You are on page 1of 23

Filing # 41977939 E-Filed 05/25/2016 04:18:16 PM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL


SECOND DISTRICT

CASE NO.: 2Dl6-474


LOWER CASE NO.: 2009 CA 028'773

MARK ADAMS,

Appellant,
v.

Appellee.

APPELLEE'S ANSWER BRIEF

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

DISAGREEMENT WITH BORROWERS' STATEMENT OF


FACTS ........................... .
.....,,................................... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE ......................,,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,.,,.,,,, 2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................... .


...
.... . ............. 9

ARGUMENT ..,. .....,...............,.,,,,,,,,,.,,.,..,,.,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,. . . ,,.,. . . ..... .......... 10


I. Mr. Adams Did Not Preserve the Issue of Whether the
Amended Complaint was Served to the Secretary of State for
Appeal..................,....................................................................., l o

11. E*Trade Could Not Be Required to File an Affidavit of


Compliance or Return Receipts Because Mr. Adams Was
Deliberately Refusing His Mail.. .......,.....,
....,,,,,, ,,,,.,.,,,,,,. 12
CONCLUSION .......,......,,..... ..... .............,....... ............................... 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............... ......................*.. .,.. ...... ........ .... 16

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 17


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
-
Cases Pag e(s)
Alvaradu-Fernaradez v. Mazof
151 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) .......................................................................... 14
Armstrong v. Strafe
642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994) ....................................................................................... 11
Chapman v. Shefield
750 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ...............................,....................................... 14
Farina v. State
937 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2006) ....................................................................................... l 1
Fernandez v. Chamberlain
201 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) .......................... . . ...........,.................. 13-14
Johnson v. Hudlett
32 So. 3d 700 (FIa. 4th D C h 2010) ......................................................................... 10
Murray v. State
3 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 2009) ...................... .. ......................................................... 11
Richardson v. State
437 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1983)..................................................................................... 11
Sahuwi v. Carpentier
767 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ......................................................................... 2
W. Flu. Reg '1 Med. Ctr., lnc. v. See
79 So. 3d I. (Fla. 2012) ................................................................................ 10
Wallen v. State
984 So. 2d 655 (FIa. 1st QCA 2008) ....................................................................... 11

Additional Au thoritv Pagels)

5 48.161, Fla. Stat. ............................................................................................... 9, 13


8 48.181, Fla. Stat. ............................................................................... .
...... 9, 12-13
Fia. R. Civ. P. 1.070 ................................................................................................. 12
PmFACE

The following references will be used in this Brief

The Appellant, Mark Adams, will be referred to as "Mr. Adams" or the

"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

issues on this appeal. A11 references to Appellee as well as Appellee's predecessor,

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, shall be referred to as "E*Trade" or the "Appellee"

for purposes of consistency.

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

format: (App. ). References to specific pages o f one of the transcripts appear

herein using the following format: (App. -at A.


Bates stamps have been added by the undersigned to the 262 page composite

exhibit admitted into evidence at the trial court hearing for this Court's convenience,

References to specific documents included within the composite exhibit appear

herein using the following format: (App. 28 at A.


DISAGREEMENT WITH BORROWER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Appellant's Statement of Facts, is incomplete and inappropriate for

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

the procedural posture and pertinent record facts. Additionally, a complete

Statement of the Facts and the Case without argument follows:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

This case is a residential foreclosure action which was initiated on November,

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.

3 ; App. 4; and App. 8).

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

notation at the bottom right-hand comer of a subsequent Proof of Publication which

reads, "DUPLICATE: Per docket, Proof of Publication filed with Court on

8/24/20 10 but document/image is missing from court file." (App. 13) (emphasis in

original). The loss of the Proof of Publication is not attributable to Appellee.

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

information, the Proof of Publication contained a scrivener's error by the publisher

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,

as the Notice o f Action was free of errors.

Mr. Adams filed an Amended Motion to Quash Constructive Service of

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

managed to still avoid service.'

E'Trade acknowledges that Mr. Ada~ns'squick departure from the courtroom is


not precisely captured on the transcript, as such a thing could hardly be transcribed
in dialogue. However, E*Trade relies on the statemenrs that a process server was in
the court room made during the hearing, the lower court's decision based on those
statements to grant the Motion to Quash, Mr. Adams's objection to being served in
court, the fact that Mr. Adams was not served that day, and the fact that Mr. Adams
has filed "notices of Telephonic Appearances" for all subsequent hearings as
demonstration that the record reflects Mr. Adams left the courthouse in haste that
day. (App. I ; App. 24; and App. 26, at 11 and 14-15).
1265-54810076502gi 4
On March 27, 2015, E*Trade filed a Notice of filing Affidavits of Evasion.

(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).

In addition to the Affidavits of Evasion, E*Trade filed a Notice of Filing

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

a "variety of crimes," and referring to service ofprocess attempts as "illegal action."

(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

of E*Tra.de, a represented party in the underlying case, declaring counsel for

E*Trade to be "unethical and incompetent" and furthering his claims that attempted

service upon Mr. Adams is illegal. (App. 18).

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

to his status as a resident concealing his whereabouts. See I. Brief. AAer

establishing that Mr. Adams and his wife were deliberarely evading service, E*Trade

resorted to substitute service on the Secretary of State as a means to sewe Mr.

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

showing sewice to Mr. Adams by certified mail or an affidavit of compliance. (App.

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

two months to prepare. (App. 22).

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

was not present to pose an opposition.

E*Trade argued that the composite exhibit entered into evidence

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

as an attachment. (App. 28 at 0124-0190 and 0192-0258).

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

his person. This appeal follows.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Borrower has been evading service in this case for seven years.

Whenever anyone attempts to serve Mr. Adams, he has shown a pattern of

aggressively responding with threats and harassing behavior. Because of the

outrageous conduct of the Appellant, ETrade was forced to serve him through the

Secretary of State pursuant to Florida Statute Section 48.18 1 .

After substitute service was effectuated, E*Trade attempted to send 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

complaints in compliance with Florida Statute Section 48.16 1 . When E*Trade

attempted to move the litigation forward, Mr. Adams filed a Motion to Quash

Service: ultimately on the basis of E*Trade's inability to demonstrate his receipt of

the complaints via certified mail.


The day before the hearing on Mr. Adams's second Motion to Quash, Mr.

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

Motion to Quash Service is still pending.

By not presenting the argument about the jurisdictional allegations of the

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

E*Trade, E*Trade is not required to file return receipts.

ARGUMENT

I. Mr. Adams Did Not Preserve the Jssue of Whether the Amended Complaint
was Served to the Secretary of State for Appeal

An appellant may not raise any issue, including an issue as to service of

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

waived below by failing to raise the defense in a motion or an answer.").


1255-598K10765025-1 10
"For an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be presented to the lower

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

to preserve the issue on appeal.

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,

2d 655,656 (Fla. 1st DCA 200X),

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

raised therein. (App. 29 at 15-16 and 25).

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

11. E*Trade CouId Not Be Required to File an Affidavit of CompIiance or


Return Rcceipts Because Mr. Adams was Deliberately Refusing His Mail

Because Mr. Adarns was evading service, harassing anyone who tried to

effectuate service, filing motions to quash service by publication on issues out o f

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

The acceptance by any person or persons, individually or associated


together as a copartnership or any other form or type of association,
who are residents of any other state or country, and all foreign
corporations, and any person who is a resident of the state and
who . . . conceals his or her whereabouts, of the privilege extended
by law to nonresidents and others to operate, conduct, engage in, or
carry on a business or business venture in the state, or to have an office
or agency in the state, constitutes an appointment by the persons and
foreign corporations of the Secretary of State of the state as their
agent on whom all process in any action or proceeding against
them, or any of them, arising out of any transaction or operation
connected with or incidental to the business or business venture may be
served.

5 48.1 8 1, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).


"One seeking to effect service under Section 47,29 has the burden of

presenting facts which clearly justifies its applicability. This burden is met if such

facts appear from a consideration of the entire record." Fernandez v. Chamberlain,

201 So. 2d 781, 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (internal citations omitted).

When authorized by law, substituted service of process on a nonresident


or a person who conceals his or her whereabouts by serving a public
officer designated by law shall be made by leaving a copy of the process
with a fee of $8.75 with the public officer or in his or her office or by
mailing the copies by certified mail to the public officer with the fee.
The service is sufficient service on a defendant who has appointed a
public officer as his or her agent for the service of process. Notice of
service and a copy of the process shall be sent forthwith by registered
or certified mail by the plaintiff or his or her attorney to the defendant,
and the defendant's return receipt and the affidavit of the plaintiffor his
or her attorney of compliance shall be filed on or before the return day
of the process or within such time as the court allows, or the notice and
copy shall be served on the defendant, if found within the state, by an
officer authorized to serve legal, process, or if found without the state,
by a sheriff or a deputy sheriff of any county of this state or any duly
constituted public officer qualified to serve like process in the state or
jurisdiction where the defendant is found.

5 48.161, Fla. Stat.


In the case of a Florida resident deliberately evading sewice:

If such an owner or operator conceals his whereabouts and makes it


iinpossible for an aggrieved party to serve him with notice by registered
mail as provided by the statute and such aggrieved party shows that he
has used due diligence in endeavoring to make service, this will not
prevent the Court from obtaining jurisdiction over such owner or
operator.

Ferpzapadez, 201 So. 2d at 785.

"When a resident conceals his whereabouts, obviously it is impossible to serve

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

prevent the Court from acquiring jurisdiction." Id. at 786.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to comply with these statutes


by not filing a postal receipt with the court. While sections
48.161 and 48.171 create an exception to the general rule that the
defendant must be personally served, and each statute must be strictly
construed, the court may dispense wit11 the filing of a postal receipt if
the substituted service statute is invoked on the ground that the
defendant is evading service.

Alvarcado-Fernandez v. Mazoff; I 5 1 So. 3d 8, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (internal

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.

2d 140, 143 (Fla. 1 s t DCA 2000).

At the evidentiary hearing on Mr. Adams's Motion to Quash, E*Trade entered

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

48.16 1, and Mr. Adarns made such compliance impossible.

The tactics employed by Mr. Adams to avoid service are egregious, and are

not those of a run-of-the-rnillservice evader. However, as the case law authority

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

f i e undersigned hereby certifies that he has complied with the format

requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Answer Brief was prepared

using Times New Roman 14 point font.

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

By: /s/Altxis Fields


ALEXIS FIELDS
Fla. Bar No. 95953
Filing # 41978505 E-Filed 05/25/2016 04:22:33 PM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL


SECOND DISTRICT

CASE NO. : 2D 16-474


LOWER CASE NO.: 2009 CA 028773

MARK ADAMS,

Appellant,
v.

E-TRADE BANK,

Appellee.

APPENDIX TO APPELLEE'S ANSWER BRIEF

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:

1 Case information Online Pocket


---
2 9 1-10-2015 Complaint
---
3 04-14-201 0 Return of Se ~ i c e

4 07-02-2010 Return of Se wice

5 08-04-2010 Affidavit of Constructive Sewice

6 08-04-2010 Notice of Action


---
7 08-04-201 0 Affidavit Diligent Search and Inquiry
---
8 05-25-201 0 A f idavit of Non-Service by Sheriff's Office

9 08-24-2010 Proof of Publication as it appears on the online


docket
10 09-13-2010 Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to
Complaint
I1 08-27-2013 Motion for Default:Against Mark Adams and
Lisa S. Adams
12 09-04-2013 Defendant MarkA.Adams'ResponseEo
Plaintiff" Motion for Default Against
Defendants
13 12-01-2014 RroofofP~lblicationofActiondated121112014

14 01-20-2015 Amended Motion to Quash Constructive


Service
15 02-17-2015 Order Granting Motion to Quash Sewice

I6 03-27-2015 NoticeofFilingAffidavitsofEvasion

17 05-30-2015 Summons Returned Served

18 04-22-2015 Notice of filing Correspondence from


Defendant, Mark Adams
19 05-1 1-2015 Plaintiffs Motion far Leave to File Verified
Amended Complaint for Foreclosure
20 05-21 -2015 Plaintiff's Motion far Enlargement of Time to
Senre Defendants
21 08-17-201 5 Motion to Quash Substitute Service of Process
and Dismiss this Action
22 10-27-2015 Notice of Special Set Hearing

23 12-29-2015 Amended Motion to Quash SubstituteSewice


of Process and Dismiss this Action
24 12-29-2015 Notice of Telephonic Appearance for Hearing
--- Scheduled for i21301201 5
25 12-31-2015 Order Denying Motion to Quash Substitute
Service and Dismiss Action
26 02-17-201 5 Transcript from 2117!20t 5 Hearing

27 12-30-2015 Transcript from 1213012015 Hearing

28 12-30-2015 Composite Exhibit 3 from 1213012015 Hearing


with bates stamps
29 05-16-2016 Transcript from 0511612016 Hearing

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

By: Is/ Alexis Fields


Alexis Fields
Fla. Bar No.: 95953
Fields~,kolawt~ers.corn