Complaint Sovereign Bank, Plaintiff, Vs. Florida Default Law Group, p.l., DBA Echevarria Codilis & Stawarski Defendants

8/9/2019 Complaint Sovereign Bank, Plaintiff, Vs. Florida Default Law Group, p.l., DBA Echevarria Codilis & Stawarski Defend

1/7

v?(

SOVEREIGN BANK,Plaintiff,

Defendants.

vs.FLOzuDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L.,d/oIA ECHEVARSJ,d, CODILIS &STAWARSKI,KFIo;da professional limitedliability company, and pCHEVARRIA &AS SOCIATES, P .Sa Flori da professionalassociation,

a7 $uIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THESEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT iN ANDFOR BROWARD COTNTY, FLORIDACASE NO.:

0 80500 g Iffie'L d

:.r(ft-:J(-)

C]r:l:cltrtl3 r. .---.-z;*. *c) lI:_ " -=.i:r't aJrj Y-()?: -.oclt5.: ;'*,'ea

,r j}}. ' ...,

r...1-*::}(:::t(:- cfa:f -t*r,f\) t=(3;I-s C)$cfict'r

COMPLAINTplaintiff, SOVEREIGN BANK, by and through its undersigned attomeys, sues Defendants,

FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L., aFlorida professional limited liability company, andECHEVARRIA & ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Florida professional association, and alleges and asserlsas follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONSThis is an action for damages in excess of $ 15,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs andattomeys fees over which this Court has jurisdiction.plaintiff, SOVEREIGN BANK, is a national banking institution headquartered inPennsylvania.At all times material hereto, Defendant, FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L.,1]bIaECHEVARRIA, CODILIS & STAWARSKI, was and still is a professionalc V# jo{4r

E-

l.

z.

3.

JJ,T7c


2/7

Sovereign Bank vs. Florida Default Law Group, et alCase No.

4.

limited liability company which engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida

and in Broward County, Florida.At all times material hereto, Defendant, ECHEVARRIA & ASSOCIATES, P.A',was and still is a professional association which engaged in the practice of law in theState of Florida and in Broward County, Florida.The within action arises from legal services provided by Defendants to Plaintiff inBroward County, Florida.Defendants practiced together to provide legal services and representation toPlaintiff.Defendants and Plaintiffs had an ongoing attorney-client relationship whereinDefendants provided legal services to Plaintiff on numerous matters over the courseofseveral years.A copy of the original retainer agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants isattached hereto as Exhibit "A."On or about February 2,2007,Plaintiff engaged Defendants to bid on a foreclosuresale in Broward County, Florida. A copy of the February 2,2007 engagement letterand related documents faxed from Plaintiffto ECHEVARRIA & ASSOCIATES,P.A. is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "8."Specifically, Plaintiff was the holder of a second mortgage,/home equity line of creditrelative to the real property named in Exhibit "B", to wtt 404 SW 151't Terrace,Holl1rvood, FL 33027 (the "Real Property''), then owned by Erwin and Anna Brandt

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Page2 of 7


3/7

Sovereign Bank vs. Florida Default Law Group, et aICase No.

11.

(the "Brandts").

On or about August 17,2006 the Brandts were sued by the homeowners associationrelative to the Real Property for failure to pay homeowner assessments in that certainaction styled: Huntington Maintenance Assn., Inc. v. Brandt, et al. Plaintiffsnominee, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., was named as a defendantin that lawsuit ("HOA lawsuit").The HOA lawsuit proceeded to final judgment in the County Court in BrowardCounty, Florida, and the foreclosure sale was scheduled for February 9,2007. Acopy of the final judgment in the amount of $4,294.68, is attached hereto andincorporated herein by reference as Exhibit"C."Pursuant to the February 2,2001 engagement letter, Composite Exhibit "B" theapproved bid amount was $383,700, since Plaintiff at the time believed that in orderto protect its interest it had to pay off the first mortgage on the Real Property inaddition to the HOA judgment amount, and that the approved bid amount would besufficient to pay off the first mortgage and the home owner's judgment and acquirea first lien on the Real Property.As shown by Composite Exhibit "B', with the February 2,2007 engagement letter,Flaintiff also faxed to Defendants a copy ofthe Notice of Foreclosure Sale and FinalJudgurent of Foreclosure in the HOA lawsuit.Thus, Defendants knew from the moment they received the facsimile transmissionon February 2,2007, that the amount of the Final Judgment was only $4,294.68

12.

13.

14.

15.

Page3 of 7


4/7


16.

although the approved bid amount was $383,700.

Defendants failed to give Plaintiffproper legal advice that abid amount of $383,700was cornpletely unnecessary to satisfu the HOA judgment and to preserve Plaintiff sposition as the holder of the second mortgage/line of credit; that the first mortgagewas not required to be paid off to protect Plaintifls interest, and that all that had tobe paid to obtain a certificate of sale and certificate of title, subject to the firstmortgage, was $4,294.68.Additionally, apparentlybelieving that $383,700 was an insufficient sum to satisflia$4,294.68judgment, on or about February 6,2A0J,Defendants requested Plaintiffwire monies in the total amount of $392,148.90, or $8,448.90 additional, in order tobid at the February 9,20A7 sale and to pay for court costs and documentary stamps.A copy of Defendant's Febnrary 6, 2007 incoming wire transfer notification toPlaintiff confirming receipt of a wire transfer in the amount of $392,148.90 isattached hereto as Exhibit "D.Although the Real Property could have been purchased at the February 9,2007foreclosure sale for 94,294.68, subject to the first mortgage, Defendants failed toadvise Plaintiff of this fact and proceeded to bid and pay $392,148.90 at the sale onbehalf of Plaintiff.A certificate of sale was issued to Plaintiff, followed by a certificate of title. A copyof the cerlificate of sale is attached hereto as Exhibit ))8.))') Plaintiff acquired title onthe Real Property, subject to the first mortgage.

t7.

18.

19.

Page4 of 7


5/7

Sovereign Bank vs. Florida Default Law Group, et alCase No.20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Since Defendants bid $392,148.9A at a foreclosure sale when the Final Judgmentwas $4,292.68, excess funds of $376,200.50 were placed into the court registry.Defendants compounded their errors and failed to timely and properly advise Plaintiffof the steps to take to reclaim the excess funds from the court registry.lnstead, the Brandts, the parties in default, petitioned for and received the$376,200.50 in excess funds, although it was their failure to pay homeowners'assessments that resulted in the HOA litigation.The Brandts defaulted on their first mortgage a few months after they obtained theexcess funds deposited in the Court Registrybythe Plaintiffs which were placed andremained there due to Defendants negligence.Thereafter, Plaintiff was named as a defendant and subordinate lienholder in aseparate foreclosure action, styled U.S. Bank v. Erwin J. Brandt, et al., Case No. 07-I8075, (the "Second Action").The Second Action resulted in a Final Judgment of Foreclosure in favor of the flrstmortgage holder.Upon infonnation andbelief, the firstmortgageholderis intheprocess of schedulinga foreclosure sale based on the Final Judgment, after which Plaintiff will be leftwithout the Real Property and without the $392,148.90 bid at the first foreclosuresale.Defendants conduct in representing Plaintiff in connection with the Erwin and AnnaBrandt HOA litigation foreclosure sale was negligent for, among other things: 1)

27.

Page5 of 7


6/7


28.

Defendants failed to notice that the action was filed in County Court and thus couldnot exceed $15,000 and failed to advise Plaintiffs thereof; 2) Defendants failed toadvise Plaintiff that it only needed to bid up to the amount of the Final Judgment(54264.95) in order to be the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale and failed toadvise Plaintiffs thereof; 3) Defendants knowingly bid an extremely excessive sumto satisfu a de minimrs home owner association judgment; 4) After making theirexcessive bid, Defendants failed to take the necessary steps to seek retum of theexcess payments from the court registry; 5) Defendants failed to negotiate with theHOA in the days following the sale to seek an agreement to vacate the sale, and aretum ofthe 5392,148.90, less payrnent of the amount of the final judgment from theHOA litigation and 6) Defendants failed to advise Plaintiffs of the proper biddingprocedures relating to this judgment and instead senselessly expended and wasted the

Plaintiffs assets through its inattention and delay, lack of expertise or plainincompetence.

COUNT - NEGLIGENCE/LEGAL MALPRACTICEThis is an action for damages in excess of $15,000 against Defendants, FLORIDADEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L., dbIaECHEVARRIA, CODILIS & STAWARSKI,and ECHEVARRIA & ASSOCIATES, P.A., for negligencellegal malpractice overwhich this Court has jurisdiction.Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26above with the same force and effect as if the same were herein again set forth at

29.

Page6 of 7


7/7

Sovereign Bank vs. Florida Default Law Group, et aICase No.

length.As more fully stated above, Defendants were negligent in conjunction with the legalservices that they rendered to Plaintiff.The quality of the legal services provided by Defendants to Plaintiff, departed fromthe standard of care for attorneys practicing in Broward County, Florida providinglegal services of the same kind and nature to clients such as Plaintiff.As the result of the negligence and malpractice of the Defendants, Plaintiff wasdamaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, FLORIDA DEFAULTLAW GROUP, P.L. d/bla ECHEVARRIA, CODILIS & STAWARSKI and ECHEVARRIA &ASSOCIATES, P.A., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, together with the costs ofthisAction and such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper.

BERMAN,I(EAN & RIGUERA, P.A.Attorneys for Plaintiffs2101 W. Commercial Blvd.Suite 2800Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309Telephone: (954) 735-0000Facsimile: (9 5 4) 7 3 5 -3 63 6

Florida Bar No.: 254908LauraJ. VarelaFlorida Bar No. 0015334\\Server-MS\REBData\Sovereign Bank, F.S.B\1627-001\Attached Document\38183_2.wpd

30.

31.

32.

z'' Richard E. Berman

PageT of 7

Documents

Complaint Sovereign Bank, Plaintiff, Vs. Florida Default Law Group, p.l., DBA Echevarria Codilis & Stawarski Defendants