Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MARK ADAMS,
Appellant,
v.
Appellee.
ALEXIS FIELDS
Fla. Bar No. 95953
fields@~olawyers.com
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
Fergussn Weiselberg GiIbert
Attorneys for Appellee
One West Las OIas Rlvd., 5th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
TeIephone No, (954) 525-4100
Facsimile No. (954) 525-4300
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
+.
TABLE OF AUTI-IORITIES ..................................... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PREFACE ...,...............................,.................... 1
"Appellant."
Though Appellee, E-Trade Bank, was not the original Plaintiff in the lower
court, it was substituted in as a party Plaintiff pursuant to an order not relevant to the
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, shall be referred to as "E*Trade" or the "Appellee"
References to the Initial Brief appear herein using the following format:
(I. Brief at 2.
References to the Appellee's Appendix appear herein using the following
exhibit admitted into evidence at the trial court hearing for this Court's convenience,
appellate review. Mr. Adams has presented an Appendix which omits material
portions of the record, and presents conflicting facts in the light most favorable to
Mr. Adams, even though E*Trade prevailed in the lower court case.
The purpose of providing a statement of the case and of the facts is not to color
the facts in one's favor but to inform the appellate court of the case's procedural
history and the pertinent record facts underlying the parties' dispute. See Sabuwi v.
Carpentier, 767 So. 2d 585, 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Accordingly, this Court
should disregard the Borrowers' improper statement and incomplete Appendix. The
Appellee has filed its own Appendix, which is a complete and accurate reflection of
10,2009- nearly seven years ago. (App. 1 and App. 2). Mr. Adams and his wife
have yet to be personally served during this time, despite multiple attempts of service
through both a private process server and the Sheriff of Hillsborough County. (App.
Appellee filed an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry on August 4,20 10,
attesting to the efforts made by the Appellee to personally serve Mr. Adams.
(App. 7). All inquiries indicated that Mr.Adams's last known address was the
sub-jectproperty where E*Trade had been attempting service. (App. 7). Also within
the affidavit of diligent search and inquiry was the representation that Mr. Adams
had sent the process server a letter threatening a lawsuit for trespassing. (App. 7 at
TI J).
When E*Trade could not effect personal service, E*Trade attempted to serve
by publication. (App. at 5 and App. 6). According to the online docket for this case,
E*Trade filed Proof of Publication on August 24, 20 10. (App. 1). However, it
appears that the clerk misplaced the Proof of Publication when the files were scanned
and converted into electronic files; in the place of the Proof of Publication, the record
contains a sheet of paper which reads, "'See Clerk." (App. 9). Mr.Adams has also
confirmed that the Proof of Publication is not in the file, and has moved to quash
service partially on this basis, with a copy of the "See Clerk" sheet attached as an
exhibit to one of his motions. (App. 12 and App. 14). Furthermore, there is a
8/24/20 10 but document/image is missing from court file." (App. 13) (emphasis in
Because the first Proof of Publication inexplicably went missing from the
court file, E*Trade attempted service by publication a second time which was filed
on December 1, 2014. (App. 13). However, though the actual Notice of Action
which was published and used to serve as notice contained all of the correct
within the style of the case. (App. 13). The Proof of Publication, which was filed
in the correct case file, mistakenly listed a "Mark A. Davis" as the Defendant instead
of Mark Adams in the style of the case. This error is also not attributable to Appellee,
Process and Dismiss the Action on January 20,201 5 . (App. 14). At the hearing on
Mr. Adarns's Amended Motion to Quash, counsel for E*Trade represented to the
lower court that a process server was present in the courtroom to serve Mr. Adams
at that hearing. (App. 26 at 9- 10). After hearing that a process sewer was present,
the trial judge granted Mr. Adams's Motion to Quash, and extended the time for
service by an additional 120 days as to Mr. Adams's wife. (App. 15 and App. 26 at
10). Mr. Adams objected to being served while in court arguing his motion. (App.
26, at 11 and 14-15). Mr. Adams then immediately left the courtroom and somehow
(App. 1 6 ) . The Affidavit of Evasion included representations that (1) on mof-e than
one occasion there were lights inside the subject property but the people inside
refused to answer; (2) on one occasion, a car pulled up to the house but fled when
the process server approached the car; (3) that the driver of the car followed the
process server around the neighborhood calling the process server names and
shouting obscenities; (4) on a separate occasion two people were in the driveway but
ran into the house and closed the garage door when the process sewer approached;
( 5 ) that the process server left a note on the property with his contact information;
and (6) the process server received a threat at his home address in a sealed e n d o p e
with black electrical tape and beige masking tape from Mr. Adams. (App. 14).
Correspondence from Mr. Adams. (App. 18). According to the letters contained in
the record, Mr. Adams had sent a trespass warning to prior counsel for E*Trade on
May 10, 2010, threatening to bring legal action for "attempting to serve improper,
illegal, and abusive process" through the act of trying to serve the complaint. (App.
18). Mr. Adarns also sent similar trespass warnings to E*Trade's current counsel on
Febmav 19,2015, and February 25,201 5, aclcnowledging that a process server was
"seen in [his] front yard," that E*Trade's counsel and their agents were committing
(App. 1 8). On March 9,20 15, Mr. Adams sent a trespass warning and demand for
insurance information to the process server who had attempted to serve Mr. Adams
at his home, arguing the merits of defenses Mr. Adams has not yet raised with the
lower court, threatening legal action if the process server continued to attempt to
effect service, and accusations that the process sewer had committed "a criminal
act." (App. 18). Finally, Mr. hdams sent correspondence directly to the president
E*Trade to be "unethical and incompetent" and furthering his claims that attempted
The record indicates- and Mr. Adams has admitted on several occasions- that
he is currently residing in the subject p r o p e q and was residing there at all times
E*Trade has attempted to serve Mr. Adams. (App. 14; App. 18; and App. 29 at 33).
Furthemore, Mr. Adams does not deny that he has been evading service, nor does
he argue against the applicability of substitute service on the Secretary of State due
establishing that Mr. Adams and his wife were deliberarely evading service, E*Trade
Adams, and filed the Return of Service on March 16,2015. (App. 17). On May 11,
2015, E'Trade moved for leave to file an amended complaint to include the
allegations that Mr. Adams was evading service. (App. 19). Additionally, E*Trade
filed a motion for enlargement of time to serve Mr. Adams. (App. 20). Within the
motion for enlargement of time, E*Trade indicated that Mr. Adams had sent
additional threatening correspondence to the personal home of E*Trade's counsel.
(APP*20).
Mr. Adams filed a Motion to Quash Substitute Service of Process and Dismiss
this Action on August 17, 2015, claiming as the sole basis that the service on the
Secretary of State was not perfected because E*Trade did not file return receipts
21). Nowhere within the Motion to Quash filed on August 17,2015, was there any
argument as to the lack of jurisdictional allegations within the complaint. (App. 2 1).
The Motion to Quash was set for a 1 hour special set hearing on December 30,2015 ;
the notice of the hearing was served on October 27, 2015, giving the parties over
The day before the hearing on his motion to quash, Mr. Adams filed an
Amended Motion to Quash Substitute Service of Process and Dismiss the Action,
and a Notice of Telephonic Appearance for the hearing. (App. 23 and App. 24). It
was in the Amended Motion to Quash that Mr. Adams first brought up his argument
that the amended complaint, which was the only pleading containing the proper
jurisdictional allegations, was not served upon the Secretary of State. (App. 23).
Mr. Adams has made no attempt to set his Amended Motion to Quash for Hearing,
and has admitted in open court that the motion is still pending (App. 29 at 15-16,
and 25).
Mr. Adams was not present for the hearing on the original Motion to Quash.
(App. 27 at 4-6). It was argued to the trial court that his failure to appear was further
proof o f Mr. Adams's deliberate efforts to evade sewice, as he knew E*Trade had
previously brought a process server to court in an attempt to serve Mr. Adams. (Apg .
App. 27 at 4-5) The trial court did not recognize Mr. Adams's notice of Telephonic
Appearance, and the hearing went forward without him. (App. 27 at 5-6).
During the evidentiary hearing, E*Trade offered into evidence proof of the
fact that Mr. Adams was intentionally evading service. E*Trade indicated
documents and filings already a part of the court file, such as the fidavits of the
process servers, and also admitted additional items into evidence, including the
returned unclaimed and unopened certified letters from the post office. (App. 27 at
6-7). No objection was made as to the admission ofthese documents, as Mr. Adam
demonstrated that Mr. Adams was evading service, harassing and threatening
anyone who attempted to serve him, and that Mr. Adams was also avoiding the
receipt of certified letters. (App.27 at 4-7). E*Trade relied on the returned certified
mail as proof that E T r a d e tried to comply with Florida Statute Section 48.161.
(App. 28 at 01 17-0 123 and 0191). Also within the documents introduced into
evidence was the original and complete Return of Service package served on the
Secretary of State, which included both the complaint and the amended complaint
The Iower court entered an order denying Mr. Adams's Motion to Quash
Service filed August 17, 2015. (App. 25). Mr. Adams timely filed a Notice of
Appeal under Florida Rule Appellate Procedure 9.130, contesting the jurisdiction of
The Borrower has been evading service in this case for seven years.
outrageous conduct of the Appellant, ETrade was forced to serve him through the
Borrower copies of the Complaint as well as the Amended Complaint via certified
mail, however, Mr. Adarns rejected and/or avoided receipt of the certified letters,
making it impossible for E*Trade to file an affidavit stating he had received the
attempted to move the litigation forward, Mr. Adams filed a Motion to Quash
Adams filed an Amended Motion to Quash, raising an entirely new argument not
previously raised in his original motion. Because Mr. Adams was not present at the
hearing, he did not present the argument to the lower court, and he did not obtain a
ruling on his Amended Motion. In fact, Mr. Adams has admitted that his Amended
complaint served to the Secretary of State to the lower court or obtain a ruling on his
motion, Mr. Adams has not preserved the issue for appeal. Furthermore, because
Mr. Adams was not only evading service, but rejecting certified letters sent by
ARGUMENT
I. Mr. Adams Did Not Preserve the Jssue of Whether the Amended Complaint
was Served to the Secretary of State for Appeal
process, for the first time on appeal. W. Flu, Reg '1 Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So. 3d
1 (FIa. 2012) (holding that the appeIlant ' l i d not preserve its argument . . . because
it failed to argue to the trial court . . .." and citing the proposition that, "[als a general
matter, a reviewing court will not consider points raised for the first time on appeal").
(Internal citations omitted.) See also Johnson v. Iiudlett, 32 So. 3d 700, 705 (Fla.
4th DCA 2010) (holding that "[tlhe defense of Insufficient service of process was
court, and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part
of that presentation." Murray v. State, 3 SO. 3d 1108, 1117 (Fla. 2009). Florida
courts have consistently held that parties must obtain a ruling on a motion in order
Furthermore, the issue also was not preserved because defense counsel
did not obtain a ruling on the motion at trial. As we have held, the
failure to obtain a ruling on a motion or objection fails
to preserve an issue for appeal. Amosfrong v. State, 442 So. 2d 730,
740 (Fla. 1994) (holding that the defendant's pretrial request for a
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) test was procedurally barred
because the trial judge reserved ruling on the issue and never issued a
ruling) (citing Richardson v. State, 437 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (Fla.
1983)). When defense counsel objected, the trial court reserved
judgment, allowed the prosecutor to illustrate the relevance of the
Bible, and alerted the defense that it could renew its objection if the
prosecutor's subsequent questioning failed to relieve its concerns,
Defense counsel did not renew his objection at that time, and the court
never ruled. Therefore, this issue was not preserved.
Farina v. State, 937 So. 2d 612,629 (Fla. 2006). See also Wallen v. State, 984 So,
Mr. Adams did not raise the argument that E*Trade did not serve the Secretary
of State with a copy of the Amended Complaint in his Motion to Quash Sewice2
Notwithstanding Mr. Adams's failure to presewe his argument, the only record
evidence actually indicates that E*Trade served the Secretary of State with both a
copy of the original complaint and a copy of the amended complaint. (App. 28 at
0 124-0190 and 0 192-0258). Documents admitted into evidence revealed the two
separate Return o f Services for Mr. Adams and his wife included both complaints as
attachments. It is only because E*Trade was not aware o f Mr. Adams's argument at
the hearing that this evidence was not specifically discussed or argued to the trial
court at the hearing (App 27 at 9).
1255-588100786016-1 II
which was noticed for hearing on December 30,20 1 5. Though he filed an Amended
Motion to Quash the day before, Mr. Adams did not appear at the hearing, did not
present the argument to the trial court, and did not preserve the issue for appeal.
(App. 27). Furthermore, Mr. Adams has admitted in open court that his Amended
Motion to Quash is still pending and that he has yet to obtain a ruling on the issues
For this reason, this Court should not reverse the trial court's order, as the trial
court was not provided with an opportunity to rule on the issue, Murray 3 So. 3d at
Because Mr. Adarns was evading service, harassing anyone who tried to
E*Trade's control, and bringing multiple attempts to have the case dismissed for
failure to be timely sewe under Florida Rule Civil Procedure 1.070('j), EeTrade was
left with no alternative other than substitute service under Florida Statute Section
presenting facts which clearly justifies its applicability. This burden is met if such
201 So. 2d 781, 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (internal citations omitted).
him by mail or otherwise. When a defendant makes it impossible for the plaintiff to
serve him by mail or otherwise, the failure to file defendant's return receipt does not
citations omitted). "To require the plaintiff to produce a mailing receipt in such a
case would frustrate the very purpose of the statute." Chapman v. ShefJield, 750 So.
into evidence proof of the fact that Mr. Adams had been evading service. (App 28
at 00 1 5-00 f 6). Further, E*Trade showed evidence in the form of affidavits and
letters of the harassing treatment anyone who attempted to effectuate service were
subjected to, which included process servers who received notices posted on the
doors of their personal homes, and E*Trade's attorneys who received similar letters
also sent to their personal homes. (App. 28 at 0007- 0017) Most importantly,
r2s5-~9mo7ao1e-i 14
however, E*Trade provided proof to the trial court of E*Trade's multiple attempts
to send the Notice of Service with copies of the pleadings to Mr. Adarns. (App. 28
at 0 117-0 123 and 0 191). The unopened, unclaimed certified mail envelops
deliverable to Mr. Aclarns's address were admitted into evidence, demonstrating that
E*Trade made every conceivable effort to comply with Florida Statute Section
The tactics employed by Mr. Adams to avoid service are egregious, and are
indicates, and common sense and equity provide, he cannot continue to get away
with such behavior. Mr. Adams should not be allowed to blatandy evade service
and avoid receiving certified mail, and then turn around and be rewarded with an
order declaring service invalid because E*Trade cannot prove he received the
certified letters he rejects. The purpose of the rules of service are to ensure due
process, not to allow Iitigants to frustrate the judicial process as Mr. Adams is
attempting to do.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Appellee, E-TRADE BANK, respectfully requests
that this Court affirm the Order denying Appellant's Motion to Quash Service,
finding that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the Appellant, Mark Adams,
and for any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been electronically
filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and sent via US Mail to Mark Adams,
pro se, 4 129 Balington Drive, Valrico, FL 33 596, this 25th day of May, 20 16.
Respectfully submitted,
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERWSON YVEISELBERG GILBERT
Attorneys for Appellee
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft . Lauderdale, Florida 333 0 1
Telephone No.: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile No.: (954) 525-4300
By:
Alexis Fields
Ela. Bar No.: 95953
fields@kolawvers.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Answer Brief was prepared
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
Attorneys for Appellee
One West Las Olas Blvd., ShFloor
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 3330 1
Telephone No. (954) 525-4100
Facsimile No. (954) 525-4300
MARK ADAMS,
Appellant,
v.
E-TRADE BANK,
Appellee.
ALEXIS FIELDS
Fla. Bar No. 95953
fieldsh?kolawyers.com
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
Attorneys for Appellee
One West Las Olas Rlvd., 5th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone No. (954) 525-4100
Facsimile No. (954) 525-4300
AppeIlee, E-TRADE BANK, hereby files this Appendix in support of the
Answer Brief being filed in this Action, which contains the following items:
I6 03-27-2015 NoticeofFilingAffidavitsofEvasion
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been electronically
filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and sent via US Mail to Mark Adams,
pro se, 4 129 Balington Drive, Valrico, FL 33596, this 25 th day of May, 20 16.
Respectfully submitted,
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
Attorneys for Appellee
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone No.: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile No.: (954) 525-4300