IN THE
Q 1 2024
NOW
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE & DEFAULT SERVICES EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE: •
Appellate Court Clarifies Deadline For Seeking Post-Judgment Advances In Foreclosure Actions
•
11th Circuit: sharing debtor’s information with third party vendor without more is still actionable under the FDCPA
•
Under The Penalty Of Perjury - Preparation Of The Lost Note Affidavit
•
What Constitutes A Successful Objection To A Foreclosure Sale
•
Loan Modifications Must Be Pled And Proven In A Foreclosure Action
•
Use Of Prior Settlement Agreements To Defeat Unauthorized Defenses In Subsequent Foreclosures
EDITOR’S LETTER
WELCOME Editor and Chair of the Mortgage Foreclosure & Default Services Division
“
“
Jason M. Vanslette
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”
–John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Our Mortgage Foreclosure and Default Practice
We look forward to growing our practice group
continues to grow nationwide as we expand
in 2024 and doing it the “KK” way, which has
jurisdictionally ow providing services to our clients
been our secret to success for many years. We
in Florida, New York, Illinois, and Indiana.. Our
do not “conform” to traditional firm models and
“growth” has been an organic production that has
truly gear our practice specifically to our client’s
risen from our client’s representation needs and,
individualized needs and business goals. We hope
more importantly, their trust in our product.
you enjoy our contributions the quarter and look forward to a successful new year.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS APPELLATE COURT CLARIFIES DEADLINE FOR SEEKING POST-JUDGMENT ADVANCES IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 11TH CIRCUIT: SHARING DEBTOR’S INFORMATION WITH THIRD PARTY VENDOR WITHOUT MORE IS STILL ACTIONABLE UNDER THE FDCPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY - PREPARATION OF THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT . 8-9 WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUCCESSFUL OBJECTION TO A FORECLOSURE SALE . . . . . 10-11 LOAN MODIFICATIONS MUST BE PLED AND PROVEN IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION.. . 12-13 USE OF PRIOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS TO DEFEAT UNAUTHORIZED DEFENSES IN SUBSEQUENT FORECLOSURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14 CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-19 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23
Appellate Court Clarifies Deadline For Seeking Post-Judgment Advances In Foreclosure Actions
By: Bryan Jones, Attorney
KK TAKEAWAY: If a foreclosure plaintiff fails to file an objection to the certificate of disbursements within 10 days after issuance, it waives its right to seek reimbursement for post-judgment advances.
4 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: In a recent decision, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeals held that a foreclosure plaintiff must file an objection to the certificate of disbursements within 10 days after issuance in order to seek reimbursement for post-judgment advances. In the case of Asset Recovery, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 6780034 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the foreclosure sale resulted in surplus funds totaling $18,250.39 after disbursement to the foreclosing plaintiff, Wells Fargo, pursuant to the final judgment. Forty-three days after the certificate of disbursements was issued, Wells Fargo filed a motion requesting reimbursement for post-judgment costs expended in the amount of $3,575.66. Wells Fargo’s motion was opposed by a third-party asset recovery company that was assigned the right to seek surplus funds on behalf of two heirs to the estate of the deceased property owner (the “asset recovery company”). After a hearing, the trial court granted Wells
Fargo’s motion and directed the clerk to issue an additional disbursement to Wells Fargo to reimburse the bank for its post-judgment costs. The asset recovery company thereafter appealed the trial court’s ruling. On appeal, Wells Fargo agreed that with the appellant that, as a foreclosing plaintiff, Wells Fargo was not entitled to surplus funds. However, Wells Fargo claimed that, pursuant to the foreclosure judgment, the clerk was required to reimburse the lender for any post-judgment advances prior to retaining any remaining funds as surplus. Wells Fargo therefore claimed that a surplus did not exist until after Wells Fargo was reimbursed for its post-judgment advances. On the other hand, the asset recovery company argued that once the certificate of disbursements is issued, any remaining funds are deemed surplus, and the foreclosure plaintiff no longer maintains any claim to those funds. Ultimately, the district court of appeals issued a written opinion reversing the ruling of the trial court and holding that Wells Fargo’s motion for additional advances should have been denied. While the 6th DCA disagreed with the asset recovery company’s position that surplus is created at the time the certificate of disbursement is issued, the appellate court found that surplus is created upon expiration of the 10-day objection period following the issuance of the certificate. Relying on Section 45.031(7)(c), Florida Statutes, the appellate court reasoned that “by waiting more than ten days to alert the clerk that it was owed additional funds pursuant to the final judgment, Wells Fargo allowed the certificate of disbursements to become approved and, in effect, indicated that it was paid all disbursements required by the final judgment of foreclosure and shown on the certificate of disbursements.”
11th Circuit: sharing debtor’s information with third party vendor without more is still actionable under the FDCPA
By: R. Elliott Halsey, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: Debt collectors should consider in-sourcing many of the previously outsourced services to avoid transmitting to third party vendors any debtor information that unnecessarily includes the usual language demanding payment and threatening consequences for nonpayment.
BACKGROUND: An Illinois trial court dismissed a debtors claim that a debt collector violated section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA by communicating personal information to third parties “in connection with the collection of any debt” ruling that demand-consequence language is necessarily a part of the information transmitted and no cognizable harm results in the sharing of the information alone. The appellate court reversed and found that the sharing, and nothing more, of a debtor’s information with a third-party vendor was a tangible risk of real harm which conferred Article III standing to sue under the FDCPA. In Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., No. 19-14434 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021), the debtor did not specifically allege a tangible harm or demonstrate a risk of real harm for Article III purposes, which requires IN THE
NOW |
5
“an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” But, because section 1692c(b) closely relates to a privacy harm that courts recognize, and Congressional purpose indicates that these violations constitute a concrete injury, the debtor has standing to bring suit where there is merely the sharing of information. The Court faulted the trial court for interpreting section the 1692e phrase “in connection with the collection of any debt” to necessarily require language demanding payment consequences for non-payment.
Under The Penalty Of Perjury - Preparation Of The Lost Note Affidavit
By: Danielle M. Spradley, Attorney
KK TAKEAWAY: In order to prove standing in a foreclosure action through a lost note affidavit, the affidavit must fully comply with Florida law. The affidavit must be executed “under the penalty of perjury”; it must detail the chain of transfers; it must set forth the facts showing that the claimant is entitled to enforce the note; and it must include exhibits to evidence the acquisition or ownership of the note. Therefore, you should make sure the affidavit of lost note is compliant to Florida Rules. 6 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: When preparing to prosecute a foreclosure action in Florida, you must know ahead of time how you are going to prove that the Plaintiff has standing to bring the action. This assessment includes knowing the status of the location of the original note. While the original note is typically stored away in a vault maintained by the custodian of the loan, there are times when the original note is lost or has been destroyed. Proving standing when the note has been lost or destroyed is governed by The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.115(d) and Florida Statutes §§ 673.3091 and 702.015(5). The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 2014 to create an additional layer of certainty as to the facts stated in the foreclosure complaint. With the rule change, a Plaintiff bringing a foreclosure action is now required to verify under the penalty of perjury that the facts pertained in the complaint are true and correct to the best of the affiant’s knowledge and belief. This standard was designed to put pressure on the Plaintiff’s to conduct due diligence for certainty that the loan was in default. Additionally, the new rule requires the Plaintiff to certify its possession of the original note. If the note is lost, destroyed or stolen, an affidavit must be executed under penalty of perjury and must be attached to the complaint. The affidavit must: (1) detail a clear chain of all endorsements, transfers, or assignments of the promissory note that is the subject of the action; (2) set forth facts showing that the claimant is entitled to enforce a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes; and (3) include as exhibits to the affidavit such copies of the note and the allonges to the note, audit
IN THE
NOW |
7
reports showing receipt of the original note, or other evidence of the acquisition, ownership, and possession of the note as may be available to the claimant. Adequate protection is also required and identified under sections 673.3091(2) and 702.11(1), Florida Statutes, shall be provided before the entry of final judgment. To satisfy the first element, the Plaintiff may use assignments of mortgage which assign the note along with the mortgage. The chain of assignments must be complete; therefore the initial assignment must name the original lender as the assignor and the chain of assignments must following in the proper order. To satisfy the second element, the Plaintiff must be able to prove the terms of the note and must state whether the note was in its possession when the lost occurred or whether they acquire ownership from a person who was entitled to enforce the note when the loss occurred. To satisfy the third element, the affidavit should include exhibits that include evidence of possession such as a copy of the note, allonges, or other documents that may demonstrate movement of the note. Quite often, the owner of the note or its servicer will send the note to its attorney to initiate a foreclosure action. The action may be filed, and judgment may even be entered, then the Plaintiff decides to dismiss the action due to the loan being reinstated or a possible loan modification being entered into. This may result in the original note being left in the Court file or remaining with the law firm. Unfortunately, this may result in the note being destroyed or lost by the Clerk of the Court or the law firm accidentally. However, the movement of the note ought to be documented through bailee letters or a note log to confirm the last person to have received the note. 8 | IN THE
NOW
These details will the help Plaintiff support and satisfy the requirements to prove its entitlement to enforce the note. If the affidavit of lost note fails to meet all of the requirements, the complaint may be dismissed causing the Plaintiff to amend the complaint and affidavit to correct the deficiencies or the action may need to be filed again. Therefore, making sure the affidavit is executed under the penalty of perjury and is fully compliant with The Florida Rules of Civil Procedures 1.115(d) and Florida Statutes §§ 673.3091 and 702.015(5) is the best way avoid a dismissal due to a technical error.
What Constitutes A Successful Objection To A Foreclosure Sale King v. City First Mortgage Corp. 2023 WL 5731257
By: Jordan E, Shealy, Attorney
KK TAKEAWAY: For a defendant to successfully overturn a foreclosure sale it takes more than a generalized objection. The 3rd District Court of Appeal has made it clear that an objection related to the foreclosure is not going to cut it. Successful objections to a foreclosure sale must be related to conduct at or related to the sale itself.
BACKGROUND: City First Mortgage Corp. (CFMC) obtained final judgment of foreclosure and the property in question proceeded to foreclosure sale. After the sale had taken place, and the Certificate of Sale was issued, Paul King filed an objection to the foreclosure sale. The basis of his objection was that the bank had unclean hands by way of various misdeeds and the bank had not met deadlines in the underlying foreclosure proceeding. Lastly, he objected to the sale because the property sold at foreclosure sale for significantly less than what the home was worth. King’s objections to the sale were overruled by the judge and King appealed the order. In his brief he argued that CFMC did not comply with certain sections of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C § 1024, at initiation of the foreclosure action as well as arguing the inadequate sale price of the property. Both arguments were shut down by the 3rd DCA.
Citing Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank1 the court stated Florida caselaw is very clear that “gross inadequacy of price alone is not enough to set aside a foreclosure sale.” As to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act violations, the court refused to evaluate these against the sale as well. By way of explanation, the court differentiated between conduct related to the foreclosure and conduct related to the foreclosure sale. An objection to foreclosure sale must be directed toward conduct that occurred at, or which related to, the foreclosure sale. CFMC’s alleged failure to comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act was conduct that occurred at or which related to the foreclosure action, not the sale. The court found King’s objections to be legally insufficient. Therefore, the court accordingly affirmed the order overruling the objections to the foreclosure sale. 1
306 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) IN THE
NOW |
9
Loan Modifications Must Be Pled And Proven In A Foreclosure Action.
By: Jason D. Silver, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: It is very important for lenders to include and discuss loan modifications in their foreclosure pleadings and include same as evidence in support of a final judgment. Failure to do so could result in a reversal of a judgment.
10 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: Whether it is preparing early on during the complaint drafting stage or the eve of a contested trial, the importance of identifying and pleading a loan modification cannot be understated. As the lender and counsel will frequently be focused on the main documents which initiated the loan, such as the Promissory Note and Mortgage, a modification which impacts the loan’s accounting from years earlier could be overlooked and not brought up in the case. If that happens, a borrower could use the problem to create a severe challenge in a foreclosure action.
Pleading and proving a loan modification is so important, if a lender fails to incorporate and later on prove the existence of a loan modification in the case, an entire judgment could be unwound if appealed. This happened recently in a case out of the Tampa, Florida area in October, 2023. An appellate court reversed a judgment because the lender failed to plead and then prove a loan modification which impacted the amounts owed on the loan. As a result, the bank obtained a judgment with an substantially incorrect principal balance amount. See Hammac v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, as trustee of Bungalow Series IV Tr., 371 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). In Hammac, the borrowers argued the bank’s final calculations of the principal amount owed were incorrect because the loan modification, had it been pled and proven at the trial, would have changed the grand total of the judgment. It was undisputed that the principal amount owed under the unmodified note would have been $156,391.47. The court’s final judgment increased that amount by twenty thousand dollars to $176,396.81. The appellate court cited to a couple other opinions highlighting the importance of incorporating the loan modification early in the case. This means that lenders and their counsel need to investigate the loan file, check public records to see if a loan modification is recorded in the county where the property is located, and discuss the point to confirm there are no modification or deferment agreements which are missed. If located later on in the case, counsel for the lender should immediately ask to
amend the pleadings to incorporate the loan modification in order to prevent an issue at an eventual trial. Additionally, while it is best practice for the lender to plead and prove the existence of the loan modification once located, there is also a responsibility on the borrower to assert an affirmative defense and prove a problem or, otherwise, that the loan modification was not pled in the case. In other words, Florida courts have held it is not just up to the bank to prove a modification if it is not an appropriately contested issue by the borrower. See MTGLQ Inv’rs, LP v. Leones, 320 So. 3d 769, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Loan modifications should be regarded just as importantly as the initial Note and Mortgage throughout foreclosure action. Documents such as loan transaction histories should also correctly correlate with the modified terms of the loan to avoid issues when it comes time to obtain a judgment of foreclosure with correct amount of damages awarded.
IN THE
NOW |
11
Use Of Prior Settlement Agreements To Defeat Unauthorized Defenses In Subsequent Foreclosures
KK TAKEAWAY:
Cape Coral Loan Acquisitions, LLC v. 924 Del Prado, LLC, 372 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).
Under certain circumstances, unambiguous terms of a prior agreement involving a mortgage loan may bar any or all defenses to a subsequent action to enforce the same loan documents. Meticulous attention to prior agreement terms by foreclosure plaintiffs’ counsel will ensure a full defeat of unauthorized defenses early in the case, minimizing the delays and costs of litigation.
By: Irina Danilyan, Partner
In this issue of In The Know®, we continue to discuss the importance of scrupulous examination of the documents from prior disputes involving the same loan. A recent
12 | IN THE
NOW
case decided by Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth DCA”) provides an example of successful use of a prior settlement agreement to defeat the mortgagors’ affirmative defense concerning enforceability of a claim. This case also establishes that a trial court, in a mortgage foreclosure action, should not overlook a prior settlement agreement involving the same mortgage. In Cape Coral Loan Acquisitions, LLC v. 924 Del Prado, LLC, 372 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the Sixth DCA held that the mortgagors could not assert a statute of limitations defense where a prior settlement agreement provided that the mortgagors were precluded from asserting any defenses of any nature whatsoever to Plaintiff’s enforcement of the loan documents.
BACKGROUND: In 2006, Del Prado, LLC and Diplomat Parkway, LLC (“mortgagors”) obtained mortgage loans for the purchase and development of real property and executed a set of loan documents in connection with the transaction. Cape Coral subsequently acquired the loan documents. After the mortgagors defaulted under the loan documents, the parties resolved this situation by entering into a settlement agreement (“agreement”). At issue in the instant foreclosure case is an express provision in the agreement providing that so long as there has not been a default under the agreement by Cape Coral, the mortgagors agree to not assert any defenses of any nature whatsoever under the loan documents or to Cape Coral’s enforcement thereof.
In 2018, Cape Coral brought an action to foreclose on the mortgaged properties because of the mortgagors’ non-payment default under the loan documents and the agreement. Ignoring clear, unambiguous terms of the agreement which expressly preclude the assertion of any defenses to enforcement of the loan documents, the mortgagors moved for summary judgment based on the five-year statute of limitations under Florida Statutes Section 95.11. Despite Cape Coral’s proper response citing mortgagors’ express waiver of their right to assert defenses, the trial court granted summary judgment in mortgagors’ favor. The appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION: Applying well-established Florida decisional law on rules of contractual construction to the facts of the case, the Sixth District rejected the mortgagors’ argument. The Court initially observed that the agreement states, in plain view, that the mortgagors are precluded from asserting any defenses of any nature whatsoever to the enforcement of any or all loan documents. Recognizing that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the District Court properly concluded that the mortgagors had waived this defense. In other words, the assertion of this defense squarely contradicted the very terms of the agreement to which the mortgagors had agreed. Finding no support for an outcome which would clearly frustrate the explicit terms of the parties’ prior agreement, the Sixth DCA reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the mortgagors and remanded the case for proceedings not inconsistent with its apt decision.
IN THE
NOW |
13
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Jason M. Vanslette
Jason began his legal career as an Assistant Public
Editor and Chair of the Mortgage Foreclosure & Default Services Divisions
Defender for the Office of the Public Defender – 9th
Email Jason M. Vanslette
Judicial Circuit in Orlando, FL. During that time, he provided criminal defense representation to more than 200 clients simultaneously and served as Lead Chair on more than 15 jury trials. Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Attorney
Jason Vanslette is an “AV” rated Partner and Business
for a firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he provided
Unit Leader, focusing his practice on Real Estate, and
legal representation to major financial institutions and
Mortgage Foreclosure & Default Services. In his practice,
mortgage servicers in various counties throughout the
he represents mortgage servicers, mortgage lenders,
state, while focusing on non-jury trials and contested
and other financial service providers with foreclosure,
litigation.
bankruptcy, evictions, and title litigation matters. Jason overseas and manages the Real Estate and Mortgage Default and Lender Representation Divisions at Kelley Kronenberg, which has recently expanded to include Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and New York. Jason is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, which indicates a demonstration of the highest professional and ethical standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can receive.
Jason earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Florida State University. He went on to earn a Juris Doctorate degree from Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center where he earned a spot on the Dean’s List for three consecutive years and received the Pro Bono Honors Award. While attending law school, he served as an executive board member for Law Student Advisor, Chief Executive and Host of WLAW Radio and member of the Nova Trial Association.
14 | IN THE
NOW
Irina Danilyan Partner Email Irina Danilyan
experience
handling
contested
and
uncontested
foreclosure litigation. She handled pre-judgment and post-judgment foreclosure matters, including protection of creditors’ rights in condominium termination, probate, and criminal forfeiture matters. Irina earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Management, cum laude, from Long Island University.
Irina Danilyan is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where she
She then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from
specializes in mortgage foreclosure & default services
Nova Southeastern University College of Law. During law
and the representation of creditors in bankruptcy
school, Irina received a CALI Book Award in recognition
matters incident to mortgage foreclosures.
of achieving the highest score in her Legal Research &
Irina previously focused her practice on mortgage
Writing course and served as a Professor’s Research
foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other
Assistant.
financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement,
Irina is fluent in Russian.
transactional and litigation matters. Irina has extensive
R. Elliott Halsey Partner Email R. Elliott Halsey
Elliott has 18 years of legal experience in Bankruptcy, Real Estate, Foreclosure, and General Civil Practice in Chicago and collar counties. Prior to joining the firm, he was an Attorney at a Chicago firm where he handled matters in Foreclosures, Bankruptcy, Real Estate closings, Landlord-Tenant, Collections, Small Claims, and Arbitration. Throughout his extensive career, he has
Elliott Halsey is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg
experience handling matters related to lien litigation,
focusing his practice on mortgage foreclosure litigation
property tax litigation, evictions, family law, commercial
and assisting banks and other financial service providers
property and Intellectual Property.
with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation
Elliott earned his Bachelor of Arts from Wittenberg
matters.
University and a Master of Science from Miami of Ohio University. He then went to earn his Juris Doctor the Ohio Northern College of Law.
IN THE
NOW |
15
MEET THE CONTRIBUTORS Bryan S. Jones Attorney Email Bryan S. Jones
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Bryan gained extensive experience representing corporate and non-corporate clients in variety of litigation matters in state and federal court, including escalated mortgage foreclosure, commercial, timeshare, consumer, and employment litigation. Bryan received his Bachelor of Science in Journalism
Bryan Jones is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg, where
from the University of Florida. He went on to earn his
he handles matters related to mortgage foreclosure &
Juris Doctor degree from Florida International University
default services and assists banks and other financial
College of Law, where he made Dean’s list, ranked in the
service
top 20% of his class and received several book awards.
providers
with
regulatory,
enforcement,
transactional, and litigation matters.
Danielle M. Spradley Attorney Email Danielle M. Spradley
financial institution and investor plaintiffs in foreclosure actions. For many years, Danielle handled Estate Planning matters and represented clients in complex probate litigation; and, she also represented major financial institutions and investors in debt collection actions. Prior to entering the private sector, Danielle spent two years working as an Assistant Public Defender.
Danielle Spradley is an attorney at Kelley Kronenberg,
Danielle received her Bachelor of Arts from Florida State
where she assists in handling matters related to
University where she demonstrated academic excellence,
mortgage foreclosure & default services.
earning inclusion on the Atlantic Coast Conference
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Danielle spent more
Honor Roll. She also achieved athletic and extracurricular
than fifteen years handling every aspect of criminal
excellence as a member of FSU’s Varsity Track and Field
and civil litigation, amassing substantial trial and
Team, also serving as the team’s Student Ambassador.
dispute resolution experience. Most recently, Danielle
Danielle went on to obtain her Juris Doctor degree from
served as Managing Attorney overseeing the Litigation
University of Miami School of Law where she served as
Department of a renowned national law firm where she
an Executive Board Member of the Entertainment and
not only provided supervision and guidance to the firm’s
Sports Law Society. While in law school, Danielle began
attorney’s and staff, but also represented clients in
amassing experience through a Judicial Clerkship for the
complex civil litigation matters, and as counsel for major
Honorable Norman C. Roettger, Jr.
16 | IN THE
NOW
Law, where she was an associate Editor for the ILSA Law
Jordan E. Shealy
Journal, as well as a member of the Moot Court Society.
Attorney
Jordan was the Vice President of her School’s Association
Email Jordan E. Shealy
of Business Law Students and the Transactional Law Practice Group President. She gained legal experience while earning her J.D. by attending the Trial Advocacy Summer Institute, being a pupil in Craig S. Barnard Inn of Jordan Shealy is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg,
Court, and working as a Teaching Assistant to Adjunct
where she handles real estate and mortgage foreclosure
Professor Gary Brown.
& default services. She also assists banks and other
While in school, Jordan worked at Kelley Kronenberg as
financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement,
a Summer Associate and Law Clerk, where she worked
transactional, and litigation matters.
directly with our construction department. Jordan
Jordan earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the
gained experience by summarizing discovery reports,
University of Florida, where she majored in English.
trial records, briefs, and other documents. She drafted
During her time at the University of Florida, Jordan was a
deposition reports, pleadings, letters to insurance
member of the Pre-Legal Honors Society.
adjusters, and tender letters to carriers. She also served
Jordan then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University-Shepard Broad College of
as a Judicial Intern to Judge Marcia Cooke for the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida.
in the areas of banking and consumer finance. He also
Jason D. Silver
practiced bankruptcy and general litigation as well as
Attorney
municipal and government law, having presided as the
Email Jason D. Silver
Deputy Municipal Attorney for the Village of El Portal, Florida. Jason received his Bachelor of Science in Public Relations with a minor in History from the University of Florida where Jason Silver is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where
he was elected to the Florida Blue Key Honor Society and
he concentrates on matters related to all aspects of
awarded the Honorable Mention for the Outstanding
mortgage foreclosure & default services, assisting banks
Leadership and Service Award.
and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters, and representing commercial property owners and property managers with tenant lease compliance and breach issues.
He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from St. Thomas University School of Law. While in law school, Jason received a Book Award in Appellate Advocacy. Jason also worked as a legal intern for the Office of the City Attorney at the City of Miami in the Land Use, Zoning,
Jason has close to a decade of experience in contested
and Quality of Life Division and interned for the Hon. Judge
foreclosure
David Gersten (ret.) at the Third District Court of Appeal.
litigation,
guiding
creditors
from
the
beginning to completion of a court action.
Jason is an avid runner and successfully completed the
Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Associate
ING Miami Half Marathon and 13.1 races in 2011 and the
Attorney at an AmLaw 200 firm focusing his practice
Hollywood Beach Half Marathon in 2020. IN THE
NOW |
17
AWARDS AND
ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
2021 – 2023 Top Workplaces USA Energage
2020 – 2023 Top Workplaces Sun Sentinel
2019 – 2024 Best Law Firms U.S. News - Best Lawyers
2022 – 2023 Best Places To Work New Orleans CityBusiness
2020 – 2022 Compass Award Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2021 – 2022 Top Places To Work Ragan Communications
2019, 2021 – 2023 Women In Law Scorecard The National Law Journal
2016 – 2023 Largest Law Firms Tampa Bay Business Journal
2017 – 2022 Biggest Law Firms in Florida Florida Trend
2012 – 2023 NLJ 500 The National Law Journal
2020 – 2022 Business of the Year South Florida Business Journal
2012 – 2023 Top Law Firms South Florida Business Journal
2017 – 2022 400 Largest Law Firms Law360
2011 – 2022 100 Largest Law Firms Daily Business Review
2016 – 2022 Largest Central Florida Law Firms Orlando Business Journal
2022 Best Midsize Law Firm To Work For Vault
2021 Diversity Scorecard The American Lawyer
2021 Diversity Team Award Profiles in Diversity Journal
18 | IN THE
NOW
REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY AWARDS
South Florida Business and Wealth: Real Estate Awards Top Lawyer
Jason M. Vanslette
Jason M. Vanslette
Broward County Bar Association, “Top 40 Under 40”, 2021 Marc A. Marra
Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating American Legal & Financial Network, JPEG Picture the Future Award
Jason M. Vanslette Marc A. Marra
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch Marc A. Marra Jason D. Silver
Jason M. Vanslette
South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers” Jason M. Vanslette Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer”
Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Jason M. Vanslette, Marc A. Marra, Jason D. Silver, Bryan S. Jones
Jason M. Vanslette Legal Elite “Up and Comer” Marc A. Marra
IN THE
NOW |
19
A Firm Built on Relationships KELLEY KRONENBERG IS A MULTI-PRACTICE BUSINESS LAW FIRM.
with over
480
Employees
more than
the convenience of
Attorneys
Locations
220
16
Founded in 1980, the firm is one of the fastest-growing law firms in Florida and amongst the largest in the U.S. The firm serves all types and sizes of public and private companies, including small businesses and individuals nationwide.
OUR
LOCATIONS CHICAGO MERRILLVILLE INDIANAPOLIS
NEW YORK CITY SHORT HILLS
ATLANTA JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA ORLANDO WEST PALM BEACH
16
TALLAHASSEE FORT LAUDERDALE TAMPA
NEW ORLEANS
LOCATIONS
NAPLES
MIAMI
FORT LAUDERDALE
NEW YORK CITY
MIAMI
WEST PALM BEACH
ORLANDO
CHICAGO
NEW ORLEANS
INDIANAPOLIS
TAMPA
JACKSONVILLE
TALLAHASSEE
NAPLES
DAYTONA
MERRILLVILLE
10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 216-8828
6267 Old Water Road, Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301
250 Park Avenue,7th Floor, Suite 7002 New York, NY 10177 Phone: (800) 484-4381
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (732) 547-7907
1570 Shadowlawn Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 990-6490
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 503-0850
10475 Crosspoint Boulevard, Suite 218 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 731-6243
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Phone: (754) 888-5437
1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 684-5956
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (954) 370-9970
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200 Merrillville, IN 46410 Phone: (317) 731-6243
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (908) 403-8174
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972
IN THE
NOW |
21
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381