Larry Schneider

From: Kenneth Eric Trent, P.A. <trentlawoffice@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:41 PM
To: Brent Tantillo; Larry Schneider
Subject: Fw: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502016CA009292XXXXMB - Part
1 of 2
Attachments: Petition - Pages 1 to 44.pdf

Kenneth Eric Trent, P.A.

831 E. Oakland Park Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33334
(954) 567-5877-phone
(954) 567-5872 fax
trentlawoffice@yahoo.com
www.foreclosuredestroyer.com

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "eservice@myflcourtaccess.com" <eservice@myflcourtaccess.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:33 PM
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502016CA009292XXXXMB - Part 1 of 2

Notice of Service of Court Documents

Filing Information
Filing #: 52487214
Filing Time: 02/14/2017 03:32:44 PM ET
Filer: Henry H Bolz III 305-529-8500
Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
Case #: 502016CA009292XXXXMB
Court Case #: 50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB
Case Style: FIRST AMERICAN BANK - SCHNEIDER, LAURENCE S
Documents

Title File
Petition 2017-02-14 Renewed Pet 4 Appt. Receiver.pdf
E-service recipients selected for service:
Name Email Address
Henry H Bolz III hbolz@kellerbolz.com
ahart@kellerbolz.com
Jay Samuel Levin jlevin@ssclawfirm.com
foreclosures@ssclawfirm.com
1
 Name Email Address
jaylevin.esq@gmail.com
Kenneth E Trent trentlawoffice@yahoo.com
Brent Tantillo BTantillo@walkerdimarcopc.com
Stuart S. Mermelstein smermelstein@hermanlaw.com
mconnor@hermanlaw.com

E-service recipients deselected for service:

Name Email Address
No Matching Entries
This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email
address does not receive email.
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal
The following identifier(s) are associated with this transaction:
request_id#:52487214;Audit#:179674212;UCN#:502016CA009292XXXXMB;

2
Filing # 52487214 E-Filed 02/14/2017 03:32:44 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 502016-CA-009292

DIVISION AW

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as

successor by merger to Bank of
Coral Gables, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER,
JEFFREY MARC HERMAN,
UNKNOWN TENANT #1, UNKNOWN
TENANT #2 and THE
OAKS AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY
OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendants.
/

FIRST AMERICAN’S RENEWED

VERIFIED PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN BANK (hereinafter “FIRST

AMERICAN”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, and in accordance with Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.620, hereby renews this its verified petition for this Court to

appoint a Receiver for that single family residential dwelling commonly known as 17685

Circle Pond Court, Boca Raton, FL 33496-1002 and in support therefore states as follows:

Execution of Credit Agreement/Mortgage

1. Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

SCHNEIDER, are the fee simple owners and hold possession of that residential property
located at 17685 Circle Pond Court, Boca Raton, Florida 33496-1002 (“Property”). The

legal description of the Property is:

“Lot 37 of the Fox Hill Estates of Boca Raton, according to the

Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 87, Page 4, of the Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.”

2. On July 28, 2006, the Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, executed

and delivered to FIRST AMERICAN’s predecessor in interest, Bank of Coral Gables, a

Credit Agreement for a 10-year Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) with a credit limit of

$1,500,000.00 and promised to pay any and all amounts borrowed from the

$1,500,000.00 Credit Agreement by making a single balloon payment on July 28, 2016.

A true and correct copy of the Credit Agreement, which constitutes the Promissory Note

with respect to this credit transaction, is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

3. On July 28, 2006, the Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and

STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, executed and delivered a Mortgage securing the payment

of $1,500,000.00 Credit Agreement to FIRST AMERICAN’s predecessor in interest, Bank

of Coral Gables. The Mortgage was recorded on July 31, 2006 and a true and correct

copy of the Mortgage is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

Events of Default

4. The Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, defaulted under the Credit

Agreement and Mortgage by failing to pay the monthly interest payment due on May 1,

2016 and all subsequent payments.

5. The Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, defaulted under the Credit

Agreement (Exhibit “A”) and Mortgage (Exhibit “B”) by failing to make the entire principal

balloon payment which became due on July 28, 2016.

Page 2 of 16
 6. The Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

SCHNEIDER, defaulted under the Credit Agreement (Exhibit “A”) and/or Mortgage

(Exhibit “B”) by failing to pay the Florida Ad Valorem/real property taxes on the Property

for 2014 and 2015, despite a demand made by FIRST AMERICAN to pay those real

property taxes by no later than April 1, 2016.

7. The Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

SCHNEIDER, defaulted under the Credit Agreement (Exhibit “A”) and/or the Mortgage

(Exhibit “B”) by failing to pay the Florida Ad Valorem property taxes on the Property for

2016.

8. FIRST AMERICAN, in April 2016, paid the 2014 and 2015 Florida Ad

Valorem/real property taxes on the Property in the amount of $46,148.17. FIRST

AMERICAN, in January 2017, paid the 2016 Florida Ad Valorem/real property taxes on

the Property in the amount of $20,722.76.

9. On February 1, 2017, THE OAKS AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY

OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.1 recorded a Claim of Lien for Assessments in the Official

Records of Palm Beach County, Florida at book 28866 at page 0584, for unpaid

assessments due from Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

SCHNEIDER. Specifically, the Defendants owe THE OAKS AT BOCA RATON

PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. $8,192.21 (consisting of $4,744.04 for

quarterly assessments due from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, $2,527.06 for

quarterly assessments due from January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017 and $921.11

1
THE OAKS AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. administers a
residential real estate project known as Fox Hill Estates, which includes the residential property located at
17685 Circle Pond Court, Boca Raton, Florida 33496-1002, which Property is the subject matter of this
foreclosure action.

Page 3 of 16
for a special assessment due from December 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016). A

copy of the Claim of Lien for Assessments is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

10. The Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, owes the Plaintiff, FIRST

AMERICAN, $1,488,748.05 in principal which was borrowed under the Credit Agreement

(Exhibit “A”), interest on the unpaid principal amount from May 1, 2016, real estate

property taxes for calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016 in the amount of $66,870.93, title

search expenses, attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses necessarily incurred by

FIRST AMERICAN.

Amount Owed on Credit

Agreement/Mortgage v. Value of Property

11. The payoff amount due, owing, in default and unpaid from LAURENCE S.

SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER to FIRST AMERICAN as of February 9,

2017 was $1,684.754.00.

12. According to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, the market value

of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $1,155,958.00.

13. There is not sufficient equity in the real property involved in this foreclosure

litigation to adequately secure and protect FIRST AMERICAN’s Mortgage interest.

First American’s Initial Verified

Motion for Appointment of Receiver

14. On August 17, 2016, FIRST AMERICAN filed its Verified Petition for

Appointment of Receiver. In that Verified Petition, FIRST AMERICAN argued that the

appointment of a receiver was necessary because the Property was occupied by

Defendant, JEFFREY MARC HERMAN, who was then paying rent at a rate of $7,500.00

per month to Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and, since May 1, 2016,

Page 4 of 16
Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, had not applied any portion of the monthly

$7,500.00 rental payments towards either the monthly interest payments owed to FIRST

AMERICAN nor towards the 2014-2015 Ad Valorem Property taxes.

15. On October 12, 2016, Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, filed his

Affidavit in Opposition to FIRST AMERICAN’s Motion to Compel Assignments of Rents.2

A copy of Defendant’s, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, Affidavit is attached hereto as

Exhibit “D.” In his Affidavit, Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, attested, under

oath, that:

a. “I am suffering from a number of severe financial exigencies which

have necessitated, among other things, placing [his] primary
residence on the market.” Ex. “D,” at ¶ 1.

b. “[O]ne immediately pertinent consequence of the bank’s actions is

the eviction of the tenant named as a Defendant herein: Jeffrey
Marc Herman. I have terminated his [JEFFREY MARC HERMAN]
tenancy. Ex. “D,” at ¶ 4.

c. “Due to the fact that I am forced to sell my primary residence, I will

be moving into the subject property as soon as possible.” Ex. “D,”
at ¶ 5.

16. At the October 14, 2016 hearing, counsel for Defendant, referenced

Defendant’s, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, Affidavit and reiterated to the Court that

Defendant intended to occupy the Property “as soon as possible”:

MR. TRENT: In my client’s [Defendant’s] Affidavit, he states

that he intends to occupy this residence [the Property] as soon
as possible … as he is selling what was previously his primary
residence.

Now, that would mean that there’s no rent coming into [sic] be
assigned to the Plaintiff, that there would be no need for a

2
On August 17, 2016, FIRST AMERICAN filed its Verified Motion to Compel Assignments of Rents.
On October 14, 2016, this Court granted FIRST AMERICAN’s Motion and ordered the Tenant, JEFFREY
MARC HERMAN, to deposit all future rental payments into the Registry of the Court.

Page 5 of 16
 receiver because it would simply be the borrower [Defendant]
who is living in the [P]roperty. It would be owner occupied
property.

A true and correct copy of the above excerpt of the October 14th hearing is attached hereto

as Exhibit “E.”

17. In addition, at the October 14, 2016 hearing, counsel for Defendant,

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, stated that his client wanted to appear in person and testify

in opposition to FIRST AMERICAN’s Verified Petition for Appointment of Receiver.

Because Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, was not present at the October 14,

2016 hearing, the Court entered an Order continuing the hearing on the Appointment of

Receiver for two weeks to October 28, 2016.

18. Just before the October 28, 2016 hearing began, counsel for Defendant

showed FIRST AMERICAN’s undersigned counsel a copy of an email authored and sent

by Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, to Brent Tantillo, Esquire (and then on to

Attorney Kenneth Trent), in which Defendant stated:

[The Tenant] is moving out on October 31, 2016. As such,

there are no rents for a receiver to collect. Once we’ve
confirmed the property has been vacated, we’ll do any
necessary repairs and list our current residence for sale.

A copy of the email from LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER to Mr. Tantillo, dated October 24,

2016, was given to the undersigned after the October 28, 2016 hearing and is attached

hereto as Exhibit “F.”

19. Despite counsel for the Defendant having represented to the Court that

Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, would appear at the October 28, 2016 hearing

and testify, Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, did not attend the October 28, 2016

hearing. Nevertheless, the Court heard oral argument on FIRST AMERICAN’s Verified

Page 6 of 16
Petition for Appointment of Receiver. Counsel for Defendant, LAURENCE S.

SCHNEIDER, again argued that there was no need for the appointment of a receiver

because the Defendant had evicted the Tenant, the Tenant had advised that he would

vacate the premises by the end of October (October 31, 2016), and that LAURENCE S.

SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER would be moving into the Property (as

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER had attested to in his October 12, 2016 Affidavit (Exhibit

“D”).

20. At the conclusion of the October 28, 2016 hearing, this Court entered an

Order Denying FIRST AMERICAN’S Verified Petition for Appointment of Receiver (Exhibit

“G”).

The Property is Unoccupied/Abandoned

21. Upon information and belief, the former Tenant of the Property, JEFFREY

MARC HERMAN, did in fact physically vacate the Property being foreclosed on October

31, 2016.

22. The Property which is the subject matter of this foreclosure action has been

vacant/unoccupied since October 31, 2016.

23. LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER have not

placed/listed their primary residence3 on the market for sale.

3
The primary residence of LAURENCE and STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER is located at 360 E. Coconut
Palm Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33432 according to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, the market
value of the primary residence of LAURENCE and STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER is $6,161,339.00 (Exhibit
“H”). LAURENCE and STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER have applied for and maintained their Florida Homestead
Exemption continuously on their primary residence located at 360 E. Coconut Palm Road, Boca Raton,
Florida 33432 since 2015.

Page 7 of 16
 24. On or about January 13, 2017, FIRST AMERICAN filed and served its

pleading styled Request for Inspection requesting permission to enter the Property for the

purpose of inspecting and photographing the inside and outside of the Property.

25. By email, dated January 18, 2017, counsel for Defendants, LAURENCE S.

SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, confirmed that the Property which is the

subject matter of this foreclosure was unoccupied:

“The fact of the matter is that there is no tenant and my client

has not yet moved in there as he is in the process of putting
his house on the market.”

A copy of the email from LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER’s attorney to undersigned, dated

January 18, 2017, is attached hereto as Exhibit “I.”

26. In response to FIRST AMERICAN’s Request for Inspection, a FIRST

AMERICAN representative, Carlos Molestina, was granted access to the Property on

January 19, 2017. Among the findings and results of that inspection made on January

19, 2017 were that:

a. The electricity on the Property had been disconnected. As a result, it could

not be determined whether the residence’s air conditioning system or
appliances were operable.

b. The inside of the Property was empty; there was no furniture of any type or
nature.

c. The landscaping on the Property was not being currently maintained in that
the grass is not being properly mowed and there were a lot of
bushy/overgrown/dried out plants.

d. The Property’s swimming pool’s cleaning/filtering system was not working.

e. The Property was not being maintained insofar as the residence’s exterior
is concerned; there were areas of mold and mildew on the exterior of the
house, instances where paint was cracking and flaking off the walls and
there was noticeable streaking in different areas of the residence.

Page 8 of 16
These open and obvious deficiencies with the Property were all documented through a

series of photographs which will be attached to the Affidavit of Carlos Molestina which will

be filed with this Court directly in support of this Verified Petition to Appoint Receiver.

27. FIRST AMERICAN continues to intermittently search and review

documents and databases relating to the listing for sale of real properties in Palm Beach

County. As of February 14, 2017, the primary residence of LAURENCE SCHNEIDER

and STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER (360 E. Coconut Palm Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33432)

remained unlisted for sale.

28. More than four months after Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,

attested, under oath, that he would “be moving into the subject property as soon as

possible” (Exhibit “D”), the Property subject to this foreclosure action has remained and

remains unoccupied, without electrical power and, essentially abandoned. Despite

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER having stated under oath in his Affidavit that he would be

listing his current residence “on the market” for sale, four months have elapsed without

any such action taking place.

In addition to the documents and correspondence identified above, Exhibits “A”

through “I,” further evidentiary support for the entry of an Order granting FIRST

AMERICAN’s Renewed Verified Petition for Appointment of Receiver can be found in the

Verified Foreclosure Complaint (Verified by Garry S. Smith, Senior Vice President of

FIRST AMERICAN) which is readopted and realleged in its entirety in support of this

Petition.

Page 9 of 16
 MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, FIRST AMERICAN is entitled to

have a Receiver appointed to monitor, maintain and protect the Property. FIRST

AMERICAN is also requesting that this Court grant the Court-appointed Receiver with the

authority to lease the Property.

A. The Applicable Law

At the outset of its argument, FIRST AMERICAN submits that the Mortgage

executed by the Defendants, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

SCHNEIDER, identifies the appointment of a receiver as one of the rights and remedies

available to FIRST AMERICAN upon default by Defendants. Specifically, the Mortgage

states:

Lender [FIRST AMERICAN] shall have the right to have a

receiver appointed to take possession of all or any part of the
Property, with the power to protect and preserve the Property,
to operate the Property preceding foreclosure or sale, and to
collect the Rents from the Property and apply the proceeds,
over and above the cost of the receivership, against the
Indebtedness.

(Exhibit “B”).

The seminal Florida case dealing with the issue of when a receiver can be

appointed with respect to real property being foreclosed remains Carolina Portland

Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 128 So. 241 (Fla. 1930). Florida’s Supreme Court in

Carolina Portland Cement made it clear that there were three affirmative requirements

that had to be met by a foreclosing bank before a receiver could be appointed on any

property being foreclosed and one quasi-defense that the property owner could raise to

Page 10 of 16
defeat the appointment of a receiver. The three affirmative requirements set out in

Carolina Portland Cement are:

“[A] receiver should not be appointed ‘unless there is strong

reason to believe that the party asking for a receiver will
recover.’”

“[T]he rents and profits are expressly made a part of the

security, and the mortgagor is receiving them but refusing to
apply them to the mortgage debt, which he is allowing to go in
default, thus dissipating a part of the security while allowing
the debt to increase ….”

“[I]f it were made to appear that, although in default, the

mortgagor was exercising reasonably good care and
management of the property and applying the receipts from
rentals to the payment of the taxes and the interest on the
mortgage debt as far as they would go, a receiver could do no
more, and no equitable ground would exist for interfering with
the right of possession ….”

Id. at 248-249. The quasi-defense set forth in Carolina Portland Cement which can be

raised by an owner to preclude the appointment of a receiver is:

“[A] court of equity should appoint a receiver unless the

mortgagor makes it clear that the real property covered by the
mortgage will sell for enough to pay the debt and charges due
to mortgagee and thus provides ample and entirely adequate
security.”

Id. at 249. Among the many recent Florida cases that heartily endorse and adopt the

teachings of Carolina Portland Cement are Colley v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 516

So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), KeyBank Nat’l Ass’n. v. Knuth, Ltd., 15 So. 3d 939 (Fla.

3rd DCA 2009), Atco Constr. & Dev. Corp. v. Beneficial Sav. Bank, FSB, 523 So. 2d 747,

750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), Colley v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 516 So. 2d 344, 345-46

(Fla. 1st DCA 1987) and Florida Reinvestment Corp. v. Cypress Sav. Ass’n., 509 So. 2d

1352, 1353-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). [FIRST AMERICAN would point out that Atco Constr.

Page 11 of 16
was the only case cited by LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L.

SCHNEIDER’s counsel during the course of the October 28, 2016 hearing when they

opposed the initial Verified Petition for Appointment of Receiver.]

FIRST AMERICAN is not unmindful of the legal tenet of Florida law that the

appointment of a receiver with respect to property being foreclosed is:

“An extraordinary remedy which must be exercised with

caution as it is in derogation of the legal owner’s fundamental
right to possession of his or her property.”

Alafaya Square Ass’n. v. Great Western Bank, 700 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). It

is important to note, however, that the court in Alafaya Square Ass’n. went on to state:

“Although the appointment of a receiver is within the discretion

of the trial court, it is an abuse of discretion to make such an
appointment in the absence of a showing that the secured
property is being wasted or otherwise subject to serious risk
of loss.”

Id. See also in this regard, Interdevco, Inc. v. Brickellbanc Savings Ass’n., 524 So. 2d

1087 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988) and Atco Constr., supra. Respectfully, the fact that the Property

owners, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, allowed the

electrical power to the Property to be disconnected by FP&L is, alone, a sufficient factual

predicate for establishing waste or the serious risk of loss of the Property.

B. The Facts Applicable to the Law

The Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, borrowed $1,488,748.05 in principal

from FIRST AMERICAN which is secured by the Mortgage (Exhibit “A”) on the Property.

The Defendant, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER, failed and refused to repay the money he

owed when the ten year balloon Mortgage (Exhibit “A”) became due on July 28, 2016.

Page 12 of 16
There is, accordingly, strong reason to believe that FIRST AMERICAN BANK will prevail

and recover in this foreclosure proceeding.

For the months of May, June, July, August, September and October 2016,

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER collected $7,500.00 per month in rent from his then-tenant,

JEFFREY MARC HERMAN. Despite collecting $45,000.00 in rents during that 6-month

time frame, not one cent was paid by LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER towards either the

outstanding and unpaid Ad Valorem/real property taxes or towards the monthly mortgage

payments owed by LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER to FIRST AMERICAN. Moreover, when

it became clear to LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER in

October 2016 that FIRST AMERICAN was seeking an assignment of all future rent

payments, the sole affirmative step or action taken by LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and

STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER was to evict their paying tenant.

Furthermore, despite repeated statements and assurances made to the Court and

opposing counsel, both under oath and otherwise, that LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and

STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER intended to promptly move out of their primary

$6,000,000.00 residence back into the Property being foreclosed, four months have gone

by without any apparent attempt whatsoever being made by the SCHNEIDERS to

effectuate that stated intent. The axiom “Actions speak louder than words” has never

been so applicable.

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER are not taking

“reasonably good care” of the Property as required by Carolina Portland Cement.

Virtually every single concern that was expressed by FIRST AMERICAN during the

course of the October 28, 2016 hearing setting out why a receiver needed to be appointed

Page 13 of 16
has come true.4 Indeed, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER

have essentially abandoned the Property, as is evidenced by the electrical power to the

Property having been disconnected and the non-payment of the Home Owners

Association’s assessments (Exhibit “C”), among other things.

In addition to FIRST AMERICAN’s having demonstrated that all three of the

affirmative requirements of Carolina Portland Cement for the appointment of a receiver

have been met, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER and STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER have not

and cannot assert, much less carry their burden of proving, that the value of the Property

is such that the Property can be sold for enough to pay the full amount of the unpaid

principal, interest, attorneys’ fees and carrying charges on the Property.

FIRST AMERICAN contends that it is necessary for the Court to appoint a

Receiver for this Property in order to monitor the condition/maintenance/upkeep of the

Property, to stop the waste and to preserve the value of the Property. In addition, FIRST

AMERICAN is seeking this Court to authorize the Receiver to advertise and lease the

Property to third parties, collect the rents and apply the rents to the upkeep of the

Property. FIRST AMERICAN proposes that the Court appoint Hylton Wynick from the

firm of YIPCPA, LLC d/b/a YIP Associates whose address is 1001 Yamato Road, Boca

Raton, Florida 33431 as the Receiver.

4
“Mr. Bolz: Mr. Schneider is going to move out of a 6 million dollar house and move into a
1.3 million dollar house? Maybe it will happen. I don’t know, but until it does, I think we’re
[FIRST AMERICAN] entitled to a receiver.” Pgs. 13 and 14 from October 28, 2016 hearing
(Exhibit “J”).

“Mr. Bolz: We think that a receiver can - - has the ability from time to time to go into the
property and inspect it, make sure it’s being maintained.” Pg. 29 from October 28, 2016
hearing (Exhibit “J”).

“Mr. Bolz: Is a pool motor going out and the pool turning green in the backyard?” Pg. 30
from October 28, 2016 hearing (Exhibit “J”).

Page 14 of 16