Leeds Appellate Answer Brief - Property Insurance Coverage Law

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA
CITIZENS PROPERTY
INSURANCE CORPORATION
Defendant! Appellant,
Case No.:
L.T. Case No.:
v.
2D-08-3235
05-6323CI-008
OLIVER LEEDS and
ERIKO LEEDS,
Plaintiffs/Appellees.
/
On Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for
Pinellas County, Florida
Case No. 05-6323CI-008
The Honorable Frank Quesada, presiding
ANS WER BRIEF OF APPELLEES,
OLIVER AND ERIKO LEEDS
William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 364721
Jean F. Niven, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 407607
Merlin Law Group, P .A.
777 South Harbour Island Blvd
Suite 950, Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229 1000
Facsimile: (813) 229 3692
Attorneys for Appellees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CITATIONS
.......................................................... ...iV.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...................................................... .vi.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .........................................1
ISSUES ON APPEAL:
i. Whether Appellant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation has
preserved for appeal the issue of whether the trial court erred by
informing the jury that the testimony of Citizens' expert witness was
unavailable for review, when Citizens contemporaneously agreed on
the record with the trial court's decision. ... ...................... ...... ..12
II. Whether the trial court properly denied Citizens' request to interview
the jury foreperson, when Citizens failed to comply with the
requirement of Fla. R. Civ. l. 1.431(h), and when Citizens failed to
provide sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial
court to order a new triaL. ................................................... .12
III. Whether Citizens is entitled to a new trial because it now contends
Leeds' counsel improperly argued that Citizens was guilty of Bad
Faith Claim Handling although Citizens failed to make a
contemporaneous objection and is unable to identify any prejudice or
harm suffered by Citizens as the result of any argument made by
Leeds' counseL. ........................................................... .12
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT...........................................................13
ARGUMENT: ........................................................................... ....17
i. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation failed to preserve for appeal
the issue of whether the trial court erred by informing the jury that
the testimony of Citizens' expert witness was unavailable for review
by affirmatively and verbally agreeing on the record with the trial
court's decision of how to respond to the jury's question prior to
advising the jury................................................................ .17
A. Standard of Review ............................................. .17
Defense Expert George
B. Jury Question Regarding Testimony of
Sinn, Jr. ............................................................ .17
C. Fundamental Error....................................... . . . . . . . . . ..22
II. The trial court properly denied Citizens' request to interview the
jury foreperson because Citizens failed to provide any sworn factual
allegations, that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new
trial, and Citizens failed to comply with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431(h). ..24
A. Standard of
Review; ......................................... .... .25
B. Legal Standard; ................................................ ....25
C. Citizens has Waived its Right to Request a Juror Interview;..28
D. Citizens Failed to Establish Juror Mark A. Ross Was Involved
in Any Undisclosed Litigation;. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ...30
E. Appellate Courts Have Held That a Juror Interview is not
Permitted to be a Broad "Hunting Expedition" Or A "Fishing
Excursion." ........................................................ .33
III. Citizens is not entitled to a new trial based on its contention Leeds'
counsel improperly argued that Citizens was guilty of Bad Faith
Claims Handling during Rebuttal Closing when Citizens failed to
make a contemporaneous objection and is unable to identify any
prejudice or harm suffered by Citizens as a result of the specific
argument made by Leeds' counsel;....................................... .34
A. Standard of
Review;. .............................................. .35
B. Comments Made by Appellees' Counsel During Rebuttal
Closing Argument............................................ ..... .35
11
CONCLUSION.................................................................... .........40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..................................................... .....41
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................ ..41
INDEX TO SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX .................................... .....42
11
TABLE OF CITATIONS
LAW
CASE
PAGE
Avila v. State, 781 So.2d 413,415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ....... .... ..............19,21
Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1991)..... ..25, 29, 32
Bates v. State, So.2d 826, 830 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958)................................. ..22
Bocher v. Glass, 874 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2004).......................... .36
De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
.........................26,32
Dover Corporation v. Dean, 473 So.2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ...................27
Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)................................. .24
Florida Power and Light Company v. Robinson, 68 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1953) ...... .17
Furr v. State, 233 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1942)............................................... .23
Garcia v. State, 644 So.2d 59, 62 (Fla. 1994)...........................................18
Goodwin v. State, 751 SO.2d 537,544 (Fla. 1999)....................................21
Hood v. Valle, 979 So.2d 961 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008) ............................... ....26
Johnson v. State, 804 So.2d 1218, 1225 (Fla. 2001) ..................................29
Jones v. State of Florida, 928 SO.2d 1178, 1191 (Fla. 2006)....................... ...29
McCauslin v. O'Conner, 2008 WL 343491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)................. ...27
McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 268, 35 S. Ct. 783, 784, 59
L.Ed. 1300(1915)..........................................................................33
Mercury Insurance Company of
Florida v. Moreta, 957 So.2d 1242
(Fla. 2nd DCA 2007).................... ................................................. ...16
iv
Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, 766 So. 2d 1010
(Fla. 2000) ................................................................10,16,35,36,37
National Indemnity Company v. Andrews, 354 So.2d 454, 456
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1978) ................................................................. .33
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Tucker, 608 So.2d 85, 87
(Fla. 2d DCA 1992) .................................................................... ..27
Paz et. al. v. United States, 462 F.2d 740, 745 (5th Cir. 1972) ..................... ..26
Penton v. State, 106 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958) .......................... .22,23
Persoff v. Persoff, 589 So.2d 1007, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)............................22
Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2nd DCA
2001) ............. .... ......... ............................... ..........................35,36
Public Health Trust of
Miami-Dade County v. Metellus, 948 So.2d 4, 5 DCA 3rd
(Fla. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..31
Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) .......................................32
Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71 ....................................... ...17
Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So.2d 152, 155
(Fla. 3d DCA 1984) .............................................................. .... .28,34
State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1991) ................................... .25,26
Vazquez v. State, 830 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)............................ ....23
Walgreens, Inc. v. Newcomb, 603 So.2d 5, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ............. ....27
Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Benton, 576 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ......1
v
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this Answer Brief, Appellees, OLIVER LEEDS and ERIKO LEEDS,
refer to themselves as "Appellees" or "Leeds." Applellees refer to Appellant,
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation as "Appellant" or "Citizens."
The following abbreviations have the following meanings:
V
=
Volume Number
R
=
Record
T
-
Trial Transcript
Supp. Ap.
=
Supplemental Appendix
TE
Trial Transcript Excerpt
VI
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Citizens' statement of the case and facts omits numerous facts relevant to
this appeaL. It also violates the maxim that all facts and inferences from these facts
must be construed in favor of the Leeds as the Appellees from this jury verdict. i
This matter involves an insurance dispute between Leeds and their
homeowner insurance carrier, Citizens. On July 3, 2003 the Leeds became the
proud owners of a small house located at 730 14th Avenue North, St. Petersburg,
FL (V15 T Page 223 lines 8-9, 14,21). The home was in a beautiful neighborhood
by the lake with lots of
trees. (V15 T Page 224 lines 12-13). Mrs. Leeds testified it
was a neighborhood where she would feel safe with a child while her husband was
deployed. (V 15 T Page 224 lines 13, 18.) Mr. Leeds testified it was the first house
he had ever purchased V17 R Page 447 lines 12-15) and he and his wife fell in love
with both the house and the neighborhood immediately (V 17 T Page 447 lines 21-
22). When they first saw it the Leeds thought the small house was beautiful,
charming and different than new houses (V17 T Page 448 lines 21-24). The house
had been constructed in 1939. It had a beautifully remodeled kitchen and beautiful
floors (V 17 T Page 448 line 23) .
Prior to purchasing their home, the Leeds walked around every room, noted
no cracking and observed the wooden floors were level and beautiful (V5 T Page
i See e.g., Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Benton, 576 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA
1991 ).
225 lines 6-18). Ginny Leeds was the selling agent. She had the sellers provide a
Seller's Property Disclosure Statement prior to the sale (V7 R Page 752, and Supp.
Ap. A). Ginny Leeds is Oliver Leeds' mother and a licensed realtor in Florida
since 1986 (V 14 T Page 72 lines 16, 19, 21). Prior to taking the Leeds to see the
730 14th Avenue North, property, she reviewed close to a hundred listings with
them through MLS (V14 T Page 74, lines 17-23) and physically saw about 12
(V14 T Page 75 lines 2-3). That document disclosed there had been a settling
problem which had been repaired and resolved, and was under warranty. It
advised the sellers would provide a home warranty plan. The contract for sale and
purchase listed the sale "As Is" but also contained a handwritten provision that the
seller would provide a 1 year home warranty to the buyer (V7 R Page 754, and
Supp. Ap. B).
Citizens, in its statement of the case, noted that the Leeds obtained a home
inspection (Initial Brief p. 3 lines 4-8). What Citizens does not mention, however,
is that Scott Kaylor, who performed the inspection, had a degree in Civil
Engineering from the University of South Florida (V 15 T Page 116 lines 16-17).
Kaylor held a number of relevant professional licenses including certified building
inspector (SBCCI#7552); certified coastal construction inspector (SBCCI#432);
property maintenance and housing inspector (SBCCI#3756); and was a certified
ASHI member (#201682). He also was an associate member of the American
2
Society of Civil Engineers. (V6 R Page 725, and Supp. Ap. C). Kaylor performed
an inspection and issued a 16 page comprehensive report detailing his findings
regarding the property conditions. That document was entered into evidence by
Citizens (V6 R Page 725, and Supp. Ap. C). Kaylor's inspection revealed no new
cracking, no sloped floors and no piers not in contact with the actual beams of the
house. It is not uncommon for a home with plaster walls to crack and no cracking
warranted a note in the inspection report (V 15 T Page 140 lines 5-7, 8-10, 17-19).
After the comprehensive inspection Leeds called Citizens and was
interviewed regarding his request to purchase homeowners' insurance. Leeds was
asked questions regarding the condition of the house and whether there was any
known sinkhole activity or settling. Leeds advised there was a Seller's Disclosure
and informed Citizens there was a settlement problem. He also described the
warranty from Keystone (V17 T Page 444 lines 17-21, T Page 445 lines 8-14).
Leeds advised Citizens that the settlement problem had been disclosed by the
previous owner, the settlement cracks had been repaired and resolved, and it was
under warranty. (V 17 T Page 445 lines 17-19). Citizens opted not to ask any
questions about the settlement (V17 T Page 445 lines 23-25). It chose not to
request documents or ask the Leeds to have any additional inspections (V17 T
Page 445 lines 23-25, T Page 446 lines 1-2). Citizens wrote a homeowners' policy
3
and continued to insure the property through the time of trial with the Leeds paying
all the premiums (V 17 T Page 446 lines 4-13).
The first time the Leeds noticed a problem was March 2004. A hairline
crack was noticed in the kitchen (V 15 T Page 227 line 25, T page 228 lines 2-5).
The cracking progressed getting wider and appearing in other locations within the
house including the living room and dining room (V 15 T Page 228 lines 4-5, 6-8)
and the back door was no longer operational (V15 T page 228 lines 17-22). The
hairline crack widened to a quarter of an inch to approximately half an inch at its
greatest point (V17 Page 452 line 1-2). The crack split through to the outer level
of
the home where the wooden deck was located (V17 T Page 452 lines 4-5).
During the period the cracks were progressing Oliver Leeds was deployed to
Afghanistan and not able to observe the changes in the cracks (V17 T Page 451
lines 16-17, 18-22). Again in January of2005, for four months, Oliver Leeds was
deployed (V17 T Page 452 lines 22-23). Eriko Leeds hadn't wanted to worr
Oliver Leeds during his first deployment and hadn't told him about the ongoing
damage. Leeds was only allowed a ten minute phone call once a week and they
discussed Eriko Leeds' pregnancy as they were expecting their first child (V17 T
Page 451 lines 16-17, T Page 453 lines 2-7).
When Leeds returned from deployment he noticed the house was a lot worse
and he consulted with Keystone Supports because that firm had knowledge of his
4
home (V17 T Page 453 lines 15-18). Leeds had Carl Kirchendorfer come to the
home in the fall of 2004 and he initially recommended installing three pin piers on
the south wall of the house and the installation of pyramid Keystone supports
under the kitchen walL. (V17 T Page 454 lines 5-9). A contract was entered into
and the pyramid Keystone supports were installed under the wall separating the
kitchen from the dining room which had split (V 17 T Page 454 lines 8-10, 14-15).
Mr. Kirchendorfer testified there was a sudden movement to the exterior wall
(V 15 T Page 189 lines 18-19). There was movement in the back wall that was
significant in size and caused a lateral crack across the stone wall in the original
perimeter's exterior wall (V15 T Page 189 lines 22-25). A sudden amount of
"sediment" (settlement) that occurs within a relatively short period of time is a
cause of concern because even a high organic major soil takes a long time to break
down and consolidate. Sudden movement indicates there could be other possible
problems, including the possibility of sinkhole (V 15 T Page 190 lines 7-11, 12-16).
Kirchendorfer recommended the Leeds have additional geotechnical studies to
verify the possible existence of karst or sinkhole activity on the property because
the undermining of the footing and the large ground depression were observed
(V 15 T Page 192 lines i 3-19). As a result Kirchendorfer had to terminate his
contract with the Leeds which was economically disadvantageous to
Kirchendorfer. (V 15 T Page 192 lines 20-25, T Page 19 i 3 line 1). Kirchendorfer
5
advised Leeds to contact his insurance carrier for a new analysis of the soil
conditions (V 17 T Page 456 lines 5-6). Leeds notified Citizens and an adjuster
came to the house (V17 T Page 457 lines 3, 12-13). The adjuster's inspection was
a very negative experience for Leeds because Leeds had to force him to take
pictures of the area of the primary damage. The adjuster photographed hairline
cracks but Leeds had to tell him to photograph the big cracks (V 17 T Page 457
lines 19-21, 23-25; T Page 458 lines 1-2). Citizens had a geotechnical
investigation performed which indicated there were organics in the soil and the
claim was not paid (V17 T Page 461 lines 1-5). The Leeds moved out of their
home in October 2005 (V 17 T Page 464 lines 5-8). Leeds testified the damage
increased exponentially at that time (V 17 T Page 462 line 21) and on two
occasions he heard what he presumed was the sound of concrete cracking (V 17 T
Page 462, lines 12-17). The Leeds were so frightened for the safety of their 1 year
old son they packed suitcases and moved into a furnished place (V 17 T Page 463
lines 2-19).
The Leeds were forced to retain their own expert, Sandy Nettles, who holds
a master's degree in geology from the University of South Florida, to conduct a
subsidence investigation (V16 T Page 247 lines 20-22, T Page 248 lines 6-8, T
Page 252 lines 22-25). Nettles found almost all of the indications of sinkhole
present at the Leeds' property (V16 T Page 292 lines 12-15). Nettles described the
6
progression of damage to the Leeds' property from his firm's initial inspection in
2005 to his inspection in 2007. That included the front door having to be tied shut
(V16 T Page 292 lines 17-21); a circular depression (which is a classic sign of a
sinkhole) (V 16 T Page 293 line 5-7); a window starting to fall out of the building
(V 16 Page 293 lines 15-16); floors that wouldn't allow you to stand up straight
(V 16 T Page 293 lines 17-18). Nettles testi fied there was an active sinkhole at the
Leeds' (V16 T Page 327 lines 3, 12). Leeds also retained a structural engineer,
Michael Biler, to inspect their property, review pertinent documentation and issue
a report documenting his observations and recommendations (V17 T Page 398
lines 13-15, T Page 402 lines 24-25, T Page 403 lines 6-10). Biler designs
remediation protocols for structural damage by sinkole (V 17 T Page 401 lines 6-
8). Biler's specialty involves evaluation of pier systems and underpinnings (V17
T Page 401 lines 15-17). Biler evaluates whether a pier system has been installed,
how much weight it can take, and whether it is a complete pier system (V 17 T
Page 402 lines 1-5, T Page 401 line 21). Biller testified the Leeds' residence
exhibited a very extreme case of differential settlement (V17 T Page 407 lines 78). The foundation dropped and rotated (V17 T Page 408 lines 12-14). Biller
further testified that most construction settlement occurs within one or two years
after construction but this house, built in 1939, exhibited significant movement
between March 10, 2006, when his firm first visited and photographed the
7
residence and April 2007, when Biler inspected and photographed the property
(V17 T Page 405 lines 10-12; T Page 410 lines 13-14,24-25; T Page 41 1 lines 1-2,
3-4, 5- 1 0). The extreme settlement meant there was a significant problem at the
property which was continuing to affect the structure (V 17 T Page 411 lines 1 116).
After five days of trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Leeds.
Leeds had proven the damage occurred during the Citizens' policy period and
Citizens had not proven sinkhole activity had been eliminated as a cause of the loss
(V8 R Page 779).
Citizens filed a timely Motion for New Trial which was heard on August 16,
2007. The trial court addressed it had reserved a couple of hours for the hearing
and was not concerned about time limits. The court even offered an opportunity to
file additional rebuttal case law and written responses after the hearing (V13 R
Page 1539 lines 22-24 and Page 1540 lines 3-7).
Citizens advanced numerous grounds for a new trial, all of which were
denied by the court. One was ruled on from the bench, whether Attorney Andrew
Patten was counsel for Citizens from his first appearance to the taking of the jury
verdict. The court ruled he was and the court's decision was reduced to written
order on May 13, 2008. That ground for a new trial was abandoned on appeal
(V 13 R Page 1725-1728). Citizens failed to timely request a juror interview
8
merely mentioning in its Motion for New Trial it might in the future request one.
That did not occur until Defendant's Supplement to Motion for New Trial filed on
September 13, 2007. Although Citizens was aware a person by the name of Mark
Ross had been involved in litigation at the time it filed its Motion for New Trial,
Citizens elected not to request a juror interview at that time merely raising the
issue in its Motion. Citizens failed to advise it had taken any action to confirm
whether that Mark Ross was the same person who served as foreperson during the
Leeds' triaL. Citizens chose to make a very limited inquiry of Ross although he
had advised he had eighteen years of experience as an insurance specialist (V 10 TE
Page 1093 lines 7-25, VI0 TE Page 1094 lines 1- 11), was currently a student in a
paralegal program at St. Pete College (VI0 TE Page 1087 lines 1-5), and was a
legal brief writer (V 1 0 TE Page 1086 lines 5-8).
Citizens filed a Notice of Filing Certifed Copies of Documents Involving
Mark A. Ross in Support of Defendant's Motion for New Trial on September 14,
2007. However, the documents listed under numbers 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,9, 10 and
11 do not reference "Mark A. Ross" but rather "Mark Ross" (no middle initial),
which is a very common name (V lOR Page 1 168- 1 203).
Citizens' Motion for New Trial raised as a ground jury impaneling
irregularities. This issue was briefed, argued, and ruled against on May 13, 2008,
(V 1 3 R Pages 1725- 1 728). It was abandoned for purposes of appeal and is
9
therefore not properly before this court for consideration. Citizens admitted in its
Motion for New Trial a specific challenge to the jury array was not voiced and that
challenge, therefore, may not have been preserved (V8 R Page 786 lines 5-8).
Citizens argued in its Motion for New Trial that Leeds' counsel made
improper argument during Rebuttal Closing (V8 R Pages 794-797). The brief
remarks consisting of one paragraph were confined to the Rebuttal Closing and
there was no contemporaneous objection from Citizens. Citizens would have to
pass the stringent four-part test enunciated in Murphy v. International Robotic
System, 766 SO.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) in order to prevail on a motion for new trial
predicated upon an unobjected-to argument (V9 R Page 921). The trial court
denied Citizens request for a new trial on that issue.
During deliberations the jury presented a question for the court's
consideration regarding seeing the testimony of Citizens' expert witness, George
Sinn, Jr. (VI0 TE Page 1097 lines 2-4, VI0 TE Page 1098 lines 20-25). The court
discussed the jury's inquiry with counsel for both parties and arrived at an agreed
upon response for the jury. Counsel for Citizens verbally stated on the record
Citizens' had no objection to the court's decision regarding the jury's question.
Because Citizens' did not have an objection none was preserved for appeaL.
Citizens suggested in its Motion for New Trial that if none of the grounds it
cited were independently sufficient to warrant a new trial that perhaps their
i0
cumulative effect would be enough (V8 R Page 786). Citizens initially raised
seven issues in its Motion abandoning all but three in this appeaL. Cumulative
effect cannot be considered unless the issues independently are, at a minimum,
valid grounds for appeaL.
After consideration of Defendant's Motion for New Trial, Plaintiffs'
Response to Defendant's Motion for New Trial, Oral Argument, Defendant's
Supplement to Motion for New Trial, Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's
Supplement to Motion for New Trial, the trial court denied Citizens' Motion for
New Trial on all grounds by order dated May 13, 2008. The order included
Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of
Law as well as a Factual Background (V13 R
Pages 1725- 1728). Judgment was entered against Citizens and recorded in OR
16293 Pg 2665 (V13 R Page 1732-1733). Citizens then filed an appeal selecting
three of the six issues it had argued in its Motion for New Trial (Appellant's Initial
BriefP ii).
11
ISSUES ON APPEAL
i.
Whether Appellant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation has
preserved for appeal the issue of whether the trial court erred by informing
the jury that the testimony of Citizens' expert witness was unavailable for
review, when Citizens contemporaneously agreed on the record with the trial
court's decision.
II.
Whether the trial court properly denied Citizens' request to
interview the jury foreperson, when Citizens failed to comply with the
requirement of Fla. R. Civ. P. L.431(h), and when Citizens failed to provide
sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a
new triaL.
III.
Whether Citizens is entitled to a new trial because it now contends
Leeds' counsel improperly argued that Citizens was guilty of Bad Faith Claim
Handling although Citizens failed to make a contemporaneous objection and
is unable to identify any prejudice or harm suffered by Citizens as the result
of any argument made by Leeds' counseL.
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Leeds first reported damage to their property to Citizens, their insurer, on
March 15, 2004. More than a year later on June 16, 2005, Citizens sent the Leeds
a denial of coverage letter. Leeds filed suit on September 19, 2005, alleging
damage to their home due to sinkhole and/or collapse activity. The case proceeded
to jury trial on May 14, 2007, with a verdict in favor of the Leeds on May 18,
2007. More than four and a half years after notifying Citizens of its covered loss
the Leeds stil have not been compensated for their loss. Hard evidence was
presented by Leeds' retained geologist, Sandy Nettles, P.G., that this property was
affected by active sinkhole activity. Boring logs were presented to the jury
pinpointing the sinkhole's location. The jury examined photographs of the
property and heard testimony from a structural engineer, Michael H. Biler, P.E.,
regarding the effect of the subsidence. At the conclusion of the five day trial the
jury returned a verdict which comported with the evidence. Clearly it was not a
verdict based on sympathy.
Citizens' counsel had a full opportunity to question the potential jurors and
evaluate the candor of their responses. The trial court did not hurry counsel
through voir dire allowing both parties to exercise their judgment regarding the
length and content of their inquiry. Citizens made strategic trial decisions which
may have affected the outcome, but they provide no basis for a new triaL.
13
i.
An issue is preserved for appeal if the attorney's articulated concern is
sufficiently specific to inform the trial court of the alleged error. If error is invited
the party may not take advantage of the error on appeaL. Citizens was unable to
cite any cases wherein the appellant verbally agreed with the trial court's decision
not to read back testimony and then after receiving an adverse verdict was able to
successfully argue for a new trial on the basis of fundamental error.
It isn't always advisable to have witness testimony read back to jurors.
Citizens made a strategic decision to agree with the trial court its expert's
testimony should not be read to the jury. Citizens did not merely remain silent
when asked by the trial court if it had any objection, instead it unequivocally stated
it had no objection. It would be very disruptive of the judicial process if a litigant
could after an unfavorable verdict claim prejudice and ask for a reversal when it
aligned itself
with the court's decision on the record.
II.
There are specific requirements which must be met to be entitled to a posttrial juror interview. In Florida, there is a stringent public policy against juror
interviews to protect both the sanctity of the jury system and the jurors from
harassment. A juror interview is never permissible unless the moving party has
made sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a
14
new triaL. Citizens has never in the instant action provided any sworn factual
allegations. A motion for juror interview is required to be filed within 10 days
after rendition of the verdict unless good cause is shown for the failure. Citizens
waited 118 days to file an unverified motion with no supporting affidavit. Citizens
cannot meet the burden of good cause for late filing because it admits it knew at
the time it filed its Motion for New Trial it had questions regarding Juror #1, Mark
Ross, and his possible litigation history. Citizens had the ability to timely file both
a motion for juror interview and supporting sworn factual allegations. Citizens
made a very limited inquiry of Mr. Ross although he volunteered considerable
information regarding his work as a legal writer, including writing briefs on
insurance matters. Citizens now contends Mr. Ross may have failed to disclose his
involvement in criminal lawsuits, but Citizens' counsel never asked Mr. Ross if he
had ever been arrested. Citizens has presented no evidence Juror # 1, Mark Ross,
has a criminal history. Citizens has not met the stringent requirement for the
granting of a juror interview.
III.
Citizens elected not make any contemporaneous objections to Leeds'
Closing and Rebuttal Closing Argument. In hindsight and after receiving an
adverse verdict, Citizens complained that one paragraph of Leeds' Rebuttal
Closing was objectionable and on that basis Citizens should be afforded a new
i5
triaL. This court articulated a stringent test for determining whether an objection to
Florida v.
closing argument warrants a new trial in Mercury Insurance Company of
Moreta, 957 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2007) applying the Florida Supreme Court
four-part test from Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.
2000). All four elements consisting of (1) improper, (2) harmful, (3) incurable,
and (4) so damaging as to the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our
system requires a new trial, must be present to prevaiL. The Murphy court
cautioned very few cases would meet the four-part test. The instant action is not
one of
them. Even Citizens can only identify one paragraph it found objectionable.
Citizens had the strict requirement of proving the unobjected-to allegedly
improper argument was incurable. That burden could not be met and instead
Citizens argues it was better not to call attention to the remarks. That is not the
standard. Nor can Citizens sustain its burden of proving the remarks were harmfuL.
In this context "harmful" has a specific meaning. The comments have to be so
prejudicial and of such collective impact the verdict reached could not have been
obtained but for such comments. The challenged remarks in this case were neither
repetitive nor extensive. There was sufficient credible expert testimony to warrant
a jury verdict that sinkhole was affecting the Leeds' property. Citizens cannot
meet the stringent Murphy list and is not entitled to a new trial on the basis of
brief, unobjected-to Closing Argument comments.
16
ARGUMENT
ISSUE I
Whether Appellant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation has
preserved for appeal the issue of whether the trial court erred by informing
the jury that the testimony of Citizens' expert witness was unavailable for
review, when Citizens contemporaneously agreed on the record with the trial
court's decision.
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Leeds agree that Citizens has correctly described the standard that applies to
the grant or denial of a jury's request to see testimony and exhibits as abuse of
discretion. See Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71 (Fla. 1940); Florida
Power and Light Company v. Robinson, 68 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1953).
B. JURY QUESTION REGARDING TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE
EXPERT GEORGE SINN, JR.
The trial court was correct in advising the jury it could not have the
transcript of Mr. Sinn's testimony. The court did not misconstrue the jury's
request, as suggested by Citizens in its Motion for New Trial (V8 R Page 786 lines
the jury's question.
18-22). Leeds contend the court fully understood the import of
The court's decision, after consultation with counsel for Citizens and Leeds,
avoided undue emphasis on one expert's testimony to the exclusion and detriment
of the other experts' testimonies. The cases cited by Citizens' counsel permit the
17
reading of portions of a witness' testimony when the jurors have concerns about a
particular issue. As stated in Garcia v. State, 644 So.2d 59, 62 (Fla. 1994), the
trial court was within its discretion to allow transcript excerpts to be read in
response to jury questions. The Supreme Court held the portions of the testimony
read to the jury were correctly related and responsive to jury's interrogatories, were
not misleading and did not place undue emphasis on any particular statement. In
the instant action, the jurors did not evidence confusion about portions of Mr.
Sinn's testimony. In effect, Mr. Sinn would have testified twice on behalf of
Citizens. To allow the entire testimony of Mr. Sinn to be repeated verbatim would
have been extremely prejudicial to the Leeds who only had one opportunity for
each of
their experts to testify.
Citizens' Motion for New Trial in Subsection III G (V8 R Pages 790-791)
infers the court misled the Jury by advising transcripts of the testimony of
witnesses were unavailable for the Jury's review. This contention is further
asserted in Appellant's Initial Brief (Page 19). Leeds contend the trial court's
description was an accurate statement. Jurors are not entitled to review the entire
testimony of a witness to the preclusion of reviewing all testimony of every other
witness. To allow one witness in effect to testify twice would be patently unfair to
the other side and would place undue significance on one expert's testimony.
Citizens attempts to analogize the trial court's response in this case to that issued
18
by the trial court in Avila v. State, 781 So.2d 413, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A
significant distinction between those cases is the jurors in Avila had a specific area
of inquiry. They wished to review the timing of events established by alibi
witnesses. The appellate court determined in Avila that the trial court should have
advised the jury that sections of the alibi witnesses' testimony could be read back,
but transcripts were not available. In the instant action, the jurors wanted to revisit
the whole testimony of Citizens' geotechnical expert, which is impermissible
whether it is read to -- or by -- the jury.
Citizens attempts to distinguish between the verbiage to "see" the testimony
of Sinn that was reflected in the jury's question and, in the alternative, to "read"
the testimony of Sinn Citizens' Motion for New Trial in Subsection III A, argues if
Attorney Casagrande had been present "she could have brought to the court's
attention the additional interpretation of the jury's request." (V8 R Page 786).
Leeds contend there was no confusion regarding the intent of the jury's request.
The jury wanted the entire testimony regardless of whether it was presented
verbally or in written form. Additionally, Citizens other trial counsel, Andrew
Patten, was present and affirmatively participated in the response.
When Ms. Casagrande left the courtroom after the jury retired to deliberate,
she left with full knowledge that Citizens' other trial counsel, Andrew L. Patten,
Esq. was seated at counsel table. Ms. Casagrande returned to the courtroom prior
i9
to the reading of the jury verdict, (V8 R Page 779), according to the timeline
attached as Citizens' Exhibit "C" to its Motion. When Attorney Casagrande
arrived at the courthouse, she was already aware the jury had a question which had
been responded to by the court. Citizens' timeline states Attorney Patten
telephoned Attorney Casagrande to inform her of the jury's question and answer.
The timeline reflects he called Ms. Casagrande after he called Mr. Chaffins
(Citizens' representative) to advise him of the jury question and answer. Attorney
Casagrande was present for the reading of the jury verdict and failed, either
immediately before or after the reading of the verdict, and before the discharge of
the jury, to advise the court she objected to the response sent back to the jurors,
which response had been agreed to by Citizens' other counseL.
In this case, Citizens cannot claim the failure to read back the testimony of
its expert George Sinn, as a reason for reversal, because Citizens agreed to the
court's response. Instead of affirmatively stating before the trial court that it
agreed with the court's decision not to send the testimony of George Sinn back to
the jurors, Citizens should have objected. Citizens did not even remain silent,
instead stating in response to the court's inquiry:
THE
COURT:
This response is going back to the Jury.
Counsel -Stil on the record?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
20
THE
COURT:
MR. PATTEN:
objection?
Any
No objection from the defense. (V 1 0 TE
Page 1098 lines 20-25).
Citizens invited the alleged error it now seeks to assert. See Goodwin v.
State, 751 So.2d 537, 544 (Fla. 1 999) (explaining that a party cannot make or
invite error and then use that error as a basis to appeal). Although Leeds do not
agree that the trial court acted inappropriately in either sending back the response
that it did to the jury's question, or in denying Citizens' request for a new trial on
that issue, they further argue Citizens cannot now complain because it
affirmatively concurred with the court's response before the court notified the jury.
Citizens contends the argument articulated in Avila v. State, 781 So.2d 413
(Fla. 4th DCA 2001) is analogous to its situation in the instant appeaL. This is a
misreading of Avila wherein defense counsel asked the trial court to read back the
testimonies requested by the jurors. That was sufficient to place the trial court on
notice defense counsel disagreed with the response the court intended to provide to
the jurors' request. "An issue is preserved for appeal if the attorney's articulated
concern is sufficiently specific to inform the trial court of the alleged error." Id at
414. The appellate court found that because the trial court was aware defense
counsel disagreed with its actions the issue was preserved for appeaL. Citizens in
21
this case affirmatively and verbally agreed on the record with the court's decisions
thereby failing to preserve the issue for appeaL.
Citizens relies on Penton v. State, 106 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958). That
case is distinguishable because defense counsel therein requested in response to the
jury's question that witness testimony be read back to the paneL. In the instant
action not only did that not happen, but Citizens agreed with the trial court's
decision.
Leeds requests this court make the same finding it did in Bates v. State, 102
So.2d 826, 830 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958). In that case this court determined Bates'
counsel at trial never contemporaneously questioned the correctness of the court's
ruling declining to read back the witnesses' testimony, initially raising it in a
motion for new trial and then on appeaL. This court therefore held the issue had not
been preserved for appeaL.
c. FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
Although a fundamental error may be considered on appeal even though it is
not preserved in the trial court, a party may waive a fundamental error and thereby
be denied the opportunity to appeal that error. Such a waiver may not be implied
but must be knowingly expressed. See 3 FL JUR 2d Appellate § 104. In Persoff
v. Persoff, 589 SO.2d 1007, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the appellant had been found in
indirect criminal contempt. On appeal she argued the trial court erred in failing to
22
issue an order to show cause pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 3.840. The appellate court
first stated that a party's failure to raise the issue of non-compliance with rule
3.840 in the trial court will not bar full consideration of the record on appeal,
because such non-compliance constitutes fundamental error. However, the court
then noted this was not a case where a party remained silent in the trial court,
failing to object. Instead, the party through counsel affirmatively represented to
the trial court she waived the necessity of an order to show cause. As a result the
appellate court held the party was not entitled to argue on appeal she was
prejudiced by a ruling she invited the trial court to make.
Citizens argues that its expert's testimony is analogous to the defense
witnesses' testimony in Furr v. State, 233 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1942); Penton, 106
SO.2d 577 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958); and Vazquez v. State, 830 So.2d 929 (Fla. 2002)
wherein new trials were granted. Procedurally there is no analogy to Citizens'
case. In none of those three cases did defense counsel agree on the record with the
court's decision not to read back or send back to the jury sworn testimony. In
Vasquez defense counsel requested that the testimony either be read back to the
jury or transcribed and given to them the following day. In Penton defense counsel
also requested a read back to the jury. In Furr the court declined to discuss
testimony with the jurors. No comment from defense counsel appears in the
appellate decision. These case are at odds with Citizens' case wherein there was
23
no request from defense counsel to read back witness testimony or objection to the
court's decision. There is no rule of civil procedure on point and Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.41 does not stand for the proposition a party can agree on the
record with the court regarding not reading back testimony and then claim error
after an unfavorable verdict. As pointed by the court in Farrow v. State of Florida,
573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) if counsel could refrain from objecting during
trial to a court's instruction (in that case a jury instruction) and await the outcome
of trial even if the error is easily curable then if the verdict is unfavorable secure a
reversal in appeal due to "fundamental error" what defense counsel would risk the
certainty of reversal by objecting on the record?
Citizens' agreement with the court's decision not to read back Citizens'
expert's testimony was a calculated trial strategy which did not prove successfuL.
An adverse verdict does not entitle Citizens to a new triaL.
ISSUE II
Whether the trial court properly denied Citizens' request to interview
the jury foreperson, when Citizens failed to comply with the requirement of
Fla. R. Civ. P. L.431(h), and when Citizens failed to provide sworn factual
allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new triaL.
24
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Leeds concur with Citizens that the proper standard of review regarding
post-trial juror interviews is abuse of discretion.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431 (h) governs motions for Juror
interviews. Rule 1.431 (h) provides in pertinent part:
A party who believes that grounds for legal challenge to
a verdict exist may move for an order permitting an
interview of a juror or jurors to determine whether the
verdict is subject to the challenge. The motion shall be
served within 10 days after rendition of the verdict unless
good cause is shown for failure to make the motion
within that time. The motion shall state the name and
address of each juror to be interviewed and the grounds
for challenge that the party believes may exist. After
notice and hearing, the trial judge shall enter an order
denying the motion or permitting the interview. . .
Consistent with the foregoing rule, the Florida Supreme Court in Baptist
Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1991), set forth the test courts
should employ when post-trial questioning of a juror is warranted. Specifically, a
jury inquiry is never permissible unless the moving party has made sworn factual
allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new trial using the
standard adopted in State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1991)2. Id. at 100.
2 Under this standard, the moving party must first establish actual juror misconduct
in the juror interview. Once this is done, the party making the motion is entitled to
a new trial unless the opposing party can demonstrate that there is no reasonable
25
The Florida Supreme Court developed a three-prong test to determine
whether a juror's nondisclosure of information warrants a new triaL. This test is set
forth in De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1995):
First, the complaining party must establish that the
information is relevant and material to jury service
in the case. Second, that the juror concealed the
information during the questioning. Lastly, that
the failure to disclose the information was not
attributable to the complaining party's lack of
diligence.
As the Third District Court of Appeal acknowledged in Hood v. Valle, 979 So.2d
961 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008), "(tJhe key to the establishment of a prejudicial
concealment of information sufficient to invoke De La Rosa is a clear, direct
question requiring a response by the venire member." (Emphasis added) Hood,
979 SO.2d at 964. This language is purely subjective, not objective, and does not
suggest that a complaining party may enter into a "should have answered" analysis.
Under Hood, absent such a direct question, the Court need not even conduct a De
La Rosa analysis. The Hood court puts the burden directly on the lawyer, not the
juror, who lacks any obligation to supplement answers. Id.
In order for the failure to respond by a jury to represent "misconduct," the
act of the juror requires more than shown in the record here. In two recent cases
possibility that the juror misconduct affects the verdict. State v. Hamilton, 574
So.2d 124, 129 (Fla. 1991), (quoting Paz v. United States, 462 F.2d 740, 745 (5th
Cir. 1972).
26
on juror misconduct, Florida courts examined the threshold of the De La Rosa
standard. In McCauslin v. O'Conner, 2008 WL 343491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), the
Fifth Circuit reversed a trial court's grant of a motion for new trial premised upon
so-called juror misconduct. In McCauslin, two jurors in a personal injury case
failed to reveal their previous injuries in auto accidents. Although they had been
specifically asked questions about being injured, they did not respond
affirmatively, based upon the fact they failed to see the significance of the issue.
In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit found that:
(tJhe record does not suggest deliberate
concealment, and prudent probing by defense
counsel in light of the way voir dire unfolded
might well have resolved the problem entirely.
Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
In Florida, there is a strong public policy against jury interviews in the
interest of protecting not only the jury system but also to protect the jurors
themselves from harassment. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v.
Tucker, 608 So.2d 85, 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Florida case law demonstrates that
interviewing jurors after trial is no perfunctory exercise, but rather requires a
showing of something more than conjecture and speculation by the movant as to
what went wrong. Walgreens, Inc. v. Newcomb, 603 So.2d 5, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA
1992); Dover
Corporation v. Dean, 473 So.2d 710,712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
27
Although Rule 1.31(g) provides that jury interviews shall be allowed under
appropriate circumstances, the decision to allow a jury interview is within the
discretion of the trial court. Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So.2d
152, 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The standard of review for the appellate court is
whether the trial court abused its broad discretion. Id. at 155. If reasonable people
could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then there is no
abuse of discretion. Id. at 155.
C. CITIZENS HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO REQUEST A JUROR
INTERVIEW
Citizens for the first time requested a juror interview in its Supplement to
Motion for New Trial (VI0 R Page 1124) served on September 13, 2007. The
verdict was rendered on May 18, 2007. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431 (h),
Citizens was entitled to serve a motion for juror interview within 10 days after
rendition of the verdict. Instead, although Citizens alleged in its initial Motion for
New Trial served on the 10th day after the verdict was rendered it had concerns
regarding Juror # 1, Mark A. Ross, it waited 118 days after the verdict to request a
Juror Interview. The time requirement is strictly construed unless the movant can
show good cause for its untimeliness. Citizens was unable to state any "good
cause" in its motion but merely alleged it was unable to determine if the Mark Ross
referenced in the lawsuits was the same Mark Ross who served as Juror # 1.
Citizens did not state it had undertaken any investigation or made any inquiries to
28
verify whether Juror # 1 was the same Mark A. Ross as the person listed in the
lawsuits. Citizens could have retained a private investigator, utilized a software
program to conduct a background check, or called the attorneys listed in the
documents it filed in a diligent attempt to ascertain the identities of the Mark
Ross( es) referenced in the various lawsuits.
Had Citizens undertaken a
comprehensive investigation it could then have filed an Affidavit of Diligent
Inquiry. No such affidavit was ever filed in support of Citizens' untimely Motion
for Juror Interview. Instead, Citizens speculated Juror # 1 might be the same
person as one or all of the Mark Ross( es) involved in Pinellas County litigation.
As stated in Jones v. State of
Florida, 928 So.2d 1178, 1191 (Fla. 2006):
(JJuror interviews are not permissible unless the moving party has
made sworn allegations that ... would require the court to order a new
trial because the alleged error was so fundamental and prejudicial as
to vitiate the entire proceedings. See also Johnson v. State, 804 So.2d
1218, 1225 (Fla. 2001 ) (citing Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler,
579 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 1991).
One month prior to filing its Motion for Juror Interview Citizens represented
to the trial court during hearing on its Motion for New Trial that it did not need or
want a juror interview (V 1 3 - TE Page 1602 lines 10-21).
With respect to Mr. Ross and his litigation history, as we clarified this
morning, once we got our hands on the cases we didn't feel an
interview was necessary to determine if he was the same Mark Ross
as -- because it was a common name.
The Court, however, can stil request a juror interview if in its
discretion feels it's necessary, and we can file whatever records we
29
were able to locate after we fie the motion on his prior cases, if that
would assist the Court. Let us know on that, Your Honor.
D. CITIZENS FAILED TO ESTABLISH JUROR MARK A. ROSS
WAS INVOLVED IN ANY UNDISCLOSED LITIGATION
Leeds' counsel, William F. Merlin, Jr., spent a significant amount of time
during voir dire querying Mr. Ross. (VI0 TE Page 1086 lines 15-25; VI0 TE Page
1087 lines 1-25, VI0 TE Page 1088 lines 1-25; VI0 TE Page 1089 lines 1-25;
VI0 TE Page 1090 lines 1-25; VI0 TE Page 1091 lines 1-25; VI0 TE Page 1092
lines 1 - 18. Mr. Merlin inquired of Mr. Ross regarding claims for personal injury to
which Mr. Ross provided substantive information. Mr. Ross also volunteered he
had written "so many briefs that involve insurance." (V 1 0 TE Page 1091 lines 9-
10) and "hundreds of briefs and everything from Indian Affairs to, you know,
escalator things." (VI0 TE Page 1091 lines 12-14). Citizens' counsel had ample
opportunity to follow-up on the insights Mr. Ross provided to his background.
Instead, Ms. Casagrande chose only to ask Mr. Ross why he modified his Juror
Voir Dire Questionnaire from "yes" to "no" in response to the question "Have you
or any member of your immediate family been party to any lawsuit?" (V 10 TE
Page 1092 line 25; VI0 Page TE 1093 lines 1-3). Ms. Casagrande conducted a
very limited inquiry of Mr. Ross never asking about his eighteen years of
experience as an Insurance Specialist, (VI0 TE Page 1093 lines 7-25, VI0 TE
Page 1094 lines 1-11), although she was representing Citizens Property Insurance
30
Corporation. Attorney Casagrande never asked Mr. Ross if he had ever been
arrested, which may have resolved the issue of whether Juror #1 was the same
Mark Arcelious Ross named in felony cases involving burglary and battery from
1991, (V 1 0 TE Pages 1 194- 1 203) or whether his experience as a brief writer or as
a student in a paralegal degree program would affect his ability to be a fair and
impartial juror.
Citizens was not able to state in its Supplement to Motion for New Trial,
filed more than four months after the jury rendered its verdict, whether Juror # 1
Mark A. Ross, was involved in any litigation he failed to disclose. Citizens also
failed to identify any efforts it made to ascertain whether Juror # 1 Mark A. Ross
was the Mark Ross involved in litigation. The cases cited by Citizens are
inapplicable because they pertain to jurors who failed to disclose material facts.
Citizens has submitted no proof that Juror # 1 failed to disclose material facts.
Citizens' burden was to produce evidence Mr. Ross wasn't forthright about his
legal experiences and then demonstrate how that lack of candor adversely affected
Citizens. Instead, Citizens has to admit it has no proof Mr. Ross is guilty of any
impropriety.
In the case of Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County v. Metellus, 948
SO.2d 4, 5 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006) Plaintiff was granted a new trial after a defense
verdict because a juror failed to disclose that she had been in a divorce and was the
31
subject of collection efforts by creditors against her. The appellate court reversed
because there was no definition of "lawsuit." Pursuant to Roberts v. Tejada, 814
So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) those proceedings would be included under the meaning of
lawsuit, but that was not explained. Thus, the appellate court held there was no
deliberate misstatement of the juror which would justify relief under De La Rosa v.
Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995).
The appellate court also determined there was no showing that counsel
would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror had he been given
the information in question. The court held that showing was required, reversing
for entry of judgment in accordance with the verdict reinstated. Citizens never
asked Juror # 1 about his three years of brief writing experience, his paralegal
studies or about his contacts in the insurance industry. Defense counsel knew
about these issues and never suggested a challenge for cause or a peremptory
strike. Instead, after receiving an unfavorable verdict, and without proof of any
wrongdoing on Mr. Ross' part, Citizens contends it is entitled to a new trial
because maybe Mr. Ross was involved in undisclosed litigation. "A post-trial juror
interview is never permissible (emphasis added) unless the moving party has made
sworn factual allegations that, if true, would require a trial court to order a new
triaL." Baptist Hosp., 579 So.2d at 100. Citizens failed to fie any sworn
32
allegations and therefore failed to make the requisite showing necessary for the
grant of a new triaL.
E. APPELLATE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A JUROR
INTERVIEW IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE A BROAD "HUNTING
EXPEDITION" OR A "FISHING EXCURSION."
The rule allowing interview of jurors does not authorize broad hunting
expeditions or fishing excursions. National Indemnity Company v. Andrews, 354
So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978). The Second District Court of Appeal noted
the following:
(tJhe Supreme Court of the United States in considering the
advisability of permitting a party to inquire into a jury's
basis for reaching a verdict suggested that to permit the
inquiry would open the door to the most pernicious acts and
tampering with jurors. The practice would be replete with
dangerous consequences. It would lead to the grossest fraud
and abuse and no verdict would be safe. Id. at 456 citing
McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 268, 35 S. Ct. 783, 784,
59L.Ed.1300(1915).
Thus, the Second District Court of Appeal held that under the liberal rules of
civil procedure, interviews of jurors wil be allowed but only where some
semblance of grounds are demonstrated which would subject a jury's verdict to
challenge prior to the interview. Andrews, 354 SO.2d at 456. (Emphasis added.)
In the instant case, Citizens has not and cannot present any sworn allegations
demonstrating juror misconduct that would warrant a new triaL. Citizens' request
to interview Juror Ross was clearly a broad hunting expedition or fishing
33
excursion, in an attempt to gain information in support of its Motion for New Trial,
which is not permissible under Florida Law. See National Indemnity Company v.
Andrews, 354 So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Schofield v. Carnival Cruise
Lines, Inc. 461 SO.2d 152, 154 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984).
The trial court's determination to deny Citizens' request was proper because
it was filed 108 days late pursuant to the requirement of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1431 (h); it
was an unsworn motion filed without a supporting affidavit as required by Florida
case law; no good cause was alleged for the delay in filing as required by Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.431(h); and Citizens' counsel failed to make sufficient inquiry of Mr.
Ross.
ISSUE III
Whether Citizens is entitled to a new trial because it now contends
Leeds' counsel improperly argued that Citizens was guilty of Bad Faith Claim
Handling although Citizens failed to make a contemporaneous objection and
is unable to identify any prejudice or harm suffered by Citizens as the result
of any argument made by Leeds' counseL.
34
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Leeds agree the correct standard of review in civil cases for improper, but
unobjected-to closing argument is abuse of discretion. See Murphy v. International
Robotic Systems, 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000).
B. COMMENTS MADE BY APPELLEES' COUNSEL DURING
REBUTTAL CLOSING ARGUMENT
Leeds' lead trial counsel, Wiliam Merlin, Jr., Esq., presented Closing and
Rebuttal Closing Argument. There was no contemporaneous objection to any of
Attorney Merlin's argument by Citizens' counseL. In the entire argument, there is
only one paragraph in the Rebuttal Closing Citizens now, in hindsight, finds
objectionable. In Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.
2000), a four-part test to be applied in assessing motions for new trial in civil cases
based on claims of improper but unobjected-to remarks made during closing
argument was articulated. To prevail on a motion for new trial predicated upon an
unobjected-to argument, the complaining party must establish that the argument
was (1) improper; (2) harmful; (3) incurable; and (4) so damaging to the fairness of
the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice requires a new triaL. Id. at
1031; See also Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025,1027 (Fla.
2nd DCA 2001). The appellate court therein held if a trial court finds that these
four criteria have been met, "it must enter an order granting a new trial specifically
35
identifying both the improper arguments of counsel and the actions of the jury
resulting from those arguments." Id. (citing Murphy, 766 So. 2d at 1030).
The Murphy court recognized that very few cases would meet its stringent
four-part test for obtaining a new trial based on improper but unobjected-to closing
argument. The Murphy court described the rule as "an escape valve with a very
narrowly defined parameter and of extremely limited application." Id. at 1026. In
Platz, 795 So. 2d at 1027, the court categorized Murphy's four-part test as "extra-
ordinarily demanding." As stated in Bocher v. Glass, 874 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 1 st
DCA 2004), "(A) remedy wil almost always be tied to a contemporaneous
objection."
Citizens has not even attempted to meet the bar set by Murphy. Its Motion
For New Trial cited to no prejudice suffered by Citizens as a result of Merlin's
brief comments. "(T)he improper closing argument comments must be of such a
nature that it reaches into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that the verdict
at 1030.)
reached could not have been obtained but for such comments." (Murphy
The sole question asked by the jurors involved the testimony of Citizens'
geotechnical engineer, George Sinn, Jr. (V 1 0 TE Page 1097 lines 2-4). It had
nothing to do with claims handling practices or bad faith. Appellant is unable to
identify prejudice or harm suffered by Citizens as a result of argument made by
Leeds' counseL. Similarly, Citizens has not even alleged the brief remarks it found
36
objectionable were incurable. In order to establish Murphy's third prong, "a
complaining party must establish that even if the trial court had sustained a timely
objection to the improper argument and instructed the Jury to disregard the
improper argument, such curative measures could not have eliminated the
probability that the unobjected-to argument resulted in an improper verdict." See
Murphy, 766 So.2d at 1030.
Citizens' contention that it is entitled to a new trial based on comments made
by Leeds' counsel during a closing is a stand alone ground for appeal which this
court should consider on its individual merit. Instead, Citizens tries to bolster that
discrete ground by integrating other unrelated issues raised in this appeal as well as
original arguments not raised below. Citizens grouses that Major Leeds was
permitted to wear his uniform at triaL. Citizens tried to preclude Mr. Leeds from
appearing in uniform by filing a Motion in Limine to Prohibit Plaintif Oliver
Leeds from Appearing in Court in His United States Air Force Uniform Or Any
Similar Military Dress (V2 R Pages 138-139), which was denied after hearing.
Major Leeds attended college at the Air Force Academy (VI 7 T Page 447 line 3)
and was stationed at the Air Force Personnel Center (VI 7 T Page 471 lines 2-3) in
San Antonio, Texas (V17 T Page 15 line 15) at the time of the triaL. Citizens'
counsel called significant attention to Major Leeds' military status and training by
asking numerous questions regarding his training and expertise. "And you're a
37
trained KC- 1 35 pilot, correct (V 17 T Page 470 line 16). "So you've obviously had
a lot of
training to be a military pilot, correct? (V17 T Page 471 lines 9-10) "And
what does it take to become a pilot? What kind of training?" (V 17 T Page 471 lines
12-13). "In fact, the military pilot, that takes a special appointment, right?" (V 1 7 T
Page 471 lines 23-24). "And what types of things do you need to be good at?
Does that include science, math? (V17 T Page 472 lines 1-2). Citizens having
directed numerous questions to Major Leeds regarding his military expertise
should not now complain that Major Leeds' active duty status was unfairly
detrimental to Citizens' defense. The trial court correctly ruled he had a right to
wear his uniform to triaL. Only Citizens placed undue emphasis on Leeds' status.
Citizens also refers to another unrelated issue during its argument on the
comments made by Leeds' counseL. Citizens complains the comments made by a
prospective juror during voir dire were unfair. Citizens' Motion for New Trial
asserted as one basis Jury Impaneling Irregularities (V8 R Pages 780-851). After
hearing and consideration of Citizens' supplemental brief the trial court correctly
denied Citizens' request by order dated May 13,2008 (V13 R Pages 1725-1728).
The issue of jury impaneling was abandoned by Citizens in listing its three
appellate arguments. Consideration in conjunction with this argument is
bootstrapping and irrelevant to the merit of this issue. Citizens candidly admitted
38
in its Motion for New Trial "a specific challenge to the jury array was not voiced
and that challenge may not be properly preserved." (V8 R Page 786 lines 5-8).
Leeds disagrees with Citizens that this was a very close case. There is no
record evidence to support that assertion. Sandy Nettles, a licensed professional
geologist was offered, without objection from Citizens, to testify regarding the
subsurface issues at the Leeds' property (V 16 T Page 281, lines 18-24). During
direct examination Nettles testified regarding Citizens' expert's investigation.
"Central Florida's three SPT borings record raveling soils, voids, losses of
circulation, mixed and disrupted strata that are typical characteristics of active
sinkhole conditions." (V16 T Page 338 lines 11-14) "And they were looking for
the cause of that major subsidence, and I think they found it. And it's clearly a
sinkhole." (V16 T Page 335 lines 12-14). On cross examination Nettles testified
that he had been conducting residential sinkhole investigations for" 1 8 years this
Nettles could tell
year." (V16 T Page 385 lines 11-12). Citizens' counsel asked if
exactly where the sinkhole was located. (V16 T Page 358 lines 17-19). Nettles
was able to pinpoint the exact location of a sinkhole on the Leeds' property and
further testified he believed there was more than one. (V16 T Page 358 lines 2025). There were no attacks on Nettles' ability to offer these opinions. Thus, there
is competent evidence to support the jury's verdict that sinkhole activity had not
been eliminated as a cause of the loss (V8 R Page 779). Citizens has not preserved
39
a "manifest weight of the evidence argument" instead alluding to one. Given the
testimony of Nettles, that argument is without merit.
The standard for obtaining a new trial based upon improper but unobjected-
to closing argument is very high and Citizens has not met its burden in the instant
action.
For all the reasons stated above, Citizens is not entitled to a new trial based
on the brief, unobjected-to remarks of Attorney Merlin during Leeds' Rebuttal
Closing.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Leeds respectfully request that this Court affirm
the trial court's judgment and rulings in all respects.
40
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Appellees' Answer Brief has been furnished via regular U.S. Mail to Scot E.
Samis, Esq., Abbey Adams Byelick Kiernan Mueller Marone Samis, LLP, P 0
Box 1511, St. Petersburg, FL 33731, attorney for Appellant, and to Joseph A.
Porcelli, Esq., Law Offices of Joseph A. Porcelli, 4644 Glissade Drive, New Port
Richey, FL 34652, Co-counsel for Appellees on December 29, 2008 and was
electronically filed with this court the 23rd day of December, 2008, this ¿ 2 rt
day of
December, 2008.
cie~ncesNi~
7~£: .
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
This is to certify that the undersigned has complied with Florida Rule
9.100(1), including the font and margin requirements. This Appellees' Answer
Brief uses 14 point Times New Roman type, a font that is proportionately spaced.
jl~4~~~
Jean Frances Niven
41
INDEX TO SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
Seller's Property Disclosure Statement
(V7 R Page 752) ....................... ....................................... .Supp. Ap. A.
Contract for Sale and Purchase
(V7 R Page 754) ........................................................... ...Supp. Ap. B.)
Property Inspection Report prepared by Scott Kaylor
(V6 R Page 725)............................................................... .Supp. Ap. C
42
~' :.
S"l
((Since 1.928))
i¡~¥fftk'~Ì'~\;;'':::" a RS.
SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATl:ME;NT
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 730 - (y ~ AJ ~D, 6Y-~~, f2L "35'" D f
SELLER'S NAME: Me C/Le.e Dc. .
1. TIT~E ND ACCESS
A. Do ou k. w of existing, pending or potent/allegal actions and/or liens concerning the property?
NO YES If so, explain: .
B. Do ou know of any encroachments, boundary disputes or third party c1ainis affecting the prope;.?
NO 0 YES If so, explain:
C. Are you aware of any condition thai could aflect the value or deslrab!/Iy of the property?
If so, explain:
2.
LAND
A. Do you know of any p or present selling or soil movement problems on the property or on adjacent
properties? qNO YES If so, explain: .
B. Do you kno Clf y past or present drainage or flood problems on your property or adjacent
propertl 0 0 YES If so, explain:
C. Are y aware of any past or present problems with eways, walkways, pat/a, seawalls, retaInIng
wal on your property or adjacent properties due drainage, flooding or soli movements?
NO 0 YES If so, explain:
D. Is the property in a designated flood zone? NO 0 YES
3.
STRUC~TL DISCLOSURES
A. Are you are of any structuraj.condltlon that could aHe
o NO YES If so, explain: H 5e~ \;
4.
ROOF, GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS
A. Has roof ever leaked since you owned the
If so, what was done to correct the leak?
B. How old is the present roof? Has rooe~n re aced? C9NO 0 YES If so, what year?
Is there a guarantee on the roof? ~O 0 Y It so, Is It transferable? 0 NO 0 YES
C. Are you aware of any other roof der cts? NO 0 YES
It so, explain:
5.
PL~UB G SYSTEM
A. So ce waler supply: ublic 0 Private Well
B. Se er or 0 Septic System
C. Ar here an~piu ing leaks around and under sinks, toilets, showers, bathtubs and lavatories?
NO 0 YES f so, explain:
D. Pool Heater NO 0 YES Type: 0 Gas 0 Electric 0 Solar Pool Sweep 0 NO 0 YES
Jacuzzi 0 NO 0 YES Type: 0 Gas 0 Electric
E. Are you aware of any conditions that could alfect the value or desirCll;ilityyf the pool or Jacuzzl7
o NO 0 YES If so explain:
6.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
A. A!.e you aware of any damagej- malfunctioning swilches7li0 lJ YES Damaged receplacles?
o NO 0 YES If so~x¡:laifJ'
B. Ar~eou a are of any d ~cls, malfunctioning or iiiegaiinsiaiiaiio.n of eleclrlc equipment inside or
outsid e house? 00 YES If so explain:
7. HEA NG, AIR CO lTIONING, OTHER EQUIPMENT
Electric Healing FuelOil 0 Gas 0 Oth /
o Solar Healing Owned 0 Leased 0 R21e
B. Waler Healer: Electric 0 Gas 0 S
C. Electric garage door opener: 0 N /rE. # of Transmiliers
D. Burglar Alarm System 0 NO ES d Owned 0 Leased 0 Rented
E. Smoke Detectors 0 NO ES How many? --
Supp. Ap. A
Jul 07 03 08: 28a
uro R. Rios
( E.
887 -5868
F. Lawn Sprinkle.rs: ~O 0 YES. . _iic Timer 0 NO 0 YES In working condition'! .--1 YES
G. Water SOftener~~ 0 YES In..,orklnQ der? 0 NO 0 YES
H. Are you aware of any healing, air condit' nlng or other equipment conditions thai could affect Ih9
valua or desirability of Ihe properly 00 YES if so. explain:
8.
BUILT IN APPLIANCES ../
If
so,
explain:
c
HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM ¿
A Are you aware 01 any built in appliances that ere in need of repair or replacement? ~ 0 YES
9.
10.
A Do you want to provide a home warranty plan? 0 NO L
OWNERSHIp. .
A Are you a b "¡jer, developer or licensed reel estate a t? 00 YES If so, whIch?
B. Have all rties that hàve an ownership interest In IS property signed this listing agreement?
o NO YES
City: State:
C. Are you relocating to another city or state?
D. Are you aware ot anything else that you should disclose to prospecti"
If so, explain (use space below if necessary):
11. PROPERTY QUÂÜFìCATION(S) FLORID AL"ES TAX
A. "Is the property being sold your primary residence? NO MES
'8. D~es thIs p~oÇerty qualliy for a Florida Homestea exemption? 0 NO
C. Is the property currently Homesteaded? 0 NO YES
12. FOREIGN SELLERS STATEMENT
A. Please list all persons on the tiUe who are not i.:S. citizens:
B. As ovmer(s) oJ the property described herein. I state that my United States Taxpayer Identification
number Is listed below. 0 NO dYES
C. I (We) aorea to comply with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 1445 as thay may
apply 10 the sale of the property. I (We) agree to furnish at the closing such affidavits as may b~
required under that Section, and I (We) further understand that If I (We) am a 'forelgn person" under
that Section, that 10% of Ihe gross sales price may be withheld at closing and remitted to the Internal
Revenue Service. I (We) represent 10 you Ihat I (We) 0 am or 0 am not (check one, as applicable) a
'foreign persQn" as that term is defined In SectJon 1445, I.R.C.
13. CONDOMINIUMS (If applicable)
A. Will you supply all condominium documents? 0 NO 0 YES
B. Does the Condominium Declaration cont~ln any resale restrictions? 0 NO 0 YES
my/our
knowledge. This statement has
been prspar9d to assist prospe6ÌiÝe" purchasers to evaluate the propert. This slatement1s notmeantto bé a warranty
or gueranty as to lhe cOidilon of my/our home. l/we hereby authorize the listing broker In thIs transaction 10 disclose
The foragolng answers and èxplanations are true and complete 10 the best of
the Informalion In this statement to other real estate brokers, real estÈlle agents and prospecUve purchasers of the
ned in this statement changes from this date, IIwe wil notify listlng broker.
pro perl' . If ny conditio co tal
Seller: . Social Security #:
Seller. Social Sei¡urlty #:
Date:_~
opei1y disclosure statemenl,.lncluding additional explanation, If any attached
7.
2
p.2
--- -- ---------------------~.-.... _. .._'--_.._-_...- ..._.__...._---~..
:..""...~:",.~~,;-,~\--.
,/ coritract For Sale And p.~se . "!\:' ;'
'õ:;,fL9R.'DA.~f~oc~i;w'! OF REAp:P.RS',~ND !':E,fLORISA ~f;, :,,,~:.~;~~
"
~'~.
pARIES: 3ÖNAn+rJ Do M~C.REét¥ AN\) :Jy,L.ìE 5. MQtf-Y ("Seller,
* hereby
an agree
Di.lyGß
K LE.G'DS ANl) E,ß~I.(O 1-. L.ËEl?3 ("Buy,
that seller shal sell an Buer shl buy the following desribed Rea Prope an Persona Propert (collectively 'Propert
I. DESCRIPTION: . ~
pursuant to the term an conditions of thiS Contract for Sale and Purchase and al' riders and addenda ("Contract1:
(a) Legal
descrption of the Real Prope loted Ini ,; G.A- Conty, Ror:
~SC.6N'" L.AiLE. PAisK, &.4.13 E. LfS= fr OF LDT 5 t W 35'
(b) Street address, cit, zip, of
fT cF Lei (,
th Propert TÒo 1i.ï1 A'I£ N, S, lGi1~ßI.ß6- i FL 3~"1c.1- 101 g
o (c) Persnal Propert indude exsting rage, refgerator, dishwasher, ceilng fans, light fiures, an window treatments unles
specically exduded below.
.. .
Other items incuded are: 'WA-Sr+ ¿ b P...vËE
i '".. M i c. WAvE.
4. Items of Personal Propert (an leed items, if any) exdude ar:
u' II. PURCHASE PRICE (U.S. curry): . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , $
7
PAYMENT: ( .~ /Î
(a) Depo held in escrow by r i Õá J N.4T1 ~HA-..' t't.e~L. (Eow Agent) In the amount of . . $
.l. g I e er
tl I 0 c,C Ll.£cn
i: . cep~c.e:
(b) Additional escrm deposit to be rn e to Escrow Agent within _ days after Effective Date
v"
1
'1.
5*
(see Paagrap liQ in the amunt of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . $
(e) Asumpt of ""''eg mog"," In goo "'",leg (se Par"'h lV(e)) ha"no "" apro.ma - -y
(~00r. -_..- ~
=~::ige~=~~it'h'~~~d~r'(~~'p~rc~~'iV~))i~.~'~~~t~f:: 8¡;c/~: :~:ti:~:: ~J.llc,eGo. IlfS"lDoO
(e) Purchae money mortgage an note to Seller (Se Paragrah N(d)) In th amunt of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
~ ::::e~~sc~~:a~~ ~r. ~~~~.~~~ ~~~i~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ .c~~~~~' .s~~~~. . . . . . . . . . --- 33, boO 3iriLoo
:s II. llME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER AND COUNTEROFFERS; EFFECTVE DATE:
~ (a) If this offer is not execed by an delivere to all paies OR FACT OF EXON communicated ìf writing between the paies on or
befoe J"U-e. ìlf, 2oö3 ~ I: êC p ('. , the deposit(s) will, atBuyer's option, be returned an this offer withrawn. UNLESS OTH-
ERWISE STATED, THE llME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ANY COUNTEROFFERS SHALL BE 2 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE COUNTEROFFER IS DEUVERED.
3
(b) Th date of Contra ("Effective Date") will be the date wh the last one of the Bur and seller has signe or initialed this offer or the
fina counteroffr. If such date Is not otherwise set fort In this Contract, then the "Effectve Date" shal be the date determine above for
accetan of this offer or, If appRcale, the fina counteroffer.
j iv. FINANCING:
7* 0 (a) This is a ca trnsction with no cOntingencies for finang;
'~(b) This Contra is cotingent on Buer obtaining apprval of a loan ("Loan l\prova1 within R days after Effective Date for (CHECK
l
I'
ONLY ONE): 0 a fixed; 0 an adjustabe; or)i a fied or adjusable rate loan, In the prindpal amount of $ / ~ 0 i Q 0 ö ,at an inital inter-
est rate not to exæe 5 '/4 %, discount and oriination fee not to exceed i: % of princpa amount, and for a term of-years. Buy wil make application withn _ days (d blank, th 5 days) afer Effecve Date and use reasonale dilgenc to obtain Lo
Aprova an, thereafter, to sasfy term an condition of th Loan Aproval and close th loa. Buyer shal pay all
lo expenses. If Buyer
fals to obtain a Loan l\prvaJ or fans to waive Buyr's rights uner this subpargrah wihin the time for obtaning Loa Approva or, afer
dilgent, good faith effort, fails to meet th term and conditon of the Lo Aprova by Clsing, then eithe par threfter, by wrien notic
to the other, may canc this Contr and Buyr shll be refund the depit(s);
o (c) Asmption of existing mortgage (se rider for term); or
o (d) seller finadng (se Standard B an riers; addenda; () spedal daus for terms).
i' V. TITL EVIDENCE: At least _ days (d blank, then 5 days) before Closing:
I' )s(a) Title insurace commitment with legible copies of instruments listed as exception attached thereto ("ltle Commitment)" an, after
Closing, an owr's polic of tile insurae (se Staard A for terms); or 0 (b) Abstrct of tile or othr evidenc of title (se rider for terms),
shall be obtained by (CHECK ONLY ONE): )i(1) Seller, at Sener's expense and delivered to Buyr or Buer's attorey; or
.. 0 (2) Buyer at Buyer's expense. (' /!
:" Vi. CLOSING DATE: This trancton shal be closed and the closing doments delivred on C(L be-rùlUS 1;; ~oc;; ("Closingj, unles
modified by other proviions of this Contract. If Buyer Is unale to obtain Hazard, Wind, Roo, or Homermne~' Inkurance at a reasnale rate
due to extreme weathr coitions, Buyer may delay Closing for up to 5 day afer such coverage bees available.
VII. RESTRICTIONS; EASEMENT; LIMITATIONS: Seller shal convey maretable tile subject to: comprehensive land use plan, zoning,
restrictions, prohibitions an other reuirements imposed by govemmental autority restritions and maters appearng on the plat or otherwise
common to the subdivision; outstaning oil, gas and mineral rihts of recrd without right of entry; unplatted public utility easements of record
(lcated contiguous to real propert Rnes and not more than 10 feet In width as to the rer or front lines and 7 1/2 feet in with as to the side
FAA-ß 10/01 Page 1 of 4
Supp. Ap. B.
iines¡; (öXes Tor yea of Closing and subsequent years; and assumed mortgages and purchase money morgages, if any ~f additionl items, se
addendum); provided, that there ev' "s at Closing no violation of the foregoing l none prevent use of the Propert for
R£s iDGrJ í ¡ AL- purpose(s).
VIII. OCCUPANCY: Seller shall deliver occupancy of Propert to Buyer at time of Oosing unless otherwse stated herein. If Propert is intended
to be rented or ocupied beyond Closing, the fact and temis thereof an the tenant(s) or ocpats shal be disclose pursant to Standard F.
If occupancy is to be delivered before Closing, Buyer assumes all risks of loss to Propert from date of ocupacy, shall be respnsible and liable
for maintenance from that date, and shal be deemed to have accepted Propert in its existing condition as of time of taking occpancy.
IX. TYPEWRITN OR HANDWRITTEN PROVISIONS: Typewrien or handwritten proviions, riders an addenda shall control all printed pr_
visions of this Contract in conflict wih them.
X. . ASSIGNABILITY: (CHECK ONLY ONE): Buyer 0 may assign and thereby be released from any further liability under this Cotract; 0 may
asign but not be released from liabilty únder this Contract; or)( may not assign this Contrct.
XI. DISCLOSURES:
(a) 0 CHECK HERE if the Propert is subject to a special asesent lien impoi¡ed by a public body payae in Installments which
continue beyond Closng and, if so, specif who shall pay amounts due after Closlng:)iSeller 0 Buyer 0 Other (see addendum).
(b) Radon is a naturaly ocrrng radioactive gas that when accumulated in a building in sufcient quantites may preent hea riks to per-
sons who are exposed to it over time. Levels of radon that exceed federal and state guideline have been found in buildings in Flrida.
Additiona informtion regarding rado or radn testing may be obtained from your County Public Heah unit.
(c) Buyr acknowledges receipt of the Florida BuildIng Energy-Effciency Rating System Brochure.
(d) If the real propert includes pre-1978 residential hoslng then a lead-based pant rider is mandatory.
(e) If Seller is a "foreign person" as defined by the Foreign Investment In Real Prpert Tax Act, the parties shall comply with tht Ac.
(f) If Buyer will be obligated to be a member of a homeownrs' assciation, BUYER SHOULD NOT EXECUTE THIS CONTRCT UNTIL
BUYER HAS RECEIVED AND READ THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION DISCLOSURE.
I. MAIMUM R I OSTS: seller shall not be responsible for payments in excess of:
(a) $ for treatment an repair under Standard D (if blank, then 2% of the Purchase Price).
(b) $ for repar and replacment under Standad N not cause by Wood Destroying Organisms (if blank, then 3% of
6
87
the Purchas nce).
Xli. RIDERS; ADDENDA; SPECIAL CLAUSES:
CHECK thoe riders which are applicale AND are attached to this Cotract:
o CONDOMINIUM 0 VNFHA 0 HOMEOWNERS' ASSN. )(LEAD-BASED PAINT
8S'
89'
90'
o COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE 0 INSULATlON )("AS IS" 0 Oter Comprehense Rider Provision
o Addenda
91*
Spedal Clause(s):
92'
-6 £.t.~ vv i '- L-
93*
PTêV (DE:
94*
j,!~
t-."1G WAKIt'rr
~
95'
&~
96 xiv. STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS ("Standars"): Buyer and Seller acknwlede receipt of a copy of Standards A
97 through W on the reverse side or attached, wrJch are Incorporated as par of this Cotract.
98 THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, SEEK THE ADVICE OF
99 AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING.
100 THIS FORM HA BEEN APPROVED BY THE R.ORIDA ASIATION OF REALTORSCB AND THE FLORIDA BAR.
101 Approval does not constitute an opinion that any of the temi~ and conditions in this Contract .should be accepted by the P9ies in a
1"02 particular"transction. TerTs and conditions"
shOld be.-n~otiáted based upon the respive interests, objective and bargaining
103 - ... pOs~ioñs of all interested persons.
104 ,A ASTERISK(') FOLLOWING A LINE NUMBER IN THE MARGIN INDICATES -mE LINE CONTAINS A BLAK TO BE COMPLED.
iq, ltl;,
105'
106 (BUYER)
107* ~L J/Loee
108 (BUYER)
~ 11'1/03
(DATE)
(DATE
~//to3
Jun t3.(/3
(DATE)
109* Buyers' address for purpses of notice 'S 10 &L.e; L;t4a -PttvR
(DATE
sell~3DfOr!u7?1~~e A/ .."
~~~: S2¡;~?)~ri7 _2;i¿;!?70 S Phone
SC; t3vQ." ~¿. 3.2D/
7
Phone
112* Deposit under Paragraph II (a) received (Checks are subjec to clearance.): (Escrow Agent)
114 wUhlhi,Cooi,ecl, ~ ~ \
113 BROKERS: The brokers named below, induding listing and cooperating brokers, are the only brokers entitled to compensation in connection
115'N""e,G,,;'
'L' 5 if
(j any
- vtsr
VDV4re-k
~5A"ç'Broker
¡2",s./J(~
116 ~ Coope t~gELL
~rokers:
1t.e:W-i
,_ 1. Usting
rJ
L.ul-'n1is.s¡On r; Mi:S Pee VvA-vEb l?
FARlAR-6S 10/01 RIDERS C/l BE OBTAINED FROM THE FLORIDA BAR OR THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REATORS. Page 2 of 4
102001 Florida Asiation of REATORS and The Florida Bar All Rights Reserv
STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
118 A. TITLE INSURANCE: The Title Commitr shall be issued by a Flora licensed title insurer agre ) issue Buyer, upon recording of the dee to Buyer,
11 9 an owner's policy of title insurance in the an._ _iit of the purchase price, insuring Buyer's marketable title 10 the Real Propert, subject only to matters contained
120 in Paragraph VII and those to be discharge by Seller at or before Closing. Marketable title shall be determined according to applicable Title Standards adopt-
121 ed by authori of The Flrida Bar and in acordance with law. Buyr shall have 5 days fr date of receing the Title Commitment to examine it, and if title is
122 found defective, notif Seller in wring speifng defect(s) which render title unmaretle. Seller shall have 30 days fr recipt of notice to reove the
123 defects, failng whidi Buyer shall, within 5 days after expiration of the 30 day period, deliver wrien notice to Seller either: (1) extending the time for a reason124 able period not to excee 120 days within which Seller shall use diligent effort to remove the defects; or (2) requesting a refund of depOSit(s) paid which shall
125 be returned to Buyer. If Buyer fails to so notif Seller, Buyer shall be deeed to have accepted the title as it then is. Seler shall, if title is found unmaretable,
126 usediligent effort to
coect defect(s) within the time provided. If Seller is unable to timely corrt the defects, Buyer shall eiher
waive the defecs, or recive a
127 refund of deposit(s), thereby releasing Buyr and Seller from all further obligations under this Contract. If Seller is to provide the Tnle Commitment and it is deliv-
128 ere to Buyr less than 5 days prior to Closing, Buyer may
extend Closing so that Buyer shall have up to 5 days from date of rept to examine same in aocr129 danC€ with this Standard.
130 B. PURCHASE MONEY MORTGAGE; SECURITY AGREEMENT TO SELLER: A purchase money mortgage and mortgage note to Seller shall provide for a
131 30 day grace period in the event of default if a first morgage and a 15 day grace period if a second or lesser mortgage; shall provde for right of prepayment
132 in whole or in part without penalt; shall permit acceleration in event of transfer of the Real Propert; shall require all prir liens and encumbrances to be kept
133 in goo standing; shal forbid modifictions of, or Mure advancs under, prior mortgage(s); shall reuire Buyer to maintain polices of insuranc containing a
134 standard mortgagee claus coverng all improvements locted on the Real Propert against fire and all perils included within the term .exended coerage
135 endorsemets. and sudi othe riks and perils as Seller may reasonably require, in an amount equal to their highest insurable vaue; and the mortgage, note
136 and securi agreement shall be otherwise in form and content required by Seller, but Seller may only require clauses and coverage customarily found in mort-
137 gages, morgage notes and seuri agrements generally utirzed by savings and loan instition or state or national banks loted in the county wherein the
138 Real Propert Is loted. All Peonal Propert and leases being conveyed or assigned wil, at SeRer's option, be subject to the lien of a securi agreement evi139 denced by recrded or filed financing statements or certifictes of title. If a balloo mortgage, the final payment will exce the perodic paymnts thereon.
140 C. SURVE: Buer, at Buyr' expse, within time allowed to deliver evdence of title an to exmine same, may have the Real Proper survye and certifd
a reister FInda survyo. If the survey discoss encrments on the Real Proer or tht impvemes loted theren enaoa on setba lines, ease142 ments, lads of other or viate any, restritions, Cotr covenants or applicable goemmenta regulations, the sa shan constite a title defec.
1 41 by
143 D. WOOD DESTROYING ORGANISMS: Buyer, at Buyer's expense, may have the Propert inspected by
a Floria Certie Pest Control Operator rOperator)
144 at least 1 0 days prior to Closing to determine if there is any visible active Woo Destroying Organism infestation or visible damage from Woo Destroyng
145. Organism infestation, excluding fe. If either or both ar found, Buyer may, within 5 days frm date of wrien notiæ thereof, have cost of tretment of active
146 infestation estimated by the Operator and all damage Inspeted and estimated by an approprately license cotractor. Sener shall pay costs of treatment and
147 rer of all damage up to th amont provided in Paragraph XII(a). If estimated costs excee that amount, Buyr shall have the optin of canceling this Contract
148 witin 5 days after recipt of contrator's repair estimate by giving wrien notice to Seller, or Buy may elect to pro wih the transaction and reeie a
149 creit at Closing on the amount provided In Paragraph XlI(a). "Woo Destroying Organisms. shall be deemed to include aR woo destroying organisms required
150 to be reorted under the Flrida Pest Control Act, as amended.
151 E. INGRESS AND EGRESS: Seller warrants and represents that there is ingress and egress to the Real Propert sufcient for its intended use as described
152 in Paragraph VII hereof, and title to the Real Propert is insurable in accrdance with Standard A without exception for lack of legal right of acss.
153 F. LEASES: Seller shall, at least 10 days before Closing, fumish to Buyer copies of all wrien leases and estop~LJers from each tenant spedng the nature
154 and duration of th tenant's ocupancy, rental rates, adanced ret and seæri deposit paid by tenant. If Seller is unable to obtain such letter from each ten155 ant, the same Informtion shall be furnished by Seller to Bur within that time period in the form of a Seller's affdavi, and Buyr may thereafter contact ten156 ant to confirm such Informtion. If the terms of the leases difer materially from Seller' repretations, Buyer may terminate this Contract by deliering wren
157 notiC€ to Seller at least 5 days prr to Closing. Seller shall, at Cloing, deliver and assign all original
leases to Buer.
158 G. LIENS: Seller shall fumlsh to Buyr at time of Closing an affdavit attesting to the absence, unless otherwise provided for heren, of any finandng statement,
159 claims of lien or potentillienrs known to Seller and further attesting that there have been no improements or repairs to the Real Propert for 90 days imme160 diatel precing date of Cloing. If the Real Propert has ben Improve or repaire within that time, Seller shall deliver releases or waivers of costruction
161 liens executed by all general contractor, subcontractors, suppfiers and materialmen in addition to Seller's lien affdavi settng forh the names of all such gen162 eral contractors, subcntractors, suppliers and materialmen, further affrming that all charges for improvements or repairs which could sere as a basis for a
163 constrution lien or a claim for damges have been pai or wil be paid at the Closing of this Contract. .. .
164 H. PLACE OF CLOSING: Cloing shall be held in the county wherein the Real Propert is loted at the offce of the attorney or other closing agent ('Cloing
165 Agent¡ designated by the par paying for title insurance, or, if no title insuranC€, designated by Seller.
166 i. TIME: in corruting time peris of les than six (6) days, Saturdays, Sundays and state or natial
legal holidays shall be excluded. Any time pers provided
167 for hein which shal end OI a Satuay, Sunday, or a Ie hoidy shaD exend to 5 p.m. of the nex busines day. TIme Is of the esnce In this Contrct
168 J. CLOSING DOCUMENT: Se shaD fumish the dee, biN of sa, cete of title, costruio lien affav, ownr's posio affvi, asignms of lees,
169 tent ar moga esop letters and coiv instrumes. Buyer shall fumis mogage, rrgage note, seuri agre and fidng statems.
170 K. EXPENSES: Doumentary stamps on the dee and recrding of corrective instruments shall be paid by Seller. Documentar stamps and intangible tax on
171 the purchase money mogage and any mortgage assumed, mortgagee title insurance commitment with related fees, and reording of purchase money mort172 gage to Seller, dee and finandng statements shall be paid by Buyer. Unless otherwise provided by law or rider to this Contract, charges for the following relat-
173 ed title servC€s, namely title evidence, title exmination, and closing fee Oncluding preparation of closing statement), shan be paid by the pary responsible for
174 fumishin the title evdence In accordance with Paragraph V.
175 L PRORATIONS; CREDITS: Taxes, assessments, rent, interest, insuranC€ and other expenses of the Property shall be prorated through the day before
176 Cloing. Buyer shall have the option of takng over existing policies of insurance, if assumable, in which event premiums shall be proated. Cash at Closing shall
177 be Increased or decreased as mey be reuire by protions to be made through day prior to Closing, or ocupancy, if cccupancy ocrs before Closing.
178 Advance rent and seuri deposits will be creited to Buyer. Escrow deposits held by mortgagee wiD be credited to Seler. Taxes shall be prorated base on
179 the current year's tax with due allowance made for maximum allowable discount, homestead and other exemptions. If Closing occurs at a date when the cur180 rent year's milage Is not fied and current year's assessment is available, taxes wil be prorated based upon such assessment and prior year's milage. If cur181 ret year's assessment is not available, then taxes will be prorated on prior year's tax. If there are completed improvements on the Real Proper by Januar
182 1 st of year of Closing, whidi improvements were not in existence on Januar 1 st of prior year, then taxes shall be prorated based upon prior year's millage and
183 at an equitable assessment to be agreed upon between the parties; failing which, request shall be made to the County Propert Appraiser for an informal
184 assessment taking into acount available exemptions. A tax proration based on an estimate shall. at request of either par, be readjusted upon recipt of tax
185 bil on condition that a statement to that effect is signed at Closing.
186 M. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS: Except as set forh in Paragraph XI(a). certified, confirme and ratified special assessment lier.s imposed by public bo187 ies as of Closing are to be paid by Seller. Pending liens as of Closing shall be assumed by Buyer. If the improvement has been substantially completed as of
FAR-6 1 0/01 ~2001 Roria Asociation of RWTæSa an The Flria Ba AJ Rights Reserv Page 3 of 4
v 10 V aBed psNasatJ Sl4Ô!tJ IIV iea epJCJ Bt pue OStDllV3tJ 10 UOA!?ooSS eplJotj LOOë:OL LOIO L sg'8\:J
'JaMa oi pasoPS!P uaaq lOU ""elj lj::14M JO 99ë:
JaMaliq alqeNasqo !ilpeaJ lOU aie lp!ljM lilJadOJd a4i JO ani8l a4l Bu!l::Jje IileLJlew Jallas ol UMolb speJ OU aie a.i4l leljl slue.uM Jaiias :AlVIl:VM 'M 9ge
'll liq puno aq oi papulU! sa!lÆd alji liq pa¡n::xa pue BU!lJM ul ssaiun sa!iid alji uodn BUIPU!q JO P!J8A aq lie4S peJiU08 S!4i ui aBue4:: JO Ol uoiie::w. t9ë:
-pow oN 'i::JlU08 sI41 U! papnpui ssa¡un Jallas .1 J~na uodn Bu!pu!q aq lie4s suo!leluasaJdaJ JO sluaaaiBe iuasa.i JO JOpd oN :SlN3~33l:ÐV l:3HJ0 'II 89ë:
'u¡aJat JOJ paP!oJd as!MJa4iO aq liew se SJauew Lpns Ol !iuo i::fqns 'an!i JO IiUeJJeM 4llM aJ8s JO iiq a¡niosqe ue liq p8aJsueJi aq ~aM8 JO lsanooJ e9i:
alji lB 'Ueljs IidQJd J8uosJ'ld 'JaN18liq paid=e aslMJaljlo asolji pue 111 ljdeJBeJed ui paU!eiuo:: s.iuew ol f.uo pafqns 'JaliaS JO snlels a4l Ol aiepdQJdde L9i:
sa 'pap S,ueipJenB JO s,'l,,reiU8aidai leuoSJad 's,aaisrui 'llUeJJeM ÁJo¡ni~s liq /iad0.l ieai: ati oi aiiil aiqeia~ew faAUO:: lieljS Ja¡ias :38NVA308 'n 09i:
ieulBpo ue sa sasodJnd 118 JOl paapisuoo aq lie4s uooJelj samieu 6ti:
-Ô!s !ie pue i:eJiucy sii. lo lide al!lls:l a¡q!OOIV 'elpaLU ::uoJpa¡a JO ÁJaAJJap leuOSJad 'iie liq apew aq liew pue OO!lLM U! aq lsnw s80lloU iiV '/ied le41 lië:
oi JO liq ua"!B P. se a,,losJl'l sa aq 1184s /ied liue BUliUasaJdaJ Ja)jOJq JO liauJoiie a41 oi .1 liq ua"!B ÁJaA!lap pue aOj0N iie apnpui lie4s Japua5 auo pue leJnld Lvë:
apnpu! IJ8ljS Jein5u!S 'siiuæd ¡xiuoo a4l JaAsuaLj 'isaiaiui ul SJoss=ns .ia4l pue sa!iid 84i lo iyauaq a4i 01 aJnU! pue puiq lie4S peilu08 S!4J 'sPJo::J gvi:
::nqnd !iB ul papJOOJ aq IJ84S II JO 8O!lOU !ie .lU peJluCY S!4l JaljiiaN ~1~IS8V:: ~38110N ~aNn08 SNOS!:3d ~318Vaè:083l:10N 18V1N08 '1 çve:
'lj::eaiq S,Jaiias WQJl OOliinsai sa5eump JOl uOlpe !iB Bu!"eM liaia4i in4llM (s)lisodap tte:
S,.iM8 lo UJriaJ a4i a"!a:J Ol ios¡a .1 a:eUJolJad ow.oas)jea liew JaM8 'i::JiU08 sl4i wJOlJd oi sasrlai .1 sioa5a 'slIBJ JaI¡aS 'lJoJla luaBil!P Jaije aiqeia)j 8ve:
-Jew aim S,J8l1as a)jeu oi JailSs lo aJnliel uetl Jaljlo uoseai liue JOl ll 'ioeJiU08 S!lji Japun Si4Ô! S,Ja¡las aooll oi linba U! paJd liew 'uo!ldo s,Jal¡aS ie ë:te:
'.iiias JO :peJiu8 sl41 ..un sUOiefnqo lie lo paAaiiaJ aq lie4s Jallas pue JaM8 'uodna.iljM :sw!8P IiUB lo iuau.iias lin¡ ul pue peJluCY Sl41 JO uo!¡n::xa a4i L te:
JOl UOle.p¡uo 'saBeup psiePlnbg uon paBe SB Jal¡aS 10 iunoe atl JOl pUB liq pau!8lai pue paaAoo aq lieu 'Pled aq oi paJ5e (s)iisoap pue .ilin8 Otë:
Áq Pled (s)llodap alji 'sirap 118 lo iuaUJed Buipnpui 'paiJPds awii a4i U!i.IM peiiuCY s14l UJolJad oi SI!8l JaN1 ll =38NVVo!:O::l:d ::0 3l:nlIV:: 'S 68ë:
'sauaa pue SlSO 'seJ s,lauJOiie alaeuosooJ /ied Bu!letd-uou alH lJ JaAOJ oi paiua aq iiets 'papuawe se "S':: '9Lt 88e:
.iidet8 ÁC paZlJOi.ne sdI4su~eia li::ua5euou )0 liouaBe U! Bunoe SJa)jQJq liue pue JaN8 'Ja¡ias apnpUllJ8ljS 'PJepueis silji 10 sasod.nd JOJ '4::lljM 'uOlieB LSG
-llll,ns ul /i OOmeA8Jd ai. 'Peiuo sllji JO ¡no OOisiie 'UO!ieiaid.aiui .1 iuau.oJolua 'Lpoo.i OOipnPU! 'uOlieB!l!1i ul :SlS08 ~S33:: S,A:NI:W,LV 'è: ,98(:,
. . '. . .. . ,. ..... - .. .... :iuaBv 10 rouaÔ!IOOU SSQJ5 JO PBJiU08 Ç8e:
SJ4i JO suo!s!"QJd ai lO tpeaiq 1n¡1!M Ol anp SJ ÁJ8A¡aps!W Lpns ssiun 'MO.isa alji oi i::fqns swaii lO .iiiasJO JaÑl 'oi NäAjlapsp. JOJ uos.i JO lid !ie oi v8G
alaen aq lOU Rets iuaBv 84 '/ied OO!l!8AaJd a4i lo JOAeJ ul SlSoo lJfl sa papJeMe pue paBJeljo pue iuaie"!noo JO spunJ paMQJOSa a4i lO ¡no pue WOJJ pied 88e:
aq oi slullwe asati 4J! paJJno! s¡s pue saal s,Á8UJOUB alqeuoseaJ .iAOOJ iieljs iua5v 'MO.isa alji JO .iiieu i:fqns ai. speaidalu¡ iua5v uiaia4M l!ns e:8G
NJ U! JO '.ipunalj iuafì se OOii:e JO asneoq /ied e apew si iuafì uia.i4M Jauas pUB JaM8 uaaMaq iins ÁUI 'paPUawB se "S:: '9Lv JaldelK 10 SUO!slA L8G
-od ljJ! !idwo I!M iua5v ~)j aielSa ¡eaJpasuaog e ll 'MQJOSa lo ¡no paa"!iap !isnCJaid su.ll Áue JOJ OOiiuri lo iuaixa ati ol idaxa 'aleuiw.i !iin¡ 08G
neljs luaBV JO ii aljl uo 1i1!QB1 lie 'Uo!pe 40fS JO pau.iouo saiiid lie Bu¡l!iou uodn 'uolloe ljOfS U! /ied ljon iuasaJdai IiBW iuaV S8 sioe OSIB puB /ied 6e:G
e siuasaidaJ 04M ÁawiiB UI 'a¡ndsip aljl JO uorppspnf BU!"et lJnoo lln:JP ati lo ~ap ati 4llM awes i!sodap liew iua5v .1 'S8lJed a4l JO Si4Ô! a41 au!w 8e:e:
-.iiap IJ8S UOlO!Psinl luaiadwo JO lJnoo e JO iuaw5pnf e i!iun JO iuawasJnqsip Sll oi OOJ5e oia.i4 sallJed a4i i~un Mo.isa alji JO Jaiieu i:fqns a4i PI04 oi an LGë:
-u¡io 'uOlido s,iuaBv ie 'lieu iufì 'peJllX sii. JO SUO!s!f 84i J8pun sa¡iiiiqeii .1 saiinp s,iuafì oi se iqnop Ul JI 'a:eUJad s,aN1S asnxa iou iieljs 9Gë:
ieap oi spun¡ JO aJrlie:: 'ioelu08 S!41 lo ~puo pue SWai ljl! aouepJ=e U! wa4i asmqsip 'aoueieap oi iosfqns 'pUB MOJosa U! awes PIOlj 'ÁndwoJd çe:e:
Watl llSod Ol u.4i 10 aoeidae liq saÎ!e pus paZlJ04ine si iuaie"!nba .1 spunl 5u!,ao L.iuafì.) iuaBe MQJOSa JO iuaBv BUIS0l8 ÁUI :MOl:8S3'0 VGG
'a¡es JO iiq .1 pop a4l U! pareiu sa!iuJJeM JO anlJ!, Áq .J8 oi aiqel8le aq lieu se idaxa iolap ôuUaNiu! liue Ol sa Jaiias lSUle5e Si4Ô! 8U
re OOllM 's! sa aw. a)j IieS.i 'pun¡ai JOJ puap !iii a)jew oi sUel J8N p. (v) pue :aie JO U!q pue po lie.eM J8pads Ii Jaia Ol /iQJd a4l faA ;:GG
-UO pue Álad J8aè: a4l aie:8l '/ad.l leuosJad an wnlaJ IJ8ljs JaN8 'luaUJBd ljOfS ljJ! f,snooueiimu!s 'pue.J oi pawniai aq 'pueu.p JelJe SÁep LGG
9 U!Lj pUB Ja.8 ÁC puep ua¡¡ uodn 'lie4S spunJ Bu!so pue sllp ne 'loslap aljl amo !iaw!i oi SI!81 Jelia p. (8) :i::lap 841 aJn: oi uoiie:!llOu 40ns JO OGG
id)8 10 aiep wOJ SÁep 08 aAe4 IJ84S Jelia pue ioiap ai. JO OOllLM U! J8lia !i!lOU 'POIJad Áep 9 8li UI4i¡M 'lie4S Ja.8 'JeN1 lO iineJ ou 4BnoJ4i 'a¡ae¡a)\un 6 L G
papuJ S! aiiii s,.iia p. (e:) :Bu¡s .iije SÁep 9 ueti aJW iou JO poad e JOj iuaBV 5uS018 ai Áq MClsa U¡ Pl84 aq If sp.i BulSop ie (L) :Æde iieljs 8 ~ G
saJrpad OOlSOlo 5u!MOIIOl 841 atoqe 4JoJ ias se pâeM ssaiun 'paAteM aq lieljS PJepu~s s14l ii paJinOOJ ainpa.i Bu!sop pu MQJOSa ati 'papuawe se . L LG
"s:: '~vaL' Le:9 UOi:: oi lUBS.nd S.aiiew aSJall saJrSUI iua5e ann aljl Jl 'spun¡ 10 aoue.ooJO uodn papJO aq lIets pop a41 =3!:n0380è:d ÐNIS018 ä 9 L G
'peJ1U08 silji Japun SUO!ieBiiqo Ja4lJnJ lie woJl Jaiias pue 9LG
.i1i8 OOlSOaJ f.alji '(s)iisodap JO pun¡ai e aAta:J JO 'a6eep JO sSOj lj::ns 10 anlJ!A Áq alaeÁed spooo.i
aoueJrSUI iiue .1 %8 aljl J84ii 4i!M .iljla50i 'SJ se V ~ G
/iadd a4i 8)jBl Jaljiia lIets ÆÑ 'pa5ewep os ÁladoJd alji JO UO!ienleA pasase 8lji lo %8 spaoxa uo!leJOlsaJ JO iso 84i JI 'OOlSO8 ie psMO.isa siso uOll 8 ~G
-e.lSaJ ljllM ioeiiuo S!i. lo SWai a41 oi iuenSJnd pa.i II84S OOlSOj8 pue Jallas JO uOlie511qo lJ aq lIets uOleJOlS lo iso 'pa5eup os /idQJd a4i JO e: L e:
UOlier¡eA passsa alji lo %8 paxa iOU saop UO!ieiOlSaJ 10 lSoo pue OOlSOl8 aJolaq linse .1410 JO aJ~ Áq pa5euep S! lii.dQJd aljl ll :SSOL ::0 )lSlè:'O L L G
'J¡edai JO aolOOJ oi limq¡suo s,Ja¡¡aS aq IIM sal!l 5u!ss!w inq 'a5ewep leJnpnJlS JO a6Iea JO IDæj ienpe JO aoP!a ou S! aJi se BuOj os 'aoeidai JO QL e:
J!8daJ isnw Jaiias s¡::Jap paaPlSt aq iou IJ84s ap'1 JOO paiiwii JO 'sa1Bu!4S UJOM JO 5UIIJnO 'sal!i JOO pa)joeJO (C) pu :S)P ioa JO 'S)J8Map!S 'SÁeMa\Jp 50e:
'SMop!M 'Sail 's. ul S)0! JO~w pUB :SJOJ!W .1 'saJnix 'Bu!J1! 'sleM 'SÔU!l!8 U! BU!)lneo JO sd!ljo 'sadeJO 'sluap 'satpie.is 'saiolj l!eU :siuawieaJi OOe:
MOPU!M JO 'JadelJ8M 'SÔUp8A JOOI! JO UO!leJoIOOIP JO 'siods UJOM 'SJooi :sMOPUIM paB50J :suaaos UJoi .1 OO¡sSIW :saljSJu!J ioa J84lO JO allQJew paliid LOG
:oi pallw!l lOU inq 'OO¡prio 'wap' a4l JO UO!llpuCY BU!)M ai. l08Jje iou op ieti SUOiioslJdw! ora4isae SUau .UOllPUO O!iauscy. (e:) :aleJado Ol pau6!sap 9(
SBM waii a4i lj::ljM U! Jauueu alji ul Bu!ie.ido SUBaW .uo!lPUO: OOp¡0M. (L) :peJlu08 S!41 lo sasod.nd JO~ 'paidaoxa leai pue JooM ÁJU!PJO 'alea a"!i08Jl3 goe:
JO sa 5u~s¡x uOliipuOO ati ul paieiuieu uaaq selj 'Áue p. 'iod pue ÁJaqqruljS 'UMel 'oi pai!WIl iou in '5u!pripu! '/adJd a41 ielji pue apeu uaa aAelj va;:
siau.::e¡daJ pue SJiedaJ painba lie ie4l 'Buio5aol a4i oi iosfqns 'pue /idQJd ieai: alji uo aie /iadOJd ¡euOSad JO SUaii liB ie41 WJ!juoo oi '5u!SOj8 oi JOpd COe:
lj5na4i-)jleM B BUlprPU! 'suoidsu! JOJ /iadod a4l oi sse pue 8Os saiiil!¡n ap!"oJd 'aoiiou a¡qeuoeai uodn 'IIets .iiia 'OO!soO ie Mo.isa oiUJ pied aq e:OG
IfBljs J08Jai isoo alji 'BUlsoO oi Jor sP8lap alji pai.i oi a¡qeun SJ .iiias ll 'i::eJluoo sl4i iaoueo liew /ied Jaljiia ljO!4M Bumej 'ssaoxa 4::ns Áed oi iOSla ii L 0;:
J811as JO JaM8 '(q) Iix ljdeiBe.id U! p8!"oJd iunoui a4i spaxa iUauaoldaJ JO JiedaJ 40ns JOJ lSO a4i ll 'aoeldaJ JO J!edai oi alqisodsaJ SJ JaI¡aS iosJap OOe:
e ii pane: ssiun UO!PUCY ::iaUJO: e 10 sluaua::ldai JO SJ!800J a)jew oi paJ!nbaJ iou sl Jaiias '(q) IIX 4deJBeid ui pap!"QJd iUllwe 841 oi dn lied IJ84s 66 L
pue apew aq oi wai. asne: iie4S .iLLSS 'PJepuelS sllji ljJ! !idUoo oi painba ar siuwaoelda JO SJ!8da ll -pavod'lJ iou si08Jap oi sa saiiueJJeM s,J8l1as 86 L
pa"!eM ""et oi pawoop aq lies ia8 'spalap 4::ns s¡xaJ Ii¡aw!l .ilinS ssaiun 'siosJap oi se sPJepueis aAoqe a4i loow iou op ie4i swaii ljons JallSS OJ L6 L
BU¡llM ul lJodai 'aiea a"!i08Jl3 Jaue sliep Oe: u841 ai iou ¡nq liouedno s,JaM8 oi JoLJ 'IJ84S .iMS 'aiea a"!i:!13 alji Jaye sliep Oe: U!ljllM swaii asoljl 'Jo 96 ~
suOliodsu! a)jew JOloeJll BP!tj pasuaoiililaiepdOldde ue JO (pJinOOJ ll) asodnd Lpns JOJ asua0!l leUO!iednoo ue 5ulPIOl pue suo!loasui aw04 U! Bu!Z! 96 L
-relOads IBnp!"!pU! JO UJ!j e aA84 'asuxa s,Jalin8 ie 'JO 'ioasui liew JaMa 'wnpuappe ue U! paPiAOJd as!M.ljio ssiun pa!Js swaV, a41 oi pallwl aq i¡eljs 176 L
IiUeJJeM BUIOOOJoJ a4J 'UO!llPUCY BUp¡0M ul aie ÁJaul40ew pU Su.isÁs Bu!qwn¡d '¡eopiosia 'Bu!lOO 'Bu!lea4 'swall J8luet08 's80ue!ldde 118 'loa ')juel 86 L
°iidas a41 ielji pue a5ewep ¡eJrils .1 aBeuep JaieM 'S)OOI lO aouaplAa alq!slA liue aAet iou op IilJOld aljl lo a5e: pue (luaJ8"!noo JO) SJJ8Meas 'uOli e:6 ~
-epunoJ 'slieM JOpalu! pue JOpa¡xa pue (sl!Jos pue epsei a4l 5u!pnpu!) JOOJ 'Bu!l!80 alji ieljl SlUBJJeM Jaiias :38NVN3lIVVo aNV è:Nd3l: 'NOI103dSNI'N L6 ~
'iipo 01' . aljl ii iuawaAOidUl a4l JOl iuaUJsase JO 06 L
aiew!isa lsBI alji Ol J8nba lunOUe ue paie40 aq '6 J le 'lie4s Jaiias pue pa!jlleJ JO paUJ!JUOO 'pa!JIlJ80 pal. JOO aq IJ8ljS ua!l BUIPuad !ie 'alBa alill::Jl3 68 L
(03nNU.NOO) SNOliO\fSN\flU 3i\fiS3 1\1i: i:O.: SOl:ON\iS 88L
,",,ii.... _......~.vC' Inn..... ..u ...n:: rArtOAn ,"on"tract tor saie and Purchase
If inmaled by all pares. the dauses helow wil be incorpated into the FARIAP ..ontract for sale and Purchase between
JCl-~ _MC~'i it ~;ru.~ Mr!t.f?y . (Seller)
and
Di.1"
Eß ~D '; ~. e:cL is: L .s (Buyer)
concering the Propertd:escrbed as 7 .3 0 i 'l-rH f+ v IS N, I ~T. P Ë-TGß), B.-LR.~ l H 3 '3 7 c I
USE THE RIDERS THAT APPLY
"AS iS"
Buer's Initial - Seler's Initials: If~o . made a part of the Contract. .
(OL)(~ L ) - - (3$)1/ )( )
I
1. Seller' Warrties and Repre entations: Obligations wih Respec to the Proper Umittions
(a) Paragraph XII and Standard 0 and Stanar N are deleed.
(b) This Rider do not relieve Seller's obigations under Stadard W for facts knwn to seDer. However, except as reuired in this
Rider an in Standa W, Seer extend an intends no waran an maes no reresati of any ty, eiher express or
implied, as to the physl condition or histor of the Proper.
(c) seller has re no wrien or verbal notce from any govermental entit or agency as to a currentl uncrrected bt1ildìng,
environmental or saet code violation.
(d) Subje to the provisions an liitatons of this Rider, Buer waies any claims against Sener and, to the extent perited by
law, against any licee involve in the neotiatin of the Contract, for any defecs or other dage 1ht may exit at Closing of the
Coract an be subsequently discover by th Bu or anyone clming by, throuh, under or against the Bur.
2. Inspetion Penod and Right to Cancel.
(a) Buyer sh hae '0 days frm Effective Date ("Inspeon Perodj within which ta. have suc inspeions of the Propert
perormd as Buyer shå desire an utilities shall be made avaiJe by the Selle durin the lnSpecüori Peri.
(b) Buyer shaD be reponsible fo prmpt payment for SU inpeions and repar of damage to and restoration of the Prope
reslting from suc inspeons. Ths prsion shal sure tenniiition of the Contract.
(c) If Budetenine. in Buy's sole discretion, tht th condition of the Prope is not accetable to Buer, Buer may cael
by delver facmile or wren notie of suc eletion to Seller wihin 48 hours çier expration of the Inspeion
the Cotrct
Period. If Buer timel caels th Cotrct, the depit(s) pad shall be immediatel retumed to Buyer; thereupon, Buyer and Seller
shal be released of all furtr obligations under the Contract, excet as provided in Subpargraph 2(b), above.
:~
3. Maintenance.
Seller si main th Propert, includin, but not limited to, the lawn, shrubbery and pol, if any, in their reectie conditons,
existin as of the end of the Insion Peri, ordinar wea an tear excepted. . Buyer shal be pennited aC to the Prope
prir to Closing, wih utilti provided by Seller, for a walk-throUgh to confinn that al items of Personal Proper arl: located on the
Real Proper and that th Propert has been maintained in accordance with the provisions of this pargraph; I
.'
....... ";-,.~.. -'.__.. '''' ~.: -,,,1, I'-I" --= . - p c. ." .,.c....... .... ". _. ,.' :
.._-_.. ...-~,~_..-..._-.._._. .-".. - .,"~ " ~-~. ... .,._. ~ .', ,0,.--......, ....
FBCR-3 101D1 0201 RCf Asodoo of REæs an Th Fl Ba Al Rights Rea-
Page _ of Comphens Rider to the FAR Cont fo Sa an Purcha
'._~ ...... ~
vonltJ1 CIlÇIl~IV~ niucl ioU l.ne r-AH/liAH \,ontract for Sale and Purchase
If initaled by all paries, the dauses ~Iow wil be incorporated int~ the FARI "'ontract for Sae and Purchase between
. ~\ u.Lì¿ fYc- i (Seller)
and..\õ~~
C) t-Me\ (~ .:- LC-S ~ S (Buyer)
concering the Propert"'decrbed as' 73~ I Lfb Äy N _ -S, A re'1ß.ß-- Fe "3370 ì
USE THE RIDERS THAT APPLY
LEAD-BASED PAINT DISCLOSURE
Buyr's initias - Seler's initias: If to be made a part of the Contract.
(~)("EL )--(:101" )(~
/
Lead-Based Paint Waring Statemen
"Ever purchse of any interest in lBidential real propert on whic a rential dwellin was built prr to 1978 is notid that
such prope may prest exposre to led from lead-based pant tht may place yong childre at ri of developing led poisoing. Lead poisoning in young chldren may produc pennanent neuroloic dage, includng leaing disabilities, reduced inteiligence qutient, beaviora problems, and impaired memory. Lea poisoning al poes a paula rik to pregnant women. The
seUer of any interest in reidential rea prope is required to provide the buy wit any inorati on Ie-based pant hazards
from risk assents or inspeon in th seller's posseon an noif th buyr of any known lead-based pant hazards. A ri
asment or inspecion
for possible lead-based paint hazards is recmmened poor to purce."
;;~clore QNIT
. (a) .Presen of led-baed paint or lead-based paint hads (CHECK ONE BEL.O W¡:
Down lead-based pant or led-baed paint hazds are Rresent in the housing. ~
Seller ha no knowedge of lead-ba pant or lead-based pant has in the housing. :
(b) Records an reports availale to the Seller
(CHECK ONE BELOW¡:
o Seller has provded the Buyer wi aD available recrds and repors peraining to led-bas pai or led-baed paint hads in
the housing. Ust doents:
o Seller
has no reprts or records pertaining to lead-based paint or lead-baed paint haards in the housing.
Buyer's Acknowledgement ONfT
(e) Buyr ha receied copies of aD infortion listed abve.
::
. (d) Buer ha reced the pamphlet Protect Your Faily from Lead in Your Home. t
(e) Buyer ha (CHECK ONE BELOW¡:,:
o Receied a 10-day opportunit (or oth mutually agreed upn perod) to couct a risk assemen or inspecion for the
prence of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards; or . !
o Wai th opp to conduct a rik asent or inspe fo the pr of lea-bed pant or lebas pànt has.
~CknOWledgement ONmAL)
~~:~~~~fo~e~ the Seller of the _seHer'~_o~i~~ons un~~A~ u..s.c. ~~(~~~.a.w~ot~cenSees respon-..~,.. . " ..
Certrfcation of Accuracy
The following pares ha reviewed the information above and cert, to the best of their knwledge, that the informtion they have
Prcv;ded ~ tr an acrorats. )
BUYR DATE ,,
b/ltt/03. L d :.¿~b .Y../3¿~-.
JÇ ll~ Ti~n 13 /~
D,t TE
. J/~9.e1 ~e. /?- 0 ~
JE / SeUii lJnse
l/DATE
Any persn or perons who knowingly violate the provisions of the Residential Lead-Base Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992 may be subject to civil and criminal penales and potentiaJ triple damages in a private civil lawsuit.
F8R-3 10/01 (;2001 Raia Asation of REæs and Th Fl Ba A! Rights Reered
Pag _ of Comprns Roar to the FAR Coac fo Sa an Purc
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
In reference to the Contract for Sale and Purchase ("Contract")
between
(kNA-n-t1 ~ \Ju"L~ EO M l! e.~-~y
hereinafter referred to as ("Seller"), and
DLi\J~ t br'i-: LE&J
hereinafter referred to as ("Buyer"), dated Ju.¡I~ i ~ i :)0 ~
covenng
the real property
'7 ~e I i. T' Ä-s N.
commonly
described
as
s, PEn.UiUlèG- 0~7o i ,
the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows:
1. School Boundaries. Buyer acknowledges that the county school
board has full decision-making powers to modify or chana-e public school
boundaries at any time and that boundaries are currently re-=examined by the
school board on a regular basis. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has not
relied on any verbal representations from Seller or its representatives with
respect to public school boundaries and that Buyer is responsible to make its
own investigation of any such matters with the county school board.
Dated: &.~ \~ \ ctDll'?
~¥
~
Dated:
L Lt
l.Ðe 2.
¿-,.~
£/~~,
BUYER
BUYER
B7.School Boundares Addendum V.2003,1
Revised 05/13/03
~
KELLER WlLLIMSQD
REA L T Y
MLS# r¡ 0 ;;i: S-l: (J
Receipt for Escrow Deposit
Please be advised that on behalf of Keller Wiliams Realty, an escrow deposit has been
received from (Buyers)
Ð Li \/~ g. ~ \..~ L6~.i
in the amount of $ :: ¡ C 06 for the offer I contract dated
For the Propert located at:
..u.t.. l~, ~o3
l"?a l4-~ Ave N'
0, Pi=~~~
Personal Check # g 4- ç- Cash ~
has been received by (Agent): G i :i N '" LE ~.s
Escrow Agent /4 i;
Escrow Agent
Purchasers: Be advised that all checks wil be deposited immediately accordíng1o Florida Statutes.
In the event of a refund of Escrow, all checks must clear the banks before refund checks wil be issued.
.:. .-~. '-:"'!:'~"':"'~-'."'?""...:
To the Escrow Agent:
Please be advised that on behalf of Keller Wiliams Realty, the followig is in receipt of
the above deposit.
Date: Signed:
B8.Receipt for Escrow Deposit V.2003. i Revised 05/13/03
5TA TE CE:FiTll:;I£D B.UíL.tJ/t'IC; (7(~i/~jTF-:;j,(:T()R # CB(::OS.99,.J!.)
ST..., TE C:;E:F?TíFfED ROOFING COl-/Tí-,,-; CTC!R;''; CCC 13255 f 9
SrA TE CEl?Ttf-!ED AIR CONDITIONING Co,-vrRA CrOfT # CAC ! 813213
f"'f)t¡' ;/",.l"".
i.) 'L. i l,!: (f.' ! l.J J
Ci'jil Engins.õ'r G¡'3(juat",
CertifierJ Bui!Cjin:'J ¡¡¡specrai :38CCi #7'5'52
C;E;rtifi.2G Ho~is¡ng R¡.:~i'ìc;rd;i;:-/¡ljn ¡:ì~J¡~,'i:::;:¡U( SBCC:1 #. I ï71
;:'roperty rJ!3uiienanci.:: 8., r-!-:'t:s;~¡,~: ¡nsr~.!;~:!~.tc:;" :33CC¡ #3ìSG
r=.eì1¡f:~::d C:cjasral C:t;:r!:);;'i!~.._tj:.:,n ¡¡'¡S~~.i~~;:~t~~!r SBCC:I #432
Cei'tified ASH: Mernl)er #20'1682
Registered Professional írispE'c-tor FA.BI #283
,~,r'qeriCa(1 So:=:iI3ry of Cj'ijij Er:~~ine~~rs (.,...SC:E) - ,':sscc¡.:üe ~i1f~n;ber
fvl efr; iJe:' - Slîuc:t U l3 i E :~g ¡;l ~~:i:.~ ri r:~i ¡ r; 31. ¡ t uj. e ¡~-, ttl e .~" SC E
ri¡l~'::rnber - Intenìation8! ,':,:=.3¡::C:;.!:0f1 of E.i:;ctr:i':al ínspectûrs
.__.
* Please Read The Entire Report Carefully *
PROPERTY LOCATION:
730 14th Avenue North
BUYR:
Present
NOTE: Pelican Property Inspections, Inc. (The Company) requires a Pre-Inspection to be signed by the
Client prior to the Company perfomiing an inspection and promulgating a Home Inspection Report. If
Client is not present at the beginning of
Inspection Agreement, the Client by accepting, paying
the
the inspection, or, for 'whatever reason, did not sign the Prefor, or using in any way, this Home Inspection
Report, explicitly acknowledge and agree to be bound by all of
the terms and conditions of
Pre-Inspection Agreement which accompanies this inspection report.
INSPECTION DATE:
23 June, 2003
TIME OF ii,,'SPECTIOjV:
4:00 PM
the
..
WEATHER CONDITION: Not Raining - FO - 80
We did not have the opportunity to inspect the house when it was raining. While t.l:haustive efforts
were made to detect moisture penetration. leakage or water seepage may occur during pen'ods 0/ raill
STR UCTURE STA TUS: occupied, fuished.
The presence o//umiture and the occupants belongings restricts the inspection to on(v those areas that are visible
and/or accessible, No/umiture or personal items are moved during the course of the inspection.
DPE OF STRUCTURE: Residential
Supp. Ap. C.
This inspection was performed to meet the ASHI~ Standards of Practce ( a copy is included in
the report or go to ww.ashi.com)unlessotherwisenotedinthereport.This visual inspection
is not a past or present building code compliance inspection. Housing components are
evaluate on the general time peod in which they were built, instlled and/or manufactured.
It is recommended that areas of concern noted in the report and Summary be
addressed/evaluated by licensed profesionals or contractors.
GROUNDS AND APPURTENANCES:
lASCAPING:
Ground cover is estblished and vegetation does not appe to adversly affect the stctue. Vegetation in close
proxity or in contact with the strctue ca daage the rof and/or cause building movement and should be
removed.
GRADING & DRAIN4GE:
Grading and drainage appears to be functional.
Positive drainage away from the foundation should be monitored on a routine basis. As a generl rule, the grade away
from the foundation should be a mium fal of six inches for the firs ten feet on al sides of the foundation. The
measurement of the gradig, detemuation of floo zonig and spulation of futue flooing is not \\ith the scope
otths inspection. For flood history, it is recommended that you contact your insurance carer.
DRIvEWAY:
The drveway appears to be fuctionaL.
:_~
WALKWAYS:
TIie sidewalk appears to be fuctional.
IRRGATION SYSTEM:
Functional: Yes
The irgation system was operated. The insption of ths system is limted to the opeation of the sprier zones.
The timer/control system is opeted on manual mode Oiùy. The option of
the timer and the zone settings is not
within the scope of ths inspection. Irigation pumps are operated if present. The evaluation of indi vidual head
perfoffiance and proper coverage is excluded from this inspction. Periodic replacement of sprier heads is routine
maintenance. Additional information on irgation systems and water conservation can be accessed on
www.rainbird.com, www.swfd.state.f1.us and other related web sites.
FENCES, WAUS & GATES:
The detemuation of the o\\nership and condition of the fence/wall is not within the scope of the inspection.
PORCHESIFRIDA ROOM/DECK:
The porch appears to be fuctionaL.
The condition of the framg members/foundation of an enclose porchIlorida room that are not visible is not \\ithin
the scope of ths inspection. It is recommended that a pet history be obtained if porches/florida rooms have been
added aner original constrction. No ceiling coverigs are removed as par of ths inspection. Moisture penetration is
conunon occurence in an enclosed porcliJlorida room.
2
ROOF SYSTEM:
ROOFING CDiERlNG AL-lTERJALrS):
Asphalt composition shigles
CONDITION OF ROOF COVERING:
TIie roof covering appes to be advancing in age. Budget to replace this roof covering.
HOW OBSERVED:
Observed from ground level, inside the attic and on the roof. The majority of the flashig details are below the roof
covering and ca not be viewed.
Ai 41.\r"ENAJÝCE:
It is recommended that leaves/debris be removed from the roof. Areas of flashig and valleys are the typically the first
to leak and should be routinely monitored and addressed as needed. Tile roof coverigs requie yealy maintenance to
replace broken tile. Flat roof coverigs that are fibeglass/modifed bituen require aDual painting/selig.
JJfPORTANT NOTE:
The detemiinatioii of leakage is based upon the visible iiispectioii of the roof system 011 today's inspectio/i.
Conditions cliangefrom day to day and the absence of visible leakage is not an indication that the roofwil remain
watertight in the future. The life expectancy of the roof is not within the scope of this inspectioll The roof iiispectio/i
is not a guarantee or warranty. Metal roofs over florida roomsporches, carprts, etc. are not considered penanent
stnictiires, often experience leakage and are specifcally excluded from this inspection. ~.:
EXTERIOR OF STRUCTURE:
Ði7ERIOR WAL COVERING MATERIAL(S):
Stucco
ÐiTERIOR W:4L CONDITION:
The wall coverig appears nmctional.
TRIM:
The tr material appears to be in serviceable condition.
EA.rES:
The eave material appears to be in serviceable condition.
P Al.I\T/IVEA. THERPROOFL\'G:
The exterior walls and tr have been painted. Any peling or flakg paint should always be removed and the
surtàce repainted. Testing for lead based paint is not with the scope of
ths insption.
¡nNDOWS:
TIie windows appear in serviceable condition from the exterior view.
3
STEPS/STAIRS:
The exterior steps and stairs appear to be functionaL.
R\7ERlOR DOORS:
A representative nwnber of exterior doors were operated and appeared to be fictional.
FOUNDATION:
TYPE:
Crawl Space. The crawl space was visully incted. Please refer to the suar.
Viewig may be lited due to restrcted space, duct work, mechanca eqlÙpment and/or plwnbing piping. No vapor
baner is present on the soil floor. Proper ventilation is importt for a crawl space. It is recommended that any
vegetation be removed from close proxity of the crawl space and crawl space venting should be no less than 1
square foot of venting for every 150 square feet of floor space. Gutterig is recomm.ended for a home with a crawl
space.
VEHICLE STORAGE:
l1VTERlOR:
The interior walls/ceiling appear to be functional.
The floorig appes functionaL.
:_~
T'EHICLE DOORS:
The vehicle door was operated and appears to be functionaL.
AUTOM4TlC OPENER:
Opner was tested for opetion and appears functional.
Electronic sensors are present. Electronic sensors on a garge door opeer is a recmmended safety lèatue for all
garage doors. Most garage door openers installed prior to 1993 do not have tls safety featue. Please be sure to
obtain and test the remote ¡mit durg the Imal inspection at closing. Remote unts are not tested. Additional
inoff1ation on garage door opener safety feahires can be accessed at W\\w.cpsc.gov.
A1TIC:
ACCESS TO ATTIC:
Via scuttle hole and was viewed from inside the attic. Attic areas are inspcted by traversing the center of the span.
Areas with less than 36" of cleaance or where other dagerous or adverse conditions exist are not traversed or
viewed.
FRING:
Strctural Framing Type:
Roof Sheathg Type:
Conventional
1 x deckig
The method of construction appears to be consistent \\ith stdad building practices of the time period the house was
constrcted. Framing members are checked in random areas only. These areas are asslUued to be representative of the
whole
.l
THERAL-l INSULATION:
Loose filL. It is recommended that you contact the local power company (in pinellas county access www.lpl.com) and
upgrading insulation. Other benefits and
inquire about any progams under whch you they may help fud the cost of
programs are also available.
VEiVllLATION PROJ7DED BY:
Sofiìt
INACCESSIBLE AREAS:
The inspection of the attic indicated the existence of inaccessible strctual cavities. In addition, areas of the attic
were inaccessible due to inadequate cleaance or are obstrcted by strctual membes and/or mechancal apparatus.
The presence of insulation in the attic restrcts a full view of the condition of the ceiling fraITng members. This attic
could not be fully viewed.
SIGNS OF MOISTU PENETRTION:
~
signs of prior moisture peetrtion were observed tody in the visible, unobstrcted portions of the attic. The
detemlIation of leakage is baed upon the visible inspection of the rof system on today's inspection. Conditions
change from day to day and the absence of visible leakage is not an indication that the roof will remain watertight in
the future.
STRUCTURAL FRAMING:
EXTERIOR WALIROOF:
~
Ex1erior walls are constructed of concrete masonry units and woo.
The roof
framing is constrcted of
woo.
INTERIOR WAL & CEIUNGS:
Interior walls are constrcted of woo. Some interior walls may be load beg, n,ùie others serve as
pari tions.
IMPORTAlT NOTE:
Iii stnlctures that are advancing in age, walls may be bowed, floors may settle or dip in the center, and rooms and
doors may not be plumb and/or square. Structural engineering is not within the scope of this inspection.
SCOPE OF INSPECTION:
The conditioii of wood framing members that are 1I0t visible due to e.l:terior or interior wall aiid ceiliiig coverings is
not within the scope of this inspection. No wall/ceiling coverings are removed. This inspection and report does not
address wood destroying organisms, insects or pests and is not a WOO Inspection Report peraiiiing to Florida
Statutes. A Wood Destroying Organism, insect and pest inspection by a licensed temlitelest inspector is
recommended. WDO, insect or pest damage which may be concealed or which may exist at areas other than those
selected for close examination caii not be discovered within the scope of this inspection. The possibility of uiidetected
damage is a risk.
5
\/
GENERAL INTERIOR:
IMPORTANT NOTE:
The /lotation 01 cosmetic discrepancies is not within the scope 01 this inspection. Also, rooms that are the result 01
garage enclosures, velocity zone/blowout wall enclosures, patio enclosures or other additions may/wil experience
periodic moisture penetration.
CEILINGS/WAL:
Ceilings/walls appe to be fuctionaL.
Sign of moistue penetration (past or preset) were noted in the following areas: none
FLOORS:
Floorig material appears fuctionaL.
The floor coverig hiders inspction of the subfloorig or slab.
DOORS:
A representative number of doors were opened and closed and fOlU1d to be fiinctional.
WINDO¡VS:
A representative numbe of widows were operated and found to be fuctional excet as:~ed.
SAIOKE DETECTORS:
A smoke detector is present.
The operation of the smoke detector is not with the scope of ths inspection. A smole detector should be routinely
checked to ensure operation. Batteries should be changed imediately upon occupacy.
BATHROOA,f WATER CLOSET:
All water closets (toilets) were operated and apper to be functional except as noted.
BATHROOM L4VATORY:
All
lavatories (sin), tàucets, and drains appe functional.
BATHTUB(S):
All tubs, faucets and drains were operated and appear fiinctional.
BATHROOM SHOHERS:
All showers and shower enclosues appe fuctionaL.
Leakage of the shower enclosure is checked, but ca not waranted as waterght.
BATHROOM CABINTS & COUNTERS:
All cabinets and counters appear functional.
6
BATHROOAI VElvTILATION:
All bathrooms were ventilated with either windows or exhaust fans.
KITCHEN COUNERS/CABINETS:
TIie counter/cabinets appear to be fuctionaL.
KITCHEN SINK:
The sink, faucet, supply and drain lines apper to be fuctionaL.
Di'EN/COOKTOP:
Ths iinit was opeated and appears to be fuctional.
TIie operation of the self cleanig featue (if applicable) is not with the scope of ths inspction.
KITCHEN r'ENTILATlON:
The fan was operated and appears fuctional.
REFRGERA TOR:
This unit was operated and appes functionaL.
The operation of icemakers is not with the scope of ths inspection.
Refrigerators that are not on at least 24 hours prior to the inpection can not be fully assessed.
~~
DISPOSAL UNIT:
The disposal unt was opeated and appes fuctionaL.
DISHir:4SHER:
Ths unit was operated and appears fuctionaL.
FlASHING MACHINE:
This unit was operated and appears fuctional.
Arored hoses are recommended for waslug maclues to prevent ruptue of standiid rubbe hoses.
DRYER:
Ths unit was operated and appes fuctional.
TIlIs iuut was tested to verilY operation of
the heating element. Drer venting requires peodic cleang.
TIie condition of the drer vent flue is not with the scope of
ths insption. It is recommended that dryer vents be
professionally cleaned imediately upon occupancy. Drers that vent though the roof should be cleaned at least once
per year. The only recommended drer duct is a smooth walled metal duct. Plastic or th metal ducts should be
replaced. Importt safety infomiation regarding your cloths drer venting can be accessed at W'NW.Cpsc.coni.
LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS:
The operation of low voltage systems is not with the scope of
ths insption. Low voltage systems include but are
not limted to: alar systems, intercom systems, cable television/satellite wirng and equipment, close circuit
television systems, telephone wirig and equipment, Internet cable and speaker systems.
7
SCOPE OF APPLJA.NCE INSPECTION:
The determination of the age and life expectancy of the appliances is not within the scope of the inspection. Each
appliance is operated to ensure that it is currently functioning on the day of the inspection. Conditions change from
day to day. The current operation of the appliances does not warrant or gurantee future serviceability.
Temperatures are not calibrated. Digital/electronic controls and/or timer on appliances are not inspected. No
installation manuals specifc to these appliances are reviewed. 17ese manuals may contain approvals. listings and
the appliances. It is recommended that the seller proi'ide to
labels specifc to the proper installation and operation of
the buyer the manuals for all appliances.
PLUMBING SYSTEM:
lvlAIN WATER SHUT-OFF:
Located on the exierior walL.
ir:4TER PRESSURE TEST:
When tested with a water pressure gauge, the water pressue is with nonnal range of 40 - 80 p.s.i.
WATER SUPPLY PIPING:
Visible pipe material is priarily copper/galvaned. Budget to replace the original piping.
¡VASTE PIPING:
Visible pipe material is priarly plastic/metaL.
=-~
VEl'./ PIPING:
Visible vent piping is priarily cast iron
WATER FLOHr:
Water flow was found to be functional when thee or more fixtes were opeated simultaeously.
DRANS AJlD TR4PS:
Drains and traps appear to be nonna!. No blockage of
waste system was noted on today's inspection \vhen
thee or more fixtures were operated simultaneously. The condition and ty of
material (cast iron, orangeburg,
plastic, clay) used for the lUlderground sewer/drain can not be detenned durg the course oftls Home Inspection.
We make efforts to determe if signs of a blockage in the system are prest. However, determation of the
the underground drainage system is not with in the scpe of
ths inspedion. It is
\ condition and serviceability of
-~recommended that you inquire with the owner regarding any repair or replacement of ths systempiping.
SOURCE OF HATER:
Public Utility
WATER HEATER:
Size in U.S. Gallons:
30
Approxiate Age:
UnkO\\11
FUNCTIONAL:
YES
8
SCOPE OF INSPECTION:
The majority of the piping for the plumbing s)/stem is concealed by walls. occupant's belongings, sub floor or slab
and the attic. As a reslt, only a small fraction of the plumbing system can be viewed. The interor condition and
future serviceability of supply, drain and waste piping is not within the scope of this inspection. The condition of
piping under the slab or hidden from view is not with the scope of this inspection. The condition of solar heating
units and heat recover units is not within the scope of this inspection. Water heaters that were off at the beginning
of the inspection may not be able to be fully assessed/inspected.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:
AWN PANL LOCATION: Exterior
SUB PANEL LOCATION(s): NIA
TYPE OF mER-CURRNT
PROTECTION:
Circuit breakers
INCOMING SERVICE &
VOLTAGE:
Approxiate amperage:
150
120/240 volts
COPPER WIG: Visible: YES
MUTISTRA ALUl: Visible: YES
ALUM BRACH CIRCUIS: Visible: NO*
If Aluminum branch wiring (not multi-strand) is present in the branch circuits, it is recommended this wiring be
inspected/evaluated by a licensed electn'cian. Further infonnation on aluminum branch circuit wiring can be obtain
accessing ww.cpsc.gov.
from the Consumer Products Safety Commission by
KNOB & TIE: Visible: NO*
~
If/i.lOb and tube wiring is present, it is recommended you budget to replace. Knob and wiring was used in
wiring may become biittle. isfimctional(v obsolete and is at the
the 20th century. This type of
the early decades of
end of its sen'ice life.
* - The majority of
the electrcal wiring in the house is concealed and can not be viewed.
ADEOUACY:
TIie incoming electrcal service appeas to be adequate for the curent usage.
GROUNDING ELECTRODE
CONDUCTOR:
VisibleIoted
FIXURS A.1I OUTLETS:
A representative number of
wall outlets, wall swtches and light fixiUes were operated. An occupied, furnished
house restrcts our access and does not allow for inspection of all receptacles or switches.
GFCI RECEPTACLESIBREAKRS: Noted
Current electrcal practice dictates that Ground Fault Circuit Interpters (GFCI) be located in areas where
potential electrcal shock hazard exsts. This life safety feature is a recent practice and marr properies predate the
lise ofGFCls. Jfthis structure contains no GFCls, it is recommended they be installed in the appropriate locations.
Appropriate locations include, biit are not limited to outdoor, bathroom, kitchen, pool and garage receptacles.
Further infonnation on GFCI receptacles can be obtained by accessing ivw.jackelec. com/residential/ground Jault
or wwii'.estivalhydro.com.
9
ARC FAULT CIRCUI INRRUPTERS: None
AFCI receptacles are a new industry standard in 2001. It is recommended that existing housing be upgraded with
these receptacles in rooms designed for sleeping. Additional inormation on these receptacles can be obtained at
www.geindustral.com.
SCOPE OF J¡VSPECTJON:
The electrcal inspection is limited in scope. If the inspection revealed electrical deficiencies, it is recommended a
licensed electrician render a professional opinion on the electrical system. Also, a professional opinion by
a licensed
electrician is recommended for an older home, one with knob and tube wiring or one that has been electrcally
upgraded. (example: Juses to breakers, new sub panel, new panel box, building additions) 17le majority oj the
floor or slab and attic. As a result,
electrical wiring is concealed in or by wall cavities, occupant's belongings, sub
only a small Jraction oj the wifing can be visibly inspected. Regarding overhead liglrting, attempts will made to
detemiine if no ilumination is due to Jailure of tire lighting fixture or an expired bulb. However, in maiiy cases this
may be impossible due to height or iiiaccessibility.
AIR CONDITIONING Be HEATING SYSTEM" (HVAC):
TYPE OF AI C01lDrrO!v7NG SYSTEAf:
Electrical split system
APPROXIA-4TE/ESTIA-4TED AGE OF SYSTEM:
Air Handler: 1988 ~
Compressor/condenser (exterior unt): 2003
Comments: The air handler is advancing in age.
Approxiate Size in BTU's!ons: 36,000/3
the inspection. To properly size a
the HVAC system relative to the house is not with the scope 01'
The sizng 01'
HV AC system, a load calculation/manual J (based on numerous factors such as wall and attic insulation, orientation,
shading, \vidows and treatments. occupacy, etc.) must be performed by a professional mechancal engieer. We do
inspect for obvious and blatant oversizg or undersizg.
DISTRlBl.10N SYSTEAf:
Supply and retur air via duct work. The seams/joints of the ductwork should be inspected on a routine basis for
openigs that may cause leakage. This distribution inspection is limited in scope and not does include tire
detemiination of the presence oj dirtdust that can cause allergic reactions nor does it provide sustenance for
\ bactera, molds andfungi. Duct work doe not have an indefinite life spa and should be replace when the system is
. -- replaced. The presence of air borne parcles of asbestos or gass of ureaformaldehyde is excluded. Evaluation of duct
design is excluded. It is recommended that you contact the local utility (in pinellas COUDty accesse www.fpl.com)
and inquire about programs available to inspt your duct work for energy loss and repair.
The evaluation of the condition and effciency 01' the filter(s) is not within the scope of this inspection. It is
recommended that you change the filter( s) imedia!elY _~i:n_~.c_i:~a~ It is furter recommended that you begin a
schedule of routine professional maintenanC7sefe on the system upon occupancy.
SlJPPLY & RETURN TEA1PERATURS:
Supply registers: 57°
Return air temperature: 75°.
DitTerence: 18°
10
COOLING CAPABILITIES:
Functional: Yes
The ability of the unit to produce conditioned air on the day of the inspection does not warrant or guarantee future
serviceability.
HEATING n'PE:
Electrc heat pump.
HEA TING CAPABILITIES:
The heat pump was not operated in the heatig cycle since the ambient temperature was above 60° at the
could damage the
the heating cycle when the temperature is above 60°
the insption. Opation of
time of
mut. The heat pump was operated in the cooling mode.
The emergency heat temperatue wa approxiately 95°
A-WNTENANCE:
It is recommended that you have your Hl':4C system serviced upon takiiig possessioii oJ the property aiid coiitiniie to
have it serviced twice yearly to ensure effcieiit and proper operation. Sen'icing the HV.4C $J'steni upon taking
possession includes cleaning/jushing the condensate lines and maintaining the proper refrigerant levels. Gas and oil
systems should be sercedinspected pror to the heating seaon. The presence, or lack thereof. of aicciliarylback up
heat strips serving a heat pump is excluded. Pleas be sue to ru your heater agai on the final walk though.
Important safety infomiation on many tyes and styles ofheaters is available at WWW.cpsc.com.
SCOPE OF INSPECTION:
:_~
Evaluation of the refrigeraiit charge is not within the scope of this inspection. The life expectancy of the air
conditioning system is not within the scope of this inspection. The air conditioning inspection is limited in scope.
This inspection is limited to the detennination of if the unit is producing conditioned air on the date of the
inspection. The dismantling or opening of access panels of the HVAC equipment
is not within the scope of this
inspection. Digital/progrmmable thenostats are not tested for operation and not included in the inspectioii.
ii
GENERAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS:
IMORTANT NOTE: Every effort is made to identify the major deficiencies in this house. Several factors
influence our abilty to locate these major issues. These factors include the age of the house, occupancy status
at the time of the inspection, amount of personal belongigs in the house, complexity of the design of the house
and system components, changes and additions to the original structure, deferred maintenance and
homeowner/amateur work/repair.
a home inspection. Our
- Uncertainty regarding the condition of the house cannot be wholly eliinated by
inspection findings do not represent every deficiency in the structure. The preparation of this home inspection
within the Standards of Practice of the American Society of Home Inspectors is intended to reduce, but not
eliminate, the uncertainty regarding the potential for component or system failure and to reduce the potential
that such component or system may not be initially observed. This Home Inspection is not a guarantee or
warranty, expressed or implied. As a result, it is recommended that you budget between 1% - 3 % of the
purchase price for annual maintenance and repair.
c
- This Home Inspection Report was not compiled for the purpose of obtaining
homeowners insurance. This report was not penormed to comply with an insurance
company guidelines. The insurability of this propert is not within the scope of this
inspection. Questions regarding the insurability of this properly due to its condition
should be directed to your homeowners insurance carrier.
~
12
State CcrLfiBr.i Bund~no C:üntr3ctO¡~ f: C~8C:05993("
State Certi-ned RODr~n~~ (;ontractcir:: C(~(~'1325:51S
State Certifii:~cl Air C;(~ndit¡c; ninçj i~c:-:tr8ct6r ff Ct\C;O~18"j 3213
*
SUMMARY
*
IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE RE: The Summary page is provided to allow the reader a brief
overvew of the report. This page is not encompassing. Reading this page alone is not a substitute for reading
the report in entirety. The entire Inspection Report, includin the ASHI(! Standards of Practice, limitations,
Scope of Inspection and Pre-Inspection Agreement must be carefully read to fully assess the findings of the
inspection. This list is not intended to determine which items may need to be addressed per the contractual
requirements of the sale of the propert. Any areas of uncertainty regarding to the contract should be
clarified by consultin an attorney or real estate agent.
It is recommended that any deficiencies and the components/systems related to these deficiencies noted in the
report be evaluated! inspected and repaired as needed by licensed contractors/professionals PRIOR TO TH
CLOSE OF ESCROW. Further evaluation PRIOR to the close of escrow is recommended so a properly
licensed professional can evaluate our concerns further and inspect the remainder ~!Je system or component
for additional concerns that may be outside our area of expertse or the scope of our inspection. Please call our
offce for any clarifications or further questions.
I ..I(~l-\_.
Ei,-i:I.~
~I'-'R"~
,I
It is recommended the following issue(s) and related
systems be fuer evaluated and addressed as needed
by
a Licensed Electrical Contractor.
1) The electrical masUriser is missing the top cover. As a res.ult, water is
running down the mast and into the meter base and into the electrical paneL.
The breakers and wiring in the panel are wet. The breakers and fasteners are
rusting. This is a safety hazard. Individual
lights in the house dimmed several
times during the inspection. Replacement of the panel is recommended.
2) Several tree limbs are in contact with the service entrance cables.
3) Unprotected wiring was noted in the front of the garage.
It is recommended that electrical wiring be protected from
mechanical/physical damage by conduit.
\1 4) The GFCI receptacles located on both sides of the kitchen sink do not
interrupt the circuit when tested. Replacement of this GFCI is recommended.
.............................................................................................................................................
13
R();~H~.~
It is recommended the following issue(s) and the roof be
further evaluated and addressed as needed by a Licensed
Roofing Contractor.
1) The plumbing vent stack flashing has been chewed off by rodentJvarmints.
Repair is warranted. Moisture penetration was noted in the attic at the vent
stacks.
2) The shingle roof covering is advancing in age. Budget to replace.
3) The is recommended that the tree limbs be trimmed from the roof.
PLUt./1¡ ,811")(; :
It is recommended the following issue( s) and related
systems be fuer evaluated and addressed as needed by
a Licensed Plumbing Contractor.
left side shower. -
1) When the controls are operated, water flows from the control handles of the
2) The toilet in the right side bathroom is not fully secured to the floor.
3) The water heater is at the end of its service life. The piping and relief valve
could not be viewed.
í
TWj: p.
'.)111,-,1"
It is recommended the following issue( s)
.~and related
system( s) be fuer evaluated and repaied as needed by
a Building Contractor and/or Professional
licensed in
the appropriate field.
1) The dryer does not vent to the exterior.
2) Minor wood decay is present in the roof decking near the attc fan.
3) It could not be determined how the left side rear porch roof line is being
supported. Prior cracking was noted in the stucco finish on the west end of
this beam.
4) The hallway ceilng fan does not function.
5) The windows are the originaL. Several do not function or do not function
properly. Cracked panes were noted.
6) The foundation/structure exhibits signs of previous settement. The owner
represented this settement has been recently addressed. Repairs were
noted to the foundation piers and beams. Repair to termite damage was
noted. New piers have been installed. Prior movement in the stem walls was
noted.
Q
I certify that I have no material interest, present or contemplated in the subject property or the
improvement thereof I have no association with any contractor, Realtor or with any other party who may
benefit from the sale and/or improvement of the subject property. The information noted above is a
professional opinion and not meant to be a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. Please refer to
the Pre-Inspection Agreement for details.
Scott C. Kaylor
Civl Engineenng Graduate
Cerüed Building Inspector SBCCI #7552
Certfied Coastal Constrction Inspector SBCCI #432
Propert Maintenance & Housing Inspector sacci #3756
Cerüed ASHI Member #201682
Inspector FABI #283
Cerüed Housing Rehabilitation Inspector sacci #1771
Amencan Society of Civi Engineers (ASCE) - Associate Member
Member- Structural Engineenng Instiute of
the ASCE
Member- International Association of Bectricallnspectors
Registered Professional
Digital Exhibits:
electrical
Digital pictures are taken for convenience purposes only.
The existence or absence of digital photos has no relation
with the importance of an issue noted in the Summary.
~
j
~;,
15
",/' ..
vent stacks
:...-~'
.~-
electrical riser
Ground fault interrupter
the GFI circuitry within the
outlet checks constantly for a
difference between the current
in the black and white wires
if there is a difference (even as
little as 5 milliamps). there is a
current leak (possibly through
your body) and the GFI shuts
down the receptacle and other
receptacles downstream
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
mm
if the GFI is in the
panel, the entire circuit
will be shut down
01 ¡
,
,
,
,
~:
16