental moratoriums will end for many

TABLE OF

CONTENTS Florida Supreme Court Prompts Creation of Sixth District Court of Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 Hunstein: The Ongoing FDCPA Saga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-8 Florida Supreme Court Issues Orders to Clear Case Backlog. . . . . . . . . . 9-11 Wlimington v. Morroni (FL. 2d DCA)- Plaintiff’s Return of Originals . . . . . 11-12 Primer on Third-Party Purchasers in Florida Foreclosures . . . . . . . . . . . 12-14 Freedom Morg. V. Olivera (IL. 2d DCA)- Illinois Affirms Face-to-Face Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15 CONTRIBUTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-19 HELPING YOU STAY AHEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25

4 | IN THE

NOW

Florida Supreme Court Prompts Creation of Sixth District Court of Appeal KK TAKEAWAY: The Florida Supreme Court has directed the creation of a Sixth District Court of Appeal, and the realignment of current appellate districts for the purpose of improving public trust and confidence. Expanded resources to adjudicate appellate matters will hopefully speed the rate of appellate decision issuance, and in turn, reduce timelines for fully resolving foreclosure matters on appeal.

BACKGROUND: In the mortgage foreclosure action, an appeal of a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, or any other trial court order, can add costly time and lengthy expense to a default servicer’s timeline. Whether a district has ample resources to address the number of cases before it can directly impact the length of an appeal, and in turn, how long a lender-plaintiff must wait before it can resolve its foreclosure action via judicial sale or obtain marketable title in REO. Appeals are almost exclusively based on paper arguments. Once an appeal is fully briefed, i.e., all parties have filed their respective arguments, there is often little to nothing that a foreclosing lender can do to move the appeal to resolution other than wait for the appellate district to review the briefs and issue and opinion.

Since 1979, Florida District Courts of Appeal (“DCAs”) have been comprised of five districts. Traditionally, the composition of the five districts is based primarily on the volume IN THE

NOW |

5

of appeals taken up by the respective counties

Having reviewed the Report, on November

assigned to that district. For instance, the

24, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court directed

heavily populated counties of Miami-Dade

the creation of an entirely new district court

and Monroe are the only counties assigned

of appeal and will readjust the boundaries of

to the Third DCA, whereas the First and

the existing DCAs. The readjustment of the

Second DCAs hear matters stemming from

boundaries will most impact Jacksonville/

six counties each, all located in the lesser

Duval County, which is expected to see

populated west coast and panhandle regions

increased

of Florida.

judiciary.

In May, this Florida Supreme Court created

If approved by the Legislature, the change

a court-appointed committee to research

could take place as early as next year. Overall,

and assess the current District Court of Appeal workload and the assignment of jurisdictions to the various districts based on effectiveness, efficiency, access to appellate review, professionalism, and public trust and confidence . The committee issued its Final Report and Recommendations (“Report”) in September . The Report detailed that appellate court users surveyed expressed concerns over delays in receiving appellate decisions.

representation

in

the

DCA’s

the precise impact of this change on case law trends remains to be seen, but a district realignment for much of north Florida may usher a change in decision trends appellate practitioners know and expect from the various DCAs. Notwithstanding, the addition of several new judges to the existing DCAs, and an entirely new Sixth District Court of Appeal would hopefully drive more resources to improve the speed of which appeals are decided, which can only benefit foreclosing

A similar concern was expressed over a

lenders. Where meritless appeals are often

perceived reduced number of written opinions,

used as nothing more than a delay tactic

as opposed to per curium affirmances, which

by borrowers, and a growing body of non-

simply deny or affirm a lower court’s order

borrower title owners, an expedited timeline

without further explanation. Ultimately, the Report recommended the creation of at least one additional DCA for the purpose of improving public trust and confidence. The committee concluded that by both adding an additional DCA and adjusting the boundaries to create less square mileage per DCA, Florida could effectively enhance diversity in circuit representation amongst of applicants for judicial seats on the DCAs, while also improving access to appellate review.

6 | IN THE

NOW

has the potential to reduce this stall tactic.

Overall, this is an interesting development, and a shift to keep an eye on in 2022.

connection with debt collection. In Hunstein

Hunstein: The Ongoing FDCPA Saga

v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the application of Section 1692(c) of the Fair

KK TAKEAWAY: Mortgage Servicers will want to monitor the decision from the upcoming Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. en banc review to determine if the Court interprets communication to thirdparty vendors as violations of the FDCPA.

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) to utilization of a third-party commercial mail vendor. The case concentrated on two aspects of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff’s standing to bring the action and whether Plaintiff has stated a viable cause of action.

In

BACKGROUND:

Management

Data transmittal of protected information to third-party vendors has increasingly become common place for debt collectors, mortgage servicers and a plethora of other sectors of the economy.

Section

1692(c)(b)

Hunstein,

Preferred Services,

Collection Inc.

and

transmitted

certain information about Plaintiff Hunstein’s to a commercial mail vendor.

Hunstein

argued that this transmittal is a violation of Section 1692(c)(b). In April, the first time the Court considered the matter, the Court held that Plaintiff had alleged a concrete statutory

of

the

Fair

Debt

injury under Section 1692c(b) for purposes

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) deals

of satisfying Article III even though Hunstein

with communication with third parties in

failed to allege a risk of real or tangible harm.

IN THE

NOW |

7

The Court additionally held that a debt collector’s

transmittal

of

a

consumer’s

personal information to its letter vendor constituted

a

prohibited

third-party

communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” as used in the FDCPA. The Court reasoned that the common usage of the word connection and determined that Defendant’s communication to the mail vendor “inescapabl[y]” “concerned,” “was with reference to,” and “bore a relationship or association to” the collection of Hunstein’s debt.

Preferred

the use of a third-party vendor to mail out letters by debt collectors.

If the ruling

regarding private information and third-party vendors gains momentum, the fallout could go beyond the debt collection scenario to other scenarios where companies utilize third parties to facilitate communication that includes protected personal information.

Mortgage servicers that utilize third parties to mail demand letters may be required to internalize their operation to protect from possible claims of failure to protect the private information of the borrowers.

It is

possible the communication definition could Collection

and

Management

expand to include communications between

Services, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing or

computer systems and companies will need

an en banc rehearing. A plethora of entities in

to review their systems to determine what

the industry filed amicus briefs in support for

data is utilized by third-party vendors on their

the Defendant.

behalf.

In June, the Supreme Court issued its decision

The Hunstein story took another twist in

in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez which clarified

late November. The Eleventh Circuit Court

standing in Article III cases five years after

of Appeals issued an order vacating the

its holding in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.

Hunstein decision and ordered the case to be

1540. Additionally, in the dicta of TransUnion,

reheard en banc.

the Supreme Court questioned the underlying finding that providing consumer information to a third-party vendor qualifies as publication.

The Eleventh Circuit has clarified that it will focus its review on the question of Article III standing. The Court has set the briefing

In late October, the same Eleventh Circuit

schedule and scheduled an oral argument, if

panel that decided the case in April vacated

necessary, for February 21, 2022.

its April decision sua sponte and issued a replacement decision. This time the Court ruled 2-1 with a written dissent. The majority concluded that the April decision was correct, and that the Defendant’s alleged statutory violation was “sufficiently analogous” to the tort of public disclosure of private facts.

The implications of the decision go beyond 8 | IN THE

NOW

If the Court concludes that TransUnion and Spokeo have clarified standing for Article III Plaintiffs and that Hunstein does not have standing on the matter, then the question Hunstein highlighted of whether communications to a third-party vendor is a FDCPA violation may, for the time being, remain unanswered.

Florida Supreme Court Issues Orders to Clear Case Backlog KK TAKEAWAY: 2022 is shaping up to be a very busy year for all involved in foreclosure litigation. Perhaps not as frenzied as it was during the Great Recession, but certainly a close second place finish. Litigants better buckle up for this fast and bumpy ride and expect circuit court judges to push back on those trying to delay cases and request continuances. The pressure from the Supreme Court of Florida placed on circuit court judges to clear the backlog of cases will be ever present for the foreseeable future. Welcome to the new normal.

BACKGROUND: The unanticipated emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout the world, and more specifically in the United States, caused the lives of most to be interrupted at a minimum, and completely halted at worst.

The Court systems in this country were not immune to this pause on daily life, and as a result, since March 2020, the Courts and cases proceeding therein slowed to a crawl.

On March 18, 2020, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) issued a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures for FHA Single Family Title II forward and Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) foreclosed properties, except for those properties that are legally vacant or abandoned. Despite this

IN THE

NOW |

9

moratorium only applying to federally backed Mortgages, most Lenders and Servicers followed suit and issued their own internal holds on evictions and foreclosures for nonfederally backed Mortgages. In anticipation of the moratorium’s end on July 31, 2021, and in an effort to get out in front of the wave of new filings, and better manage existing cases that had laid dormant for over a year, the Florida Supreme Court amended Administrative Order No. AOSC20-23.

complex or streamlined case.

Should it be determined that a particular case is to be designated as streamlined or general, the presiding judge is to issue a case management order that specifies the deadlines for service of complaints, service under extensions, and adding new parties and the deadlines by which: fact and expert discovery shall be completed; all objections to pleadings and pretrial motions shall be resolved; and mediation shall have occurred.

Supreme Court of Florida Administrative

The case management order shall also

Order No. AOSC20-23, Amendment 10,

specify the projected date of trial; indicate

Section III(G) was amended to assist Florida

that the deadlines established in the order will

Courts with the management and resolution

be strictly enforced by the court; and indicate

of cases. The initial step required to be taken

that a firm trial date will be ordered by the

by Judges was to determine whether a civil case was deemed to be complex, streamlined or general.

presiding judge when the case is at issue pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440.

A complex case as defined by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.201 is “one that is likely to involve complicated legal or case management issues and that may require extensive judicial management to expedite the action, keep costs reasonable, or promote judicial efficiency.”

These cases typically

involve many separately represented parties where numerous pretrial motions are likely to be raised.

Streamlined cases, pursuant

to Administrative Order No. AOSC20-23 are those where the case involves: few parties; non-complex issues related to liability and damages; few anticipated pretrial motions; limited need for discovery; few witnesses;

The second and final step required by a presiding judge is to verify when the case was filed; this in turn will determine when the case management order is to be provided to the parties involved in each case. If the Complaint was filed on or after April 30, 2021, the case management order shall be issued within 30 days of service of the complaint on the last of all named defendants. If the Complaint was filed before April 30, 2021, the case management order shall be issued within 30 days of service of the complaint on the last of all named defendants or by May 28, 2021, whichever date is later.

minimal documentary evidence; and an

The effects of Amendment 10 to the Supreme

anticipated trial length of less than two days.

Court of Florida Administrative Order No.

And lastly, general civil case includes all other

AOSC20-23 are already beginning to be felt

matters which do not meet the criteria of a

in many foreclosure cases across the State.

10 | IN THE

NOW

These cases are typically designated as streamlined, and as such, both Plaintiffs and Defendants must be prepared to move the case along as quickly as possible and resolve the case via Summary Judgment or Trial in an expeditious manner. Long gone are the days of foreclosure cases continuing for years on end. Everyone should anticipate a final resolution of their case no later than 18-24 months after a Complaint is filed.

BACKGROUND: By way of background, the foreclosure Plaintiff in this case entered into evidence at trial court what it contended were the original note and allonges. A subsequent appeal by the mortgagor resulted in the entry of judgment for the mortgagor. The trial court entered the mandated final judgment, but also denied the foreclosure Plaintiff’s motion for order directing the clerk to return the original loan documents due to concerns that “the note that was previously found to be not

Wlimington v. Morroni (FL. 2d DCA)- Plaintiff’s Return of Originals

an original signature ... my concern [is] about

KK TAKEAWAY:

Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB v. Morroni,

A foreclosure Plaintiff seeking return of original loan documents filed with the Court during their case is entitled to the return of said original loan documents in the absence of a final judgment cancelling the note.

releasing that, that particular document, back in to the stream of commerce because there’s no telling what [problems] could [result].”

46 Fla. L. Weekly D1249 (Fla. 2d DCA May 28, 2021).

In review of the foreclosure Plaintiff’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion for return of original loan documents, the Second District Court of Appeal determined that as there was no factual determination made as to whether the loan documents were in fact originals, and as there was no judgment cancelling the original note, there was no sound basis for the denial of the foreclosure Plaintiff’s motion for return of the original loan documents. See Id. at 2-3.

In ruling that the foreclosure Plaintiff was entitled to the return of their original loan documents, the Court in Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB relied upon the decision made by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Johnston v. Hudlett, that “original mortgages and promissory notes [...] are not merely exhibits IN THE

NOW |

11

but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment.” See Id. at 3; see Johnston v. Hudlett, 32 So. 3d 700, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

against a third-party owner should not be viewed as a lesser challenge as lenders must still prove each element of the foreclosure case under law.

BACKGROUND: A state of the law on third party contests to foreclosure:

Primer on Third-Party Purchasers in Florida Foreclosures KK TAKEAWAY: Lenders and their attorneys must be extra vigilant when litigating a foreclosure action against a third-party subsequent property owner. They have the right to contest the case and the law has been evolving to require lenders to specifically prove standing to foreclose and the amounts owed. A case

12 | IN THE

NOW

The pace of residential foreclosure litigation is significantly increasing as the COVID-19related foreclosure moratoriums expire. Courts in Florida have even required litigants to file case management plans intended to streamline foreclosure and other civil actions.

As a result, contested foreclosure actions are advancing to final disposition hearings faster than before. Litigants need to have their case prepared and ready for trial sooner than ever before.

Within the residential foreclosure realm, some of the fastest cases to reach final hearings involve those with defendants who are not borrowers on the subject Note and Mortgage loan documents (hereinafter “third parties”).

Third parties enter the picture when ownership of the subject property transfers via a Homeowners Association foreclosure action and resulting sale and Certificate of Title, a bankruptcy trustee sale and resulting Certificate of Title when the borrower surrenders the property, or just a common Quit Claim Deed from the borrowers on the loan documents to a third-party entity or other individual If the third party obtains record ownership before the Plaintiff/lender’s (hereinafter “lender”) foreclosure action is filed, they have a right to be a party in the foreclosure action and, in turn, contest the same.

Florida law continues to evolve to address what exactly third parties can challenge and is important to be current with the same.

Kelley Kronenberg’s real estate and foreclosure litigation team recently prevailed in a bench trial in Palm Beach County, Fla., where a third party acquired title to the property via a Quit Claim Deed from the borrower five years before the case was filed. These issues were discussed in the trial and impacted the proceeding.

Lender’s attorneys are often bullish to argue the third parties cannot contest any aspect of the foreclosure. The details of that can be asserted, however, must be understood in detail or else the Judge and litigations will be susceptible to a reversal from a higher court in some instances.

Florida law states: “[A] purchaser who takes title to property subject to a mortgage without

assuming any personal liability for repayment of the underlying debt is ... estopped from contesting the validity of the mortgage.” See Eurovest, Ltd. v. Segall, 528 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

The law states that third parties have standing to challenge the amount due under the note, because it affects their substantive right of redemption under section 45.0315, Florida Statutes (2016). See Rouffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 241 So. 3d 870, 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 300 So. 3d 698, 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) is another well-known case which reversed a judgment and remanded for entry of an involuntary dismissal where plaintiff “failed to present legally sufficient evidence of the amount due”); see also Adamson v. Main St. Oaks, LLC, 320 So. 3d 226, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). As a result, lenders must recognize it is vital to maintain and present as complete and accurate records of accounting possible at a trial.

The Courts have also ruled that a subsequent purchaser has a recognized interest in assuring that the foreclosing plaintiff actually has the authority to bring the suit and is entitled to raise such a defense so long as they do not cause unreasonable delay to any ongoing proceedings.

See 3709 N. Flagler Drive Prodigy Land Tr. v.

Bank of Am., N.A., 226 So. 3d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

As a result, lenders must be aggressive and organized at the outset in formulating their case, assembling the supporting evidence, identifying when and how the third party obtained record ownership, ensure the court makes a record of the same, and crystallizing the issues in line with the most recent court holdings on this issue.

Third parties are still indeed limited, overall, in what they can challenge in a foreclosure action.

IN THE

NOW |

13

The most recent decision issued again affirmed that a third party cannot participate in a foreclosure action as if it were a party to the note and mortgage. Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal finally capping off a trilogy of appeals after extensive litigation in one case where a third party was contesting the foreclosure.

by the defendant, (3) acceleration of the debt to

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dias, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1405 (Fla. 2d DCA June 16, 2021), the Court highlighted that a third party which acquired a record ownership right, Calvin Rutledge, was estopped from proceeding on an affirmative defense based on the theory of forgery of a

party challenging the case, the original Note and

Mortgage signed by borrower Mary Lynne Dias.

The recent Dias opinion affirmed that since Rutledge purchased the property subject to a lender’s superior interest, his subordinate interest stemming from his possession of the property is limited. Rutledge’s arguments had been subject to an entire previous separate appellate ruling in 2017.

The above explains the point that third parties cannot challenge aspects of the foreclosure action only reserved for the borrower. For example, with regards to a notice of default, the borrower “was the only party who could plead nonperformance of these conditions precedent.”

See Clay County Land Trust No. 08–04–25– 0078–014–27, Orange Park Trust Services, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass’n, 152 So.3d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

As a result, lenders must be prepared to prove each aspect of their case at a bench trial or summary judgment hearing as one cannot be remiss to the elements of a foreclosure no matter who is contesting the case. To establish a prima facie case, a foreclosure plaintiff must prove: (1) an agreement between the parties, (2) a default 14 | IN THE

NOW

maturity, and (4) the amount due. See Liberty Home Equity Sols., Inc. v. Raulston, 206 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

To do so, the lender’s attorney must bring to trial certified copies of the loan documents, the public record which transfers title to the third Mortgage (or lost note evidence and testimony) a record of the loan’s accounting at a minimum to the date of the default asserted in the case, and, if required by the loan documents, proof a notice of default.

Freedom Morg. V. Olivera (IL. 2d DCA)- Illinois Affirms Face-to-Face Requirements KK TAKEAWAY: While some jurisdictions allow substantial compliance

to

satisfy

the

face-to-face

meeting rule, Illinois courts require strict compliance

with

the

HUD

face-to-face

meeting requirements. A lender must quickly make efforts to arrange that meeting before three installments are delinquent to avoid having to forgive payments and re-default in order to get back in compliance. Dismissing a foreclosure case and then arranging a faceto-face meeting is insufficient for compliance with the rule..

BACKGROUND: In Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Olivera, 2021 IL App

(2d) 190462 (Aug. 5, 2021), the Second District Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the requirement to comply with the HUD regulations requiring a face-to-face meeting prior to foreclosure. Failure to adhere and to comply is a total defense to the foreclosure suit; complying late does not remedy the failure.

The trial court had dismissed the mortgagee’s second foreclosure with prejudice, because the mortgagee did not comply with the face-toface meeting prior to filing the foreclosure. The Appellate court held that compliance must occur before three monthly installments go unpaid; dismissing the foreclosure and then arranging a face-to-face meeting is insufficient. But instead of barring the foreclosure altogether, the court stated that the lender should forgive payments and re-default to get back in compliance.

The mortgagee’s argued that, by making reasonable efforts to contact the mortgagors to

discuss loss mitigation options after it dismissed the first foreclosure, it substantially complied with regulations. The Court conceded that other courts have ruled that substantial compliance may be found where the mortgagee fails to meet the initial three-month time requirement.

However, the Court found no Illinois authority to support finding a substantial compliance with the face-to-face requirement.

The Court further explained that the “holding simply incentivizes lenders to follow the rules or quickly cure any violation thereof, so that… lenders could possibly limit the number of missed payments that they might need to ‘forgive’ and is consistent with the purpose of the regulations; the requirement to meet with the borrowers before three monthly installments due on the mortgage go unpaid is to try to quickly fashion an arrangement or repayment plan that can avoid a default and, ultimately, a foreclosure.”

IN THE

NOW |

15

MEET THE

CONTRIBUTORS

Jason M. Vanslette Editor and Business Unit Leader/Partner Email Jason M. Vanslette

200 clients simultaneously and served as Lead Chair on more than 15 jury trials.

Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Attorney for a firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he provided legal representation to major financial institutions and mortgage servicers in various counties throughout the

Jason Vanslette is an “AV” rated Partner and Business Unit

state, while focusing on non-jury trials and contested

Leader focusing his practice on Mortgage Foreclosure

litigation.

Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service

Jason earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Florida

providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional

State University. He went on to earn a Juris Doctorate

and litigation matters. Jason is rated AV Preeminent by

degree from Nova Southeastern University, Shepard

Martindale-Hubbell, which indicates a demonstration of

Broad Law Center where he earned a spot on the Dean’s

the highest professional and ethical standards and is the

List for three consecutive years and received the Pro

highest rating a lawyer can receive.

Bono Honors Award. While attending law school, he

Jason began his legal career as an Assistant Public

served as an executive board member for Law Student

Defender for the Office of the Public Defender – 9th

Advisor, Chief Executive and Host of WLAW Radio and

Judicial Circuit in Orlando, FL. During that time, he

member of the Nova Trial Association.

provided criminal defense representation to more than 16 | IN THE

NOW

Jacqueline Costoya Guberman

lenders, and loan servicers at both the trial court and

Partner

Florida Second, Third, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal,

Email Jacqueline Costoya Guberman

handling much of the Real Property Litigation practice

appellate level. She has successfully argued before the

group’s appellate litigation.

In 2009, Jacqueline earned a Bachelor of Arts degree

Jacqueline Costoya Guberman is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on real estate matters with particular emphasis on real property litigation, residential and commercial real estate transactions, and appellate litigation.

from the University of Florida. She went on to earn a Juris Doctorate from the University of Miami School of Law where she graduated cum laude, served on the executive board of the Charles C. Papy Moot Court Board, and received a Dean’s Certificate in Client Communications.

Jacqueline is currently serving her second year as Co-

As an agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance

Chair for the Junior League of Greater Fort Lauderdale’s

Company, Jacqueline assists in the acquisition, financing,

Riverwalk Run benefitting the League’s many charitable

and development of real estate including commercial

initiatives and has been appointed to the Florida Bar’s

and residential projects. Jacqueline also has extensive

Media and Communications Law Committee effective

experience involving the representation of businesses,

July 1, 2017.

Marc A. Marra Partner Email Marc A. Marra

Marc Marra is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg focusing on the Firm’s Real Estate Practice. With over ten years of experience, his practice focuses on assisting banks, lenders, mortgagees, and financial service providers with enforcing their rights in security instruments on real property. He protects, enforces, and litigates his clients’ rights in security instruments on real estate. He

also represents Condominium Associations and HOAs throughout South Florida as general counsel.

Marc is the founder of Heart Warriors, Inc., a non-profit corporation which supports children with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS) and other congenital heart diseases, and their families. This cause is very close to him as his daughter, Charlotte, has HLHS, and has undergone multiple major open-heart surgeries.

Marc prides himself on being available to his clients 24/7 and on his ability to assist with issues stemming from any dispute related to real estate – title, general real estate litigation, bankruptcy, sale, etc.

IN THE

NOW |

17

MEET THE CONTRIBUTORS Lauren K. Einhorn Partner Email Lauren K. Einhorn

Lauren Einhorn is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on real estate matters with particular emphasis on real property litigation, residential and commercial real estate transactions.

Lauren has spent her entire legal career in the real estate sector. Before law school, she spent nearly ten years in the real estate industry processing loan closings and issuing title policies. As an agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Lauren currently assists in the acquisition, financing, and development of real estate including commercial and residential projects.

Lauren also has extensive trial court experience representing businesses, lenders, and loan servicers

Jason D. Silver Attorney Email Jason D. Silver

Jason Silver is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg where he assists in handling matters related to Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigations.

Jason has close to a decade of experience in contested foreclosure litigation, guiding creditors from the beginning to completion of a court action.

Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Associate Attorney at an AmLaw 200 firm focusing his practice in the areas of banking and consumer finance. He also practiced bankruptcy and general litigation as well as municipal and government law, 18 | IN THE

NOW

in real estate and financial services disputes.

She has represented significant loan servicers in both state and federal court on claims involving the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and Fair Credit Reporting Act. Lauren is rated AV Preeminent by MartindaleHubbell, which indicates a demonstration of the highest professional and ethical standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can receive.

Lauren earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing and Management from the University of South Florida. She then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from Florida Coastal School of Law. During law school, Lauren was a Governors Scholarship Recipient and served as a Legislator in the Student Bar Association.

having presided as the Deputy Municipal Attorney for the Village of El Portal, Florida.

Jason received his Bachelor of Science in Public Relations with a minor in History from the University of Florida where he was elected to the Florida Blue Key Honor Society and awarded the Honorable Mention for the Outstanding Leadership and Service Award.

He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from St. Thomas University School of Law. While in law school, Jason received a Book Award in Appellate Advocacy. Jason also worked as a legal intern for the Office of the City Attorney at the City of Miami in the Land Use, Zoning, and Quality of Life Division and interned for the Hon. Judge David Gersten (ret.) at the Third District Court of Appeal.

Jason is an avid runner and successfully completed the ING Miami Half Marathon and 13.1 races in 2011 and the Hollywood Beach Half Marathon in 2020.

R. Elliott Halsey

Civil Practice in Chicago and collar counties. Prior

Attorney

to joining the firm, he was an Attorney at a Chicago

Email R. Elliott Halsey

firm where he handled matters in Foreclosures, Bankruptcy,

Real

Estate

closings,

Landlord-

Tenant, Collections, Small Claims, and Arbitration.

Throughout his extensive career, he has experience Elliott Halsey is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg focusing his practice on mortgage foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters.

handling matters related to lien litigation, property

Elliott has 18 years of legal experience in Bankruptcy, Real Estate, Foreclosure, and General

of Ohio University. He then went to earn his Juris

Scott V. Goldstein Attorney Email Scott V. Goldstein

Scott Goldstein is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg focusing his practice on Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters.

tax litigation, evictions, family law, commercial property and Intellectual Property.

Elliott earned his Bachelor of Arts from Wittenberg University and a Master of Science from Miami Doctor the Ohio Northern College of Law. Prior to joining the firm, Scott worked as a Senior Attorney where he provided legal representation to major financial institutions, mortgage servicers, and homeowner associations in various counties throughout the state in both contested and noncontested litigation matters.

Scott received his Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice with honors from Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from Florida Coastal School of Law where he was a recipient of the Governor’s MeritBased Scholarship.

Gary Sonnenfeld

banks and service providers as well as blockchain

Attorney

and technological influences on real estate laws.

Email Gary Sonnenfeld

Gary received his Bachelor of Arts in Religion and International Relations with honors from Boston University where he was awarded a University Scholarship. He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor

Gary Sonnenfeld is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg

degree from Georgetown University Law Center

focusing his practice on Mortgage Foreclosure

and graduated with a Dean’s Certificate for honors.

Litigation and assisting banks and other financial

Gary continued his pursuit of higher education by

service providers with regulatory, enforcement,

obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree, cum laude,

transactional and litigations. Gary has extensive

in Computer Science from Florida International

experience in contested foreclosure on behalf of

University.

IN THE

NOW |

19

HELPING YOU

STAY AHEAD

20 | IN THE

NOW

BLOG Navigating Eviction Moratoriums—Caution to Landlords and Investors In March of 2020, it became clear among the masses (both private and public) that Covid-19 would be an undeniable hindrance to our ability to resume “normal” life as we know it (whatever “normal” means to each of us individually). Schools, businesses, parks, restaurants, etc. all began closing their doors both voluntarily and involuntarily based on local, state and Federal regulations demanding the same. Not surprisingly, certain sectors of the economy that require in-person contact or activities with close proximity to each other almost immediately began feeling the wrath of the economic outfalls from the pandemic.

Many local and state regulations curbed or even. […]

CLICK TO READ MORE

IN THE

NOW |

21

AWARDS AND

ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:

2021

Best Midsize Law Firms To Work For

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Best Law Firms”

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

Named as a “Business of the Year” and “Top 100 Private Companies”

Best Multi-Practice Business Law Firm – USA

2021 “Diversity Team” winner

Ranked amongst the “Largest Law Firms”

22 | IN THE

Fastest-Growing Private Companies in America

NOW

REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY AWARDS

South Florida Business and Wealth: Real Estate Awards Jason M. Vanslette

Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch Marc A. Marra Jason D. Silver

South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers” Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating Jason M. Vanslette Lauren K. Einhorn Marc A. Marra

Jason M. Vanslette

American Legal & Financial Network, JPEG Picture the Future Award Jason M. Vanslette Lauren K. Einhorn

Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Jason M. Vanslette, Lauren K. Einhorn Marc A. Marra, Jacqueline Costoya Guberman, Jason D. Silver

Florida Trend Magazine Legal Elite, Up and Comer, 2020 Lauren K. Einhorn

Broward County Bar Association, “Top 40 Under 40”, 2021 Marc A. Marra

Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer” Jason M. Vanslette IN THE

NOW |

23

A Firm Built on Relationships KELLEY KRONENBERG IS A MULTI-PRACTICE BUSINESS LAW FIRM.

with over

400

Employees

more than

175 Attorneys

the convenience of

12

Locations

Founded in 1980, the firm is one of the fastest-growing law firms in Florida and amongst the largest in the U.S. The firm serves all types and sizes of public and private companies, including small businesses and individuals nationwide.

OUR

OFFICES CHICAGO

NEW YORK NEW JERSEY

ATLANTA JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA ORLANDO

15

WEST PALM BEACH TALLAHASSEE FORT LAUDERDALE

OFFICES

NEW ORLEANS

TAMPA MIAMI LAKES NAPLES

MIAMI

CHICAGO

DAYTONA

FORT LAUDERDALE

JACKSONVILLE

10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970

10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (954) 370-9970

MIAMI

MIAMI LAKES

15100 NW 67th Avenue, Suite 204 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: (305) 826-7260

NAPLES

1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 503-0850

NEW ORLEANS

ORLANDO

TALLAHASSEE

150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 216-8828

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1207 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450

1112 Riverside Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32117 Phone: (754) 888-5437

6267 Old Water Road, Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301

1421 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 120 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: (954) 370-9970

TAMPA

1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697

201 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (732) 547-7907

WEST PALM BEACH

1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 684-5956

BY APPOINTMENT ONLY ATLANTA

1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972

NEW JERSEY

51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (908) 403-8174

NEW YORK CITY

One Liberty Plaza 165 Broadway 23rd Floor, Suite 2374 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (800) 484-4381

IN THE

NOW |

25

WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381 | INFO@KKLAW.COM C h i c a g o | D a y t o n a | F o r t L a u d e r d a l e | J a c k s o n v i l l e | M i a m i | M i a m i L a k e s N a p l e s | N e w O r l e a n s | O r l a n d o | Ta l l a h a s s e e | Ta m p a | W e s t P a l m B e a c h