PERSONA
Attorneys’ Business Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
Respondent in pro per
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL COURT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF PERSONA,
Petitioner,
vs.
PERSONA,
Respondent.
Case No.:____
FAMILY DIVISION
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
NOTICE OF RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
You are notified that on the ____ day of March, 2022, at _________ (am/pm), or as soon thereafter as the Respondent can be heard, in Courtroom ___ of the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Court, in and for Broward County, Florida, the Respondent will bring on for hearing this Motion for Sanctions for the reasons stated in the attached Motion.
Dated this ____ day of March, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Persona,
Respondent in pro per
Persona
Attorneys’ Business Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
Respondent in pro per
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL COURT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF
PERSONA,
Petitioner,
vs.
PERSONA,
Respondent.
Case No.:_______________
FAMILY DIVISION
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
The purpose of Florida Statute Section 57.105 is to protect individuals and the courts from the burden and expense of frivilous lawsuits, of which this case is a classic example. Each of the Wife’s claims — Contempt, Lis Pendens, Guardian Ad Litem, Disqualify Judge, Motion to Compel Answers, Emergency Pick-Up, [add more] are predicated on falsehoods created by Wife and counsel of wife. After a year of costly and contentious discovery, it has become abundantly clear that Wife’s claims are legally and factually unfounded. Wife and counsel are undoubtedly aware that their claims are false, and have nonetheless forged ahead with litigating these utterly meritless claims not once, but twice, over a year and a half.
Counsel must vigorously and actively manage every aspect of litigation. The court is required to award attorney’s fees as sanctions in “equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney” where it finds that either the “losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim….would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts or was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim. In this case, baseless allegations were not supported by application of existing law and material facts necessary to establish a claim were not present.
[Add timeline of events of divorce]
Sham Pleadings Overview
Wife’s bogus claims can be identified in the absence of any credible evidence, namely, missing video tapes of the most critical events in question. Not only has discovery made clear the abject frivolity of these motions, it has also revealed the bad faith and questionable ethics of counsel of wife. Counsel of wife knew or should have known that presenting false claims to the court without any semblance of credible, factual evidence, exposes the husband and the court to unnecessary expenses and delays which 57.105 was enacted to guard against.
False Claim #1 – Domestic Violence Claim
Wife claims that after a 17 year relationship, physical abuse by husband occured exactly one time, on April 10th, 2021, in a location directly in front of marital home doorbell camera. No recordings of the domestic violence incident have been presented, despite husband’s repeated requests of discovery to produce recordings from home video surveillance.
Wife claims the following in regards to domestic violence that supposedly occured on April 10th, 2021:
“Father pushed mother and punched the door of the marital home. Mother was forced to call the police due to Fathers volatile behavior. Mother was in fear of immense bodily harm and feared for the safety of the minor children.”
Filing of Domestic Violence motion without presenting the only factual, credible evidence that exists, is a clear and purposeful misrepresentation of events aimed to deceive the courts and to deny husband of parental and property rights. Exclusive use of marital home has been sought as well as an injunction to deny husband parental rights. The false claim of domestic violence was a means to achieve an unjust verdict and to set the table for future claims of erratic behavior by husband that simply does not exist.
Testimony by wife and Wife’s counsel was that the doorbell camera’s view of the domestic violence was blocked by a trailer, but despite multiple requests, no video has been produced. Numerous videos from marital home cameras have been offered as “evidence”, all clearly show nothing as claimed by wife and Wife’s counsel, and the most important videos from front doorbell camera and cameras inside the marital home are conveniently missing. Wife and Wife’s counsel testified that those videos exist, and yet nobody else has been granted access to the recordings. Wife and counsel of wife expect that their testimony of what was on the video recordings should be sufficient to satisfy the court as to what was actually on the recordings.
False Claim #2 – Husband’s Drug Abuse
Wife and Wife’s counsel submitted Photographs of Father’s drugs/paraphernalia. What is seen is an obvious staged photograph using the couple’s son as a prop, which does not show drugs as claimed, but rather, what appears to be marijuana. Even if the substance photographed was marijuana, which is doubtful based on looking at the picture, that is a medication prescribed to husband by multiple physicians. No other substances appear in the photograph.
The use of the word “drugs” would insinuate multiple substances, yet only one substance appears. Counsel of wife aims to deceive the court by intentionally creating and exaggerating claims. The use of the word “drugs” was used in bad faith. Wife and counsel of wife have time and again made the accusation of drugs being photographed or used, yet only marijuana, a known medication of husband, has been identified. Even if the word “drug” were used in place of “drugs” which was a dubious word choice, the claim would still be deceptive and in bad faith, as marijuana, is a known medication of the husband and not a drug, in the context as used by counsel of wife.
The words “drug abuse” have also been used on numerous occasions by wife and counsel of wife, a falsehood with the aim of deceiving the court. No evidence of drug abuse has been offered. The only substance identified is medical marijuana and the term “abuse” is a purposeful mischaracterization of what is indeed husband using a medication as prescribed by doctors.
False Claim #3 – Husband’s Disappearance and Sudden Reappearance Claim
In several instances, Wife claims husband disappears and suddenly appears at marital residence. Wife claims husand ……
Husband traveled to Guatemala on January 21st, 2021, the same day wife filed for divorce, a business trip that wife was supposed to make as well. Wife had business meetings in Guatemala. She was paramount in designing products that established Guatemalan supply chain for family business. Husband attended meetings in her absence. Wife instead used that time to secretly file for divorce, remove husband’s belongings, and unilaterally deny husband of parental and property rights without due process of the law.
After husband returned from Guatemala, he was surprisingly served with petition for dissolution of marriage. Within minutes after being served, wife contacted husband and demanded he come take all of his belonging out of the marital home which she had family maid stuff into black trash bags and unceremoniously relocated into the hot garage. When husband refused to remove his belongings and leave the marital home and his family, wife contacted two workers from family business who were at work in the family business, and requested they leave work to go to marital home under the guise of a business need. Upon arrival, wife instructed workers to remove trash bags fullof husband’s belonging and dump them on the factory floor. Another employee intervened at the factory to disallow Wife’s attempt to humiliate husband.
False Claim #3 – Lis Pendens
Both Personas et al knew or should have known that any claim against this pre-marital asset is without merit. There is absolutely no claim to title or ownership interest, which is required to file a Lis Pendens in accordance with Florida law. If the pending lawsuit is not founded on a duly recorded instrument, the plaintiff must show that there is fair connection between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute at issue in the lawsuit. If the claimant’s only “interest” in the subject real property is simply an attempt to secure the monetary value of the property as potential payment for a future judgment (as opposed to a claim which may directly affect the property’s ownership or possession itself), a lis pendens is not proper and may be expunged.
The damages a property owner can recover for an improperly filed lis pendens are generally measured the “difference between the fair market value at the time of the filing of the lis pendens and the fair market value at [the] time of its termination, plus any consequential damages, including attorney’s fees.” FCD Dev., LLC v. S. Fla. Sports Comm., Inc., 37 So. 3d 905, 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
Under Florida law, a lis pendens functions as “a harsh and oppressive remedy” that “operates as a cloud on the title and prevents an owner from selling or dealing with it.” Specifically, Section 48.23(3), Florida Statutes provides that “[w]hen the pending pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument or on a lien claimed under part I of chapter 713 . . . the court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the court would grant and dissolve injunctions.”
Wife’s claims in regard to Lis Pendens are bogus and were improperly filed. Husband owns a pre-marital home in Homestead, FL purchased in March 2007, nearly 10 years before marriage to wife. Husband is a 100% Service-Disabled U.S. Marine combat veteran of the Iraq War who obtained financing using a VA loan. The mortgage has always been automatically paid at the beginning of each month with husband’s
disability compensation from the Veterans Administration. Wife improperly filed a Lis Pendens against husband’s pre-marital house.
Initially, Lis Pendens were filed against two addresses. At mediation, wife and counsel were insisting that husband owned a property in Highlands County. Husband had no knowledge of the address in question. Only after husband’s counsel performed the most rudimentary of searches, and notified the mediator that the name on the second property was a different persona, as any reasonable inquiry would have revealed, as it was co-owned by his wife, counsel of wife removed the second Lis Pendens. Hastily filing a Lis Pendens against an individual’s property who is unrelated to the subject matter at hand demonstrates the carelessness and intent of wife and counsel of wife to litigate first and ask questions last.
By blocking the sale of pre-marital asset (after husband accepted an offer to buy the property), wife and counsel of wife, have deliberately, in bad faith, denied husband’s right to make a living. Bank records in possession of wife and counsel of wife, made accessible through mandatory disclosures, clearly show that the mortgage is paid by husband. The most basic, reasonable inquiry made into this matter would reveal that no claim exists in reference to ownership of control of stated property and no nexus between the real property and the lawsuit can be made.
A notice of Lis Pendens would be appropriate when there is a nexus between the lawsuit and the real property subject to the notice of Lis Pendens. In other words, a notice of Lis Pendens would be proper if the proponent (the petitioner) can establish a “fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property on which the notice of Lis Pendens [is] filed and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.” Acapulco Construction, Inc. v. Redavo Estates, Inc., 645 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). There has to be a connection between the real property and the lawsuit; otherwise, a notice of lis pendens can be dissolved or stricken.
Wife has never resided at the property, nor paid any bills there of any kind, nor managed, nor maintained the property. Lis Pendens were filed to harass.
False Claim #5 – Date of Dissolution of Marriage
Date of divorce as sworn to by wife changes in each motion. Sometimes it is stated as January 20th, 2021, which is the Husband’s birthday, and in other motions, wife claims to have filed for divorce on January 21st, 2021. When so many claims are invented, wife and counsel of wife get confused about simple details like date of filing. When telling the truth, those details aren’t forgotten. Wife knows or should know the date of filing for divorce, January 20th is husband’s birthday. Counsel of wife should know date of filing and identify them properly. Counsel of wife is recklessly preparing motions without verification of claims within.
False Claim #6 – Abandonment of Marital Home
Wife claims “after he was served with the petition for dissolution Husband abandoned the marital home and did not see his children.” This is another utterly meritless claim aimed to deceive the court and deny husband of parental and property rights.
False Claim #7 – Mother fears Father could take the minor children out of the country
Airline regulation allows for one infant to travel per adult. Both children were under two years old. Traveling abroad would have been impossible as it is against airline regulations. In addition, wife was in possession of son’s passport and daughter does not have a passport. Husband also had his service dog who didn’t have any paperwork in place to travel, which wife was well aware of, as husband hadn’t seen dogs in same period of time as children, leading up to April 8th, therefore she knew service dog didn’t have necessary paperwork in place to travel. The idea that wife was in fear of husband leaving the country with an infant, a toddler, and a service animal is preposterous even if they had passports and documentation required to travel which they did not. It is neither feasible nor reasonable to “fear” husband could or would even attempt to travel abroad with children, service dog, and luggage for all of them. Also, airline regulations only allow for one infant per adult, and but children were under two years old at the time.
Wife and Counsel of wife knew or should have known that father would have been prohibited to travel with two children under two years of age, and that without passports, infants can’t travel abroad under any circumstances. Counsel of wife also knew or should have known that traveling abroad with a toddler, an infant, and a 100+ lb. service dog is not a practical thought even if traveling with two infants were allowed and even if husband had passports for children, which he did not.
Wife in Contempt
Court ordered wife to give explanation to what happened to third family dog. Wife has to date, still offered no explanation.
Sanctions Appropriate
Counsel of wife failed to meet its Federal Rule 26(g) obligations to make a “reasonable inquiry” to ensure that all responsive and available information had been provided after a good-faith effort. No visual evidence has been produced despite numerous inquiries by husband. There are cameras inside the home, outside the home (doorbell camera), and the neighbor directly across the street has a doorbell camerama also positioned directly at the location of the alleged domestic violence.
Neither wife nor counsel of wife so much as even inquired with Bruno Maganza about potential video evidence, which is clearly “reasonable inquiry” given the serious nature of wife’s allegations. No attempt at any meaningful discovery occurred, there were neither interviews nor attempted interviews of potential records custodians, and attempts of husband to request discovery were ignored, disregarded, or drew utterly dishonest responses.
With the myriad video footage submitted to the courts as, “evidence”, it is unfeasible that no pertinent video evidence exists of the domestic violence incident nor any other significant incidents occurring at the marital residence. Failure to perform even the most basic inquiries for discovery demonstrates wife and counsel of wife’s clear desire to litigate baseless claims without any reasonable attempts to corroborate claims.
This willful misconduct, is detrimental to the courts, due process, husband, and to the children who are the ultimate losers in this case. Sanctions must be levied in equal proportion to the egregious behaviors displayed in this case as to deter such perverse, vexatious, frivolous litigation from being filed in future proceedings. As a Service-Disabled U.S. Marine, combat veteran of the Iraq War, with 100% disability due to PTSD, heavy sanctions must be imposed to deter future such actions against disabled individuals to purposefully adversely affect their condition in attempts to create instability.
Further, wife knowingly and willfully violated Federal Rule 37, which states, “If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court may:
(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:
(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.”
In this case both occurred, there was intent to deprive use of information, and a prejudice occurred as a result of depriving the only visual evidence of domestic violence claims.
Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence under 2015 rule 27(e) amendment
Wife and Counsel willfully and deliberately submitted partial visual records to omit context and deny access to responsive, available information. Wife and counsel each testified that they witnessed video evidence of domestic violence. Upon request, wife now claims no video evidence exists. Wife and counsel knew or should have known that this visual evidence was paramount to their claims and losing or destroying such evidence is a clear case if spoliation of evidence, and necessitates string sanctions as to discourage future litigants from employing such tactics.
Rule 37
For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.
Conclusion
In this case, wife and counsel are acting in bad faith, with the intent to deceive and manipulate the court into denying Husband of his property, children, and liberty.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent respectfully requests this Court to grant this Motion for Sanctions and subsequently impose sanctions on Petitioner.
Dated this ____ day of March, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
PERSONA
Respondent in pro per
VERIFICATION
I, Persona, being duly sworn depose and say that I am the Respondent in the above action and have read the foregoing Motion for Sanctions and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
_________________________________
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of March, 2022.
______________________________
Notary Public
________________________________________
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: ____________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.