Motion For in Camera Inspection

I THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
I AD FOR WALTO COUTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISIO
COASTAL COMMUITY BAK,
Plaintiff, Case o.: 09CA001577

vs.
JOH CARROLL, JODIE CARROLL,

CHAMBERS STREET BUILDERS, IC.,
TAUTO TRUSS, IC., and DEPARTMET
OF THE TREASURY ITERAL REVEUE
SERVICE, et al
Defendants.
____________________________________
JOH CARROLL,
Counter-Plaintiff
vs.
COASTAL COMMUITY BAK and

MIKE BYERS
Counter-Defendants.
____________________________________________/
COUTER-PLAITIFF JOH CARROLL’S REEWED MOTIO TO

COMPEL I CAMERA ISPECTIO OF ATTOREY’S BILLIG RECORDS
Counter-Plaintiff, John Carroll (“Carroll”), pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.380, respectfully moves for an Order directing Defendant Coastal
Community Bank (“Coastal”) to deliver under seal to the Court no later than September
24, 2010, records pertaining to their legal bills, expenses and dates of payment in similar
litigation to the litigation here for an in camera review by the Court. Grounds for this
Motion are presented below:

1. In this case Coastal’s pleadings seek $56,992.83 which it swears it has
incurred and is obligated to pay its attorney, Frank A. Baker, Esq. as recovery of
liquidated damages of 10% of the purported outstanding principal balance on a
promissory note.
2. Coastal routinely complains that section 687.06, Florida Statutes (2008),
plainly entitles them an attorney’s fee amounting to ten percent of the remaining
mortgage principal. Coastal assumes that this trial court lacks discretion to reject the
contractual provision.
3. Carroll argues that Coastal uses this contractual provision in a matter that
is against Florida Statute and Case Law by using it as a negotiation tactic and profit
center for bank insiders.
4. Coastal and Counter-Defendant Byers have assured Carroll that Frank A.
Baker, Esq.’s fees are far less than the amount that they seek to collect in foreclosure
actions, and that they only seek 10% of the principal amount because Florida Statute
687.06 automatically awards the payment to the lender.
5. Coastal has been awarded the enhanced attorney’s fees provision twice in
Walton County Circuit Court in as many years. The first case, Coastal v. Shakespeare,
was settled by Summary Judgement, with a very modest case docket, in which Coastal
was awarded $30,000.00 in Attorney’s fees. The second case, Coastal v. Money, was
settled by Default Final Judgement with a case docket absent any substantial filings, and
Coastal was again awarded $30,000.00 in Attorney’s fees. It is elementary that a Default
Judgement and a Summary Judgement are very different and would cause at least some
variation in actual attorney’s fees.

6. Curiously, Coastal was awarded a Default Judgement in Coastal v.
Edwards during the same time period, with a similar principal amount claimed due and
Frank A. Baker, Esq. only billed $7,400.00 in Attorney’s fees.
7. On November 17, 2009 the 1st DCA struck down Baker and Coastal’s
theory that they are automatically entitled to profit from a Defendant’s loss, stating,
“Under Florida law, a “contract to pay attorney’s fees is a contract
for indemnity.” Sarasota Publ’g Co. v. E.C. Palmer, 135 So. 521, 521
(Fla. 1931). Such provisions are meant to indemnify a party, such as
the holder of a note and mortgage, for money spent to protect its interest.
See Brett v. First at’l Bank of Marianna, 120 So. 554 (Fla. 1929). Such
a provision is not designed to allow the “mortgagee [to] recover from the
mortgagor for solicitor’s fees a sum in excess of the amount which the
former has paid . . . to his solicitor.”
8. If this case is not settled by the parties, an in camera review of these
records by the Court may be decisive in the Court’s resolution of this case and critical to
Carroll’s Appellate review. See, e.g., Times Publishing Co. v. City of St. Petersburg, 558
So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (failure to make records inspected in camera by the trial
court part of the record on appeal prevented review of the trial court’s findings that the
records were not relevant).
9. Coastal has resisted and will undoubtedly object to Carroll’s discovery
request, as they have in the past, pursuant some theory of attorney client privilege and
therefore, “an in camera inspection of asserted exempt records is generally the only way
for a trial court to determine whether or not a claim of exemption applies.” Garrison v.
Bailey, 4 So. 3d, 683 684 (Florida 1st DCA 2009)
10. During the hearing held January 8, 2010 at 10:15 a.m. on Carroll’s Motion
to Compel production, Mr. Baker and Coastal retreated from their position that they are
entitled to the attorney’s fees sought. On record Mr. Baker informed Judge Green that he
and Coastal will not be seeking the attorneys fees referenced in their complaint. Despite
this record admission, Mr. Baker and his clients have moved for Summary Judgment
seeking to collect these same attorneys’ fees.
11. At trial, Counter-Plaintiff Carroll will show that Coastal and Baker have
engaged in an unlawful coven whereby Baker seeks from Carroll, and has obtained
against others, judgment for attorneys fees which are improper. Accordingly, on
Carroll’s behalf, the Court should direct Coastal to deliver to the Court, under seal, all
attorneys billing records and records of payments received in the following cases in
which Coastal sought and was awarded attorney’s fees of 10% of the outstanding
principal balance, to verify that Coastal actually paid Frank A. Baker, Esq. the amount
awarded:
Walton County Circuit Case 07CA676

Walton County Circuit Case 08CA1956
Bay County Circuit Case 08CA1070

Wherefore, Carroll respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion and
direct Baker and Coastal to deliver all of the records referenced herein, under seal, to the
Court no later than September 24, 2010 so the Court may inspect, analyze and review the
records in camera to verify Carroll’s claims and enter the Court’s findings as evidence.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded to Frank A. Baker,
Esq., 4431 Lafayette Street, Marianna, FL. 32446, counsel for Centennial, and to Paul
Alan Sprowls, Asst. U.S. Attorney, 111 North Adams Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301,
counsel for the IRS by regular mail this 10th day of September, 2010.
Respectfully submitted, ___________________________
John Carroll
Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
Phone (850) 231-5616
Fax (850) 622-5618

Motion For in Camera Inspection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For in Camera Inspection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For in Camera Inspection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the nature of the case?

What is the nature of the case?

What is the plaintiff requesting from the court?

What is the plaintiff requesting from the court?

I THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

I AD FOR WALTO COUTY, FLORIDA

COASTAL COMMUITY BAK,

Plaintiff, Case o.: 09CA001577

JOH CARROLL, JODIE CARROLL,

COASTAL COMMUITY BAK and

COUTER-PLAITIFF JOH CARROLL’S REEWED MOTIO TO

Counter-Plaintiff, John Carroll (“Carroll”), pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.380, respectfully moves for an Order directing Defendant Coastal

Motion are presented below:

liquidated damages of 10% of the purported outstanding principal balance on a

2. Coastal routinely complains that section 687.06, Florida Statutes (2008),

center for bank insiders.

4. Coastal and Counter-Defendant Byers have assured Carroll that Frank A.

687.06 automatically awards the payment to the lender.

variation in actual attorney’s fees.

Frank A. Baker, Esq. only billed $7,400.00 in Attorney’s fees.

“Under Florida law, a “contract to pay attorney’s fees is a contract

(Fla. 1931). Such provisions are meant to indemnify a party, such as

former has paid . . . to his solicitor.”

8. If this case is not settled by the parties, an in camera review of these

records were not relevant).

9. Coastal has resisted and will undoubtedly object to Carroll’s discovery

Bailey, 4 So. 3d, 683 684 (Florida 1st DCA 2009)

seeking to collect these same attorneys’ fees.

Walton County Circuit Case 07CA676

Bay County Circuit Case 08CA1070

Respectfully submitted, ___________________________

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.