Filing # 162272672 E-Filed 12/02/2022 12:37:26 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRABIAN ELI CARRION,
an individual
Case No: 22-016738-CA-01 (CA06)
Plaintiff,

v.

EMMANUEL GAZMEY SANTIAGO,

an individual and REAL HASTA LA
MUERTE, LLC., a Florida limited
liability company,

Defendants.
___________________________________/

EMMANUEL GAZMEY SANTIAGO,

an individual and REAL HASTA LA
MUERTE, LLC., a Florida limited
liability company,

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

FRABIAN ELI CARRION,

an individual

Counter-Defendant.
___________________________________/

DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs EMMANUEL GAZMEY SANTIAGO (“Artist”) and

REAL HASTA LA MUERTE, LLC (“Company”)(collectively, “Counter-Plaintiffs”), by and

through undersigned counsel, hereby moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant FRABIAN ELI CARRION (“Carrion” or “Counter-Defendant”)

from transferring ownership, or otherwise disposing, of the property located at 6811 NW 104th
Court, Doral, Florida 33178 (the “Property”), or in the alternative, (ii) from transferring or

otherwise disposing of any proceeds from the sale of the Property. As grounds therefore and in

support thereof, Counter-Plaintiffs state as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This case centers around Counter-Defendant Carrion’s indisputable and categorical abuse

of specified powers granted to him, and fiduciary duties he undertook, as Artist’s manager in the

entertainment industry, and as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Over an approximately

four (4) year period, Carrion exhibited a callous indifference to the trust Artist, his longtime friend,

had placed in him by engaging in a fraudulent and illegal scheme through which he improperly

transferred, utilized, and thus, converted, tens of millions of dollars rightfully belonging to the

Counter-Plaintiffs for the purpose, and with the intent, of funding his and his family member’s

extravagant lifestyle to Counter-Plaintiffs’ detriment.

The Property, a 6,094 square foot home situated on a 12,409 square foot piece of land

located in Doral, Florida and currently worth an estimated $4.8 million––a significant appreciation

from the $3.17 million Carrion paid for the home in November of 2020––is one of the many illicit

purchases made by Carrion using funds from the Company’s bank accounts. See Exhibit A

attached hereto, Detailed Report on the Property from the Office of the Property Appraiser for

Miami-Dade County, Florida. And crucially, despite having definitive proof of a number of the

aforementioned unlawful transactions, to date, the Property is the only asset Counter-Plaintiffs

have been able to verify Carrion currently holds under his own name, 1 and consequently, the only

asset Counter-Plaintiffs will be able to look to for satisfaction of a judgment in their favor in this

1
Counter-Plaintiffs’ investigation into the extent of Carrion’s scheme, and the damages to
Counter-Plaintiffs as a result, is ongoing.

2
case, which Counter-Plaintiffs contend, as outlined herein, is the inevitable result of the instant

action. 2 3 See Exhibit B attached hereto, Affidavit of Dallas Bowman, at ¶ 4.

Absent a preliminary injunction enjoining Carrion from transferring, or otherwise

disposing of the Property, or in the alternative, enjoining Carrion from transferring or otherwise

disposing of any proceeds from the sale of the Property, Counter-Plaintiffs (1) will continue to

suffer irreparable harm not adequately remediable at law; despite having (2) a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against Carrion for breach of contract, breach of

fiduciary duties, and conversion; (3) a threatened injury that far outweighs any potential harm to

Carrion; and the indisputable fact that (4) granting the temporary injunction Counter-Plaintiffs

request will not disserve the public.

Based on the foregoing, and considering that this Court’s aim is to maintain the status quo

during pending litigation––which would mean Carrion maintaining ownership of the Property he

used substantial Company funds to purchase and renovate––Counter-Plaintiffs’ request for a

preliminary injunction should be granted. See Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So.3d 1040,

1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); see also Conservatory-City of Refuge, Inc. v. Kinney, 514 So. 2d 377,

2
Importantly, as it relates to the instant request, Carrion has essentially ridden Artist’s coattails
since the beginning of his professional career, and earned monies and gained valuable professional
contacts, solely as a result of his affiliation with Counter-Plaintiffs. Due to Carrion’s deception
and conversion of Counter-Plaintiffs’ assets and funds, however, and the termination of his
affiliation with Counter-Plaintiffs, upon information and belief, Carrion is currently in a precarious
financial position, which is further accentuated by the removal of his access to the Company’s
bank account––from which a significant amount of Carrion, and his family member’s, personal
and professional obligations were being satisfied
3
Considering Counter-Plaintiffs’ intimate knowledge as to Carrion’s legitimate earnings and
certain business dealings with which Carrion had been involved over the last approximately four
(4) years, this fact, standing alone, is proof that Carrion has already been forced to sell-off assets
in order to satisfy existing financial obligations, and/or that Carrion has transferred assets to his
family member’s and/or other third parties in a willful attempt to evade Counter-Plaintiffs’ ability
to execute on the impending judgment against him. Thus, equity warrants the imposition of the
preliminary injunction in accordance with Counter-Plaintiffs’ request.

3
379 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987)(“The purpose of the temporary injunction … is to preserve the status

quo of the parties until the ultimate disposition of the case.”).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

In late June of 2018, Artist and Carrion executed a letter of intent outlining their respective

rights and obligations in connection with Carrion becoming Artist’s exclusive representative in the

entertainment industry (the “Letter of Intent”). See Counter-Plaintiffs’ Countercomplaint, at

Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Letter of Intent, Carrion was to be paid ten percent (10%) of Artist’s

gross income solely from Artist’s endeavors in the entertainment industry, which was defined

therein as “all recording business, publishing, artistic presentations, tours, sponsorships,

merchandise, and acting.” Id. From the outset of the relationship, it was understood and agreed

that Carrion was required to seek Artist’s prior consent, or subsequent ratification, as it related to

each and every decision Carrion made on behalf of Artist. See Id.; see also Exhibit C attached

hereto, Affidavit of Jose Gazmey, at ¶ 4.

In March of 2019, Artist and Carrion eventually entered into a long form management

agreement pursuant to which Carrion was obligated to, among other things: “use his best efforts

to devote himself to Artist’s career in the entertainment business and to do all things necessary and

desirable to promote Artist’s career and maximize earnings therefrom” (the “Management

Agreement”). See Carrion’s Complaint, at Exhibit A. Carrion’s expressed powers under the

Management Agreement were limited to (i) “sign[ing] agreements on Artist’s … behalf provided

that Artist [] approved the terms of such agreements in writing”; (ii) “approve and permit the use

of Artist’s name (actual and profession), approved likeness, approved photographs and approved

biological material in marketing and promotion of Artist’s career (subject to prior approval of

Artist); and (iii) collect and receive all Gross Earnings [(defined therein)] … and retain all sums

4
owing to [Carrion]; it being understood and agreed however that such rights and power shall not

be extended beyond Gross Earnings earned by Artist as a result of Artist’s activities in throughout

the Entertainment Business.”4 Id. (emphasis added).

In addition to the above, the Management Agreement specifically stated that Artist was

only obligated to repay Carrion’s “reasonable, out of pocket, verifiable expenses incurred during

the Management Agreement’s term that were “necessary for the performance of Manager’s duties”

under the Management Agreement, and that Artist would not be “responsible for any expenses

related directly to Manager’s general overhead expenses, operating expenses or any other costs or

expenses incurred by Manager except as expressly provided for” in the Management Agreement.

Id. The Management Agreement further set out that “Artist shall not be responsible for paying or

reimbursing [Carrion] for any expenses, cost or charge incurred by Manager whatsoever in excess

of five hundred dollars ($500) (either single expenses or in the aggregate during any calendar

month),” unless the expenses was pre-approved in writing by Artist, and Carrion provided Artist

all receipts and other documentation “evidencing the expense, cost or charge.” Id.

Not long after executing the Management Agreement, Artist added Carrion as a manager,5

and named him CEO of the Company. In order to allow Carrion to carry out his duties and

obligations––both as Artist’s manager and as the Company’s CEO––Artist made Carrion an

authorized person on the Company’s bank account, thereby allowing Carrion to unilaterally

4
The “Entertainment Business” is defined in the Management Agreement as “music, live
performance, personal engagements, amusement, motion picture, television, endorsements and
branding, theatrical and advertising fields and all similar areas throughout the music industry in
which Artist’s artistic talents are developed and exploited. Id.
5
For the sake of clarity, Artist was the only other manager of the Company at the time, and Carrion
never provided capital to, or otherwise became an equity owner in, the Company at any time. See
Exhibit C, at ¶ 3.

5
transfer monies to and from the account. Exhibit C, at ¶ 4. Subsequently, however, in breach of

the Management Agreement and his fiduciary duties to Counter-Plaintiffs, Carrion began

transferring and utilizing funds from the Company’s bank account without Artist’s knowledge and

consent for purposes of satisfying his own, and his family member’s, personal and professional

obligations, and to otherwise fund the extravagant lifestyle he desperately desired. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 5-6.

On or about November 18, 2020, Carrion executed a warranty deed prepared by Scott

Weisburd of the law firm Weisburd, Eisen & Possenti, PA (the “Weisburg Firm”) pertaining to

the Property, which is located in the Grand Floridian at Doral, agreeing to purchase the Property

for $3.17 million. See Counter-Plaintiffs’ Countercomplaint, at Exhibit F. In connection with the

purchase of the Property, and/or Carrion’s subsequent remodel thereof, Carrion wired $613,528.51

to the Weisburg Firm on November 17, 2020, and wrote checks to the Grand Floridian in the

amount of $100,000, $200,000, and $90,391.78, on December 18, 2020, February 28, 2021, and

May 18, 2021, respectively. See Counter-Plaintiffs’ Countercomplaint, at Exhibits G through I;

see also Exhibit C, at ¶ 5. All of those payments––totaling approximately $1.03 million––were

made from the Company’s bank account, and none of those payments were known to, or approved

by, Artist. Id. And importantly, all of those payments far exceeded the threshold amount of $500,

and unequivocally, none constituted expenses incurred in furtherance of, or connection with,

Carrion’s obligations to Artist under the Management Agreement, or Carrion’s role as CEO of the

Company. See Carrion’s Complaint, at Exhibit A.

As Carrion alleged in his Complaint in this action, Counter-Plaintiffs terminated their

relationship with Carrion, and removed him as a manager of the Company and as an authorized

person on the Company bank account in August of 2022. See Carrion’s Complaint, at ¶¶ 19-21.

Significantly, unable to utilize Company funds to do so, Carrion failed to pay taxes on the Property

6
for the years 2021 and 2022––the only years Carrion would have been obligated to do so

considering he purchased the Property in November of 2020, and as of November 2, 2022, had an

outstanding tax liability on the Property totaling $97,477.56––$50,307.87 and $47,169.69 for 2021

and 2022, respectively. See Exhibit D attached hereto, Delinquency Tax Certificates for the

Property; Exhibit B, at ¶ 5. In addition to Carrion’s own outstanding tax liability, and despite the

Company setting aside $22,064,470 for taxes owed for the years 2018 through 2022, which monies

Artist specifically directed Carrion to use toward payment of taxes, the Company currently has an

outstanding tax liability of $10,926,227 for the years 2018 and 2019 alone. 6 See Exhibit C, at ¶ 6.

III. ARGUMENT

A temporary injunction is to be granted when the moving party establishes the following

elements: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law;

(2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the threatened injury to the movant

outweighs any possible harm to the non-movant; and (4) the granting of a temporary injunction

will not disserve the public interest. Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So.3d 1040, 1042 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017)(citing Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey, 51 So.3d 561, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

This Court is permitted to “exercise broad discretion in granting … injunctions and unless a clear

abuse of discretion is demonstrated,” this Court’s ultimate decision will not be disturbed. Wise v.

Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(citing Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264,

1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

6
Counter-Plaintiffs have not yet determined the Company’s outstanding tax liability for the years
2020 and 2021, and taxes have not yet come due for the year 2022. Id. at ¶ 6. However, Counter-
Plaintiffs have thus far been unable to account for the $10.5 million set aside for taxes for the years
2020 through 2022, and are informed and believe that those monies were wrongfully taken, and
utilized and/or transferred, by Carrion as part of his scheme.

7
 Because Counter-Plaintiffs satisfy each of the above elements, and equity otherwise

warrants such, this Court should exercise its broad discretion, and grant Counter-Plaintiffs’ request

for a preliminary injunction enjoining Carrion from (i) transferring ownership, or otherwise

disposing of the property located at 6811 NW 104th Court, Doral, Florida 33178 (the “Property”),

or in the alternative, (ii) from transferring or otherwise disposing of any proceeds from the sale of

the Property.

A. Counter-Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate

remedy at law, if Carrion is not enjoined.

Generally speaking, irreparable harm cannot be established “if the harm can be adequately

compensated by a monetary award.” Bautista REO U.S., LLC v. ARR Invs., Inc., 229 So. 3d 362,

365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)(citing B.G.H. Ins. Syndicate, Inc. v. Presidential Fire & Cas. Co., 549

So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). However, under certain circumstances, “[f]inancial via loss

[from] a particular sale c[an] … constitute irreparable harm.” See Landmark at Crescent Ridge LP

v. Everest Fin., Inc., 219 So. 3d 218, 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017); see Zur v. Degani, 629 So.2d

244, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(affirming order denying motion to dissolve a temporary injunction,

and reasoning that the moving party was “likely to suffer irreparable harm without an adequate

remedy at law if the aircraft,” the subject matter of the temporary injunction, “[wa]s sold.”); see

also Schiller v. Miller, 621 So. 2d 481, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(affirming a temporary restraining

order enjoining the plaintiff from disposing of jewelry, and explaining that the fact the jewelry had

been purchased with the plaintiff’s funds, was in the defendant’s sole possession, and that it had

appraised for considerably more than the original price, among other things, necessitated the

ruling, which would maintain the status quo during the pendency of litigation).

Further, “there is an inadequate remedy at law where there is no indication that the [non-

movant] has sufficient liquid assets to cover the value of harm caused without an injunction.”

8
Warten v. Caguas Cent. Fed. Sav. Bank of Puerto Rico, 567 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA

1990)(affirming temporary injunction entitling movant to an equitable lien on the proceeds of the

non-movant’s legal malpractice action); see also Hunter v. Bradford, 3 Fla. 269, 273 (Fla. 1850)

(“The insolvency of a vendor, and his consequent inability to comply with his covenants, is

sufficient ground for an injunction restraining the collection of the purchase money.”). Most

importantly, “[e]quity will lend its aid where is not a full, complete or adequate remedy at law.”

Sommers v. Apalachicola N. R. Co., 78 So. 25, 31 (Fla. 1918) (internal citations omitted).

Here, similar to Credo LLC v. Speyside Invs. Corp., 259 So.3d 893, 900 (Fla. 3d DCA

2018), in which the court upheld the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction, “this is not a case

where a party seeks to enjoin funds that rightfully belong to an opposing party in litigation out of

fear that it may not be able to later collect on any judgment it may be awarded.” Credo, 259 So.3d

at 900. As was the case in Credo, Carrion “does not now have, and has not ever had, any legal

claim to th[e] funds” he used to purchase and remodel the Property. Id. Coupling that with

Carrion’s willful and explicit failures to perform in accordance with the terms of the Management

Agreement, including his willful and explicit failure to act in the best interests of the Counter-

Plaintiffs; his lack of existing assets, i.e., his insolvency; and the significant appreciation of the

Property since the date of Carrion’s purchase, due in large part to the Company funds he used to

remodel the home, it is axiomatic that Counter-Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, for which

there is no adequate remedy at law, if Counter-Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request is not

granted. And, most importantly, under the circumstances described herein, equity mandates that

such preliminary injunction be granted.

B. There is substantial likelihood of success on the merits of Counter-Plaintiffs’ claims

for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

9
 To satisfy the second element, the moving party must show a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits of its underlying claims, i.e., that there exists “good reasons for anticipating

that result.” City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co., 634 So. 2d 750, 753 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1994), approved sub nom. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d

1046 (Fla. 1995), as modified on reh'g (Aug. 24, 1995).

As explained above, Artist and Carrion were in a valid contractual agreement from 2018

until approximately August of 2022, through which Carrion was (i) obligated to, among other

things, use his best efforts to promote Artist’s entertainment career and maximize Artist’s earnings

therefrom; (ii) authorized to, among other things, sign agreements and collect Artist’s earnings

from his entertainment endeavors with Artist’s consent; and (iii) entitled to, among other things,

be reimbursed for certain expenses in connection with Artist’s entertainment career––as long as

said expenses, if exceeding $500 were pre-approved by Artist. See Management Agreement. By

way of that contractual relationship, as well as in his role as CEO of the Company, Carrion also

undertook certain fiduciary duties, including the duty not to improperly take and convert funds

rightfully belong to Counter-Plaintiffs. Without question, by transferring funds from the

Company’s bank account, and using said funds to satisfy his own, and his family member’s,

personal and professional obligations, and to otherwise fund their extravagant lifestyle, which

included purchasing the Property, Carrion breached the terms of the Management Agreement;

breached his fiduciary duties to the Counter-Plaintiffs; and converted monies which did not, and

have not ever, rightfully belonged to him. As such, there is not simply a substantial likelihood that

Counter-Plaintiffs will succeed on its claims against Carrion for breach of contract, breach of

fiduciary duty, and conversion, it is an inevitability.

C. The threatened injury to Counter-Plaintiffs far outweighs the possible harm to

Carrion, if any.

10
 This Court must, “[i]n weighing the possible harms of entering a preliminary injunction …

keep in mind that the status quo which should be preserved is the last, actual, peaceable,

uncontested condition which preceded the immediate controversy.” Chicago Title Ins. Agency of

Lee Cnty., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Indisputedly,

preserving the last, uncontested condition preceding the commencement of the instant action, i.e.,

maintaining the status quo, would require Carrion to maintain possession of the Property until a

final judgment in this case is entered. While Carrion essentially risks nothing in the event the

temporary injunction is granted––evidenced by the significant appreciation on the Property merely

over the last two (2) years––and would be able to freely dispose of the Property, and/or the

proceeds of the Property’s sale, following culmination of this case in the event he were successful,

Counter-Plaintiffs risk being successful on its claims, and nonetheless losing out on millions of

dollars because Carrion was permitted to dispose of the Property––the sole asset currently in his

name––and no longer possessed sufficient assets to cover the value of harm he deliberately and

calculatedly took from Counter-Plaintiffs.

D. The public will not be disserved by granting Counter-Plaintiffs’ request for a

preliminary injunction.

Florida courts have long held that an injunction does not disserve the public interest where

… there are contractual rights at issue” because “’the public has a cognizable interest in the

protection and enforcement of contractual rights.’” Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, 194 So. 3d

434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Hilb Rogal & Hobbs of Fla., Inc. v. Grimmel, 48 So.3d

957, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Here, it is incontestable that there are contractual rights at issue.

Further, as provided above, it is incontestable that the public has an interest in the protection and

enforcement of contractual rights, as well as the protection and enforcement of fiduciary duties,

11
including the duty not to convert funds rightfully belonging to an individual and an entity who has

placed considerable trust in you for a number of years. In short, the public interest is certainly not

disserved by granting Counter-Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction under the foregoing

circumstances.

IV. CONCLUSION

As demonstrated herein, Counter-Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction

enjoining Carrion (i) from transferring ownership, or otherwise disposing, of the property located

at 6811 NW 104th Court, Doral, Florida 33178 (the “Property”), or in the alternative, (ii) from

transferring or otherwise disposing of any proceeds from the sale of the Property. And thus,

respectfully request that this Court granted such injunctive relief.

Dated: December 2, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted:

LALCHANDANI SIMON PL
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1020
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 999-5291
(305) 671-9282 (fax)
Attorneys for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Kubs Lalchandani

Kubs Lalchandani, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 63966
kubs@lslawpl.com
Bibiana Pesant, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 1011081
bibiana@lslawpl.com

SALZANO ETTINGER LAMPERT &

WILSON, LLP
275 Madison Ave., Floor 35
New York, New York 10016

12
 Tel: (646) 863-1883
Fax: (646) 365-3119
Attorneys for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Frank Salzano

Frank Salzano, Esq. (pro hac vice
forthcoming)
fsalzano@selwlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished this

2nd day of December, 2022, via Florida E-Filing Portal to: Kendrick Almaguer, Esq.,

kendrick@hachargroup.com, counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Frabian Eli Carrion.

By: /s/ Kubs Lalchandani

Kubs Lalchandani

13

$

 Detailed Report
Generated On : 10/15/2021

Property Information
Folio: 35-3017-039-0640
6811 NW 104 CT
Property Address:
Doral, FL 33178-0000

Owner FRABIAN ELI CARRION BARRETO

6811 NW 104 CT
Mailing Address
DORAL, FL 33178 USA
9450 PLANNED UNIT
PA Primary Zone
DEVELOPMENT - MIXED USE
0101 RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE
Primary Land Use
FAMILY : 1 UNIT
Beds / Baths / Half 7/7/1
Floors 2
Living Units 1
Actual Area 8,926 Sq.Ft 2021
20
2021 Ae
errria
ia
al Ph
Phot
hooto
ot
tog
ograph
ogra
raphy
ra hy
200f
20 0ft
Living Area 6,094 Sq.Ft
Adjusted Area 7,117 Sq.Ft Taxable Value Information
Lot Size 12,409 Sq.Ft
2021 2020 2019
Year Built 2020
County
Exemption Value $0 $0 $0
Assessment Information
Taxable Value $2,382,675 $423,316 $210,810
Year 2021 2020 2019
School Board
Land Value $560,225 $565,793 $374,368
Exemption Value $0 $0 $0
Building Value $1,779,250 $0 $0
Taxable Value $2,382,675 $565,793 $374,368
XF Value $43,200 $0 $0
City
Market Value $2,382,675 $565,793 $374,368
Exemption Value $0 $0 $0
Assessed Value $2,382,675 $423,316 $210,810
Taxable Value $2,382,675 $423,316 $210,810
Regional
Benefits Information
Exemption Value $0 $0 $0
Benefit Type 2021 2020 2019
Taxable Value $2,382,675 $423,316 $210,810
Non-Homestead Cap Assessment Reduction $142,477 $163,558
Note: Not all benefits are applicable to all Taxable Values (i.e. County, School
Board, City, Regional).
The Office of the Property Appraiser is continually editing and updating the tax roll. This website may not reflect the most current information on record. The Property Appraiser
and Miami-Dade County assumes no liability, see full disclaimer and User Agreement at http://www.miamidade.gov/info/disclaimer.asp

Version:
 Generated On : 10/15/2021

Property Information
Folio: 35-3017-039-0640

Property Address: 6811 NW 104 CT

Roll Year 2021 Land, Building and Extra-Feature Details

Land Information

Land Use Muni Zone PA Zone Unit Type Units Calc Value
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 5,000.00 $250,000
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 1,519.00 $37,975
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 5,000.00 $250,000
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 890.00 $22,250

Building Information

Building Number Sub Area Year Built Actual Sq.Ft. Living Sq.Ft. Adj Sq.Ft. Calc Value
1 1 2020 8,926 6,094 7,117 $1,779,250

Extra Features

Description Year Built Units Calc Value

Wood Fence 2020 25 $400
Patio - Concrete Slab 2020 700 $2,800
Pool 8' res BETTER 3-8' dpth, tile 650-1000 sf 2020 1 $40,000

The Office of the Property Appraiser is continually editing and updating the tax roll. This website may not reflect the most current information on record. The Property Appraiser
and Miami-Dade County assumes no liability, see full disclaimer and User Agreement at http://www.miamidade.gov/info/disclaimer.asp

Version:
 Generated On : 10/15/2021

Property Information
Folio: 35-3017-039-0640

Property Address: 6811 NW 104 CT

Roll Year 2020 Land, Building and Extra-Feature Details

Land Information

Land Use Muni Zone PA Zone Unit Type Units Calc Value
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 5,000.00 $325,000
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 1,519.00 $49,368
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 5,000.00 $162,500
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 890.00 $28,925

Building Information

Building Number Sub Area Year Built Actual Sq.Ft. Living Sq.Ft. Adj Sq.Ft. Calc Value

Extra Features

Description Year Built Units Calc Value

The Office of the Property Appraiser is continually editing and updating the tax roll. This website may not reflect the most current information on record. The Property Appraiser
and Miami-Dade County assumes no liability, see full disclaimer and User Agreement at http://www.miamidade.gov/info/disclaimer.asp

Version:
 Generated On : 10/15/2021

Property Information
Folio: 35-3017-039-0640

Property Address: 6811 NW 104 CT Doral, FL 33178-0000

Roll Year 2019 Land, Building and Extra-Feature Details

Land Information

Land Use Muni Zone PA Zone Unit Type Units Calc Value
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 5,000.00 $325,000
GENERAL PUD 9450 Square Ft. 1,519.00 $49,368

Building Information

Building Number Sub Area Year Built Actual Sq.Ft. Living Sq.Ft. Adj Sq.Ft. Calc Value

Extra Features

Description Year Built Units Calc Value

The Office of the Property Appraiser is continually editing and updating the tax roll. This website may not reflect the most current information on record. The Property Appraiser
and Miami-Dade County assumes no liability, see full disclaimer and User Agreement at http://www.miamidade.gov/info/disclaimer.asp

Version:
 Generated On : 10/15/2021

Property Information
Folio: 35-3017-039-0640

Property Address: 6811 NW 104 CT

Full Legal Description

GRAND FLORIDIAN ESTATES
PB 170-092 T-23439
LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 8 PER UNITY OF
TITLE OR 31457-4569
LOT SIZE 12409 SQ FT M/L
FAU 35 3017 001 0260 0261 &
0270

Sales Information
Previous Sale Price OR Book-Page Qualification Description
11/18/2020 $3,170,000 32225-1058 Qual by exam of deed

The Office of the Property Appraiser is continually editing and updating the tax roll. This website may not reflect the most current information on record. The Property Appraiser
and Miami-Dade County assumes no liability, see full disclaimer and User Agreement at http://www.miamidade.gov/info/disclaimer.asp

Version:

%


&


'

 Duplicate public_user 11/02/2022

Miami-Dade County, Florida

2021 Delinquent Tax Certificate

SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION
FOLIO NUMBER MUNICIPALITY MILL CODE
35-3017-039-0640 DORAL 3500
FRABIAN ELI CARRION BARRETO
Property Address
6811 NW 104 CT 6811 NW 104 CT
DORAL, FL 33178

BILL DETAILS
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Tax Due 43,642.11
Auction Listing Fee 15.00
Advertisement Fee 5.00
Tax Coll. Comm. 2,280.30
Delinquency Interest 1,963.89
Cert. Redemption Fee 6.25
Certificate Interest 2,395.32

Amount Due $50,307.87

".06/5
*'
1"*%
#:
QBZ
POMZ
POF
BNPVOU

Certificate Issued: June 1, Face: 47,906.30 Cert #25173 If Received By Nov 30, 2022
2022
Rate: 0.25% Bidder #739591 Please Pay $50,307.87
Save Time. Pay Online. www.miamidade.gov RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS

2021 Delinquent Tax DETACH HERE AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT Duplicate public_user 11/02/2022
Certificate Redemption PAY ONLY ONE AMOUNT
Certificate Issued: June 1, 2022
35-3017-039-0640
FOLIO NUMBER
*1+3530170390640+2021*
Make checks payable to: Miami-Dade Tax Collector
6811 NW 104 CT
(in U.S. funds drawn on U.S. banks)
PROPERTY ADDRESS
Delinquent Taxes must be paid by Cashier's Check, Money Order, or Certified Face: 47,906.30 Rate: 0.25%
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Funds. Amount due may be subject to change without notice.
GRAND FLORIDIAN ESTATES
Mail payments to: 200 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33128
PB 170-092 T-23439 Cert #25173 Bidder #739591
LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 8 PER UNITY OF
TITLE OR 31457-45

If Received By Please Pay

FRABIAN ELI CARRION BARRETO
6811 NW 104 CT
DORAL, FL 33178 Nov 30, 2022 $50,307.87

1000000000000000003530170390640202100000000000000000006250
 plicate public_user 11/02/2022
Miami-Dade County, Florida

2022 Real Estate Property Taxes

Notice of Ad Valorem Tax and Non-Ad Valorem Assessments
S E E R E V E R S E S I D E F O R I M P O R TA N T I N F O R M A T I O N FOLIO
FOLIO NUMBER MUNICIPALITY MILL CODE
35-3017-039-0640 DORAL 3500
FRABIAN ELI CARRION BARRETO Property Address Exemptions:
6811 NW 104 CT 6811 NW 104 CT
DORAL, FL 33178

ADDITIONAL PRIOR YEAR PROPERTY TAXES OWED AND

ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BILL. For amount visit
miamidade.county-taxes.com or call 305-270-4916.

AD VALOREM TAXES
ASSESSED MILLAGE $1,000 OF TAXES
TAXING AUTHORITY VALUE RATE PER TAXABLE VALUE LEVIED
Miami-Dade School Board
School Board Operating 2,808,342 5.67400 2,808,342 15,934.53
School Board Debt Service 2,808,342 0.16500 2,808,342 463.38
Voted School Operating 2,808,342 0.75000 2,808,342 2,106.26
State and Other
Florida Inland Navigation District 2,620,942 0.03200 2,620,942 83.87
South Florida Water Management District 2,620,942 0.09480 2,620,942 248.47
Okeechobee Basin 2,620,942 0.10260 2,620,942 268.91
Everglades Construction Project 2,620,942 0.03270 2,620,942 85.70
Childrens Trust Authority 2,620,942 0.50000 2,620,942 1,310.47
Miami-Dade County
County Wide Operating 2,620,942 4.62020 2,620,942 12,109.28
County Wide Debt Service 2,620,942 0.48530 2,620,942 1,271.94
Library District 2,620,942 0.28120 2,620,942 737.01
Fire Rescue Operating 2,620,942 2.39650 2,620,942 6,281.09

Municipal Governing Board

Doral Operating 2,620,942 1.71660 2,620,942 4,499.11
Doral Debt 2,620,942 0.48100 2,620,942 1,260.67

NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS

LEVYING AUTHORITY RATE FOOTAGE/UNITS AMOUNT
T0004 GARB,TRASH,TRC,RECYCLE @ 509.0000 1.000 509.00

".06/5
*'
1"*%
#:
QBZ
POMZ
POF
BNPVOU
Combined 5axes
Nov 30, 2022 Dec 31, 2022 Jan 31, 2023 Feb 28, 2023 Mar 31, 2023 and "ssessments
$45,282.90 $45,754.60 $46,226.30 $46,697.99 $47,169.69 $47,169.69
RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS
2022 Real Estate DETACH HERE AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT Duplicate public_user 11/02/2022
Property Taxes PAY ONLY ONE AMOUNT
35-3017-039-0640
*1+3530170390640+2022* If Paid By Please Pay
FOLIO NUMBER
6811 NW 104 CT Make checks payable to:
Miami-Dade Tax Collector Nov 30, 2022 $45,282.90
PROPERTY ADDRESS
(in U.S. funds drawn on U.S. banks)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Amount due May be Subject to Change Without Notice
GRAND FLORIDIAN ESTATES Dec 31, 2022 $45,754.60
PB 170-092 T-23439 Mail payments to:
LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 8 PER UNITY OF 4DBO
UP
QBZ 200 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33128
TITLE OR 31457-45 ADDITIONAL PRIOR YEAR PROPERTY TAXES OWED AND ARE Jan 31, 2023 $46,226.30
NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BILL. For amount visit
miamidade.county-taxes.com or call 305-270-4916.
FRABIAN ELI CARRION BARRETO Feb 28, 2023 $46,697.99
6811 NW 104 CT
DORAL, FL 33178
Mar 31, 2023 $47,169.69

1000000000000000003530170390640202200004716969000000000000