Kelley Kronenberg - In The Know - Real Estate - Winter 2023

IN THE NOW

REAL ESTATE EDITION

IN THIS ISSUE:

• Equity Will Act To Prevent The Wrong Result – Foreclosure Sales

• Seventh Circuit Applies Agency Principles To Find A Creditor Can Be Held In Civil Contempt For Actions Of Its Attorney (IL)

• What Qualifies A Fee When It Comes To Summary Judgment In Florida, Parties Must “Jockey Into Position” The Right Way To Be Successful

• Admissibility Of Pooling And Servicing Agreements To Prove Trustee’s Standing At Trial

• Witness Preparedness

• When Mortgage Statements Become Mortgage Communications

• Applicability of the Probate Act to Mortgage Foreclosures in Illinois

WELCOME EDITOR’S LETTER

Jason M. Vanslette Editor, and Business Unit Leader/Partner

It is hard to believe that we are again reminded (so soon) of the vulnerability of the banking system despite the expansive regulatory enforcement agencies and laws (both Federal and State) that should ultimately make “bank failures” a lesson in a history book. Nonetheless, with the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and many others financial institutions currently in the crosshairs, it is very apparent that neither regulations or government agencies alone can protect the banking system absent sound board leadership, asset-risk leveraging and portfolio diversification.

Ironically, this is true for any industry that can be greatly affected by politics, economy or the environment—For example, our real estate team represents some of the most prominent financial institutions in the world with their mortgage lending and banking litigation (i.e., foreclosures, FDCPA defense, bankruptcy, etc.) as well as their commercial/residential transactional issues throughout Florida, Illinois, New York and most recently Indiana. Much like our financial industry clients, we too must diversify our practice, exhibit sound leadership and leverage liability risk with all of our cases to effectuate the best outcome for our clients.

Banking is necessary – banks are not .

–Bill Gates

Equity Will Act To Prevent The Wrong Result – Foreclosure Sales

SUTTON V. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.

2023 WL 1999554

By: Marc Marra, Partner KK TAKEAWAY:

Pursuant to applicable Florida case law foreclosures are convened in equity, and a proper showing of one or more equitable factors, including “gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake imposed on complainant, and irregularity in the conduct of the sale,” may support a trial court granting relief from such a sale.

BACKGROUND:

By way of background, husband and wife mortgagors entered a consent final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff bank granting an extended sale date. Shortly before the foreclosure sale, the mortgagor husband passed away unexpectedly. Prior to sale, the mortgagor wife filed a Motion to Postpone foreclosure sale, as did the Plaintiff bank by separate motion. The Plaintiff bank circulated a proposed order granting cancellation of the foreclosure sale, which was objected to by a junior lienholder defendant. Neither mortgagor wife, nor Plaintiff bank, obtained a hearing on their respective motions to cancel sale prior to the sale date and the sale proceeded as scheduled.

After the sale, mortgagor wife filed a timely motion to vacate foreclosure sale alleging she erroneously believed the Plaintiff Bank

obtained an order canceling the sale. That motion to vacate sale was denied by the trial court on the basis that she failed to establish fraud or an irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Mortgagor wife then appealed the trial court’s decision to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida.

The Third DCA reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for reconsideration as to the equitable grounds alleged by the mortgagor wife in her motion to vacate sale. In doing so, the Third DCA relied upon the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Arsali v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 121 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2013), where that Court ruled there was no “single equitable factor” to be “applied by the trial courts in order to set aside judicial foreclosure sales.” Id. at 517. Rather, litigants must “allege one or more adequate equitable factors and make a proper showing to the trial court that they exist in order to successfully obtain an order that sets aside a judicial foreclosure sale.” Id. at 518.

Seventh Circuit Applies Agency Principles To Find A Creditor Can Be Held In Civil Contempt For Actions Of Its Attorney (IL)

By: R. Elliott Halsey (IL), Partner

KK TAKEAWAY:

A creditor is liable for an attorney’s actions in the scope of representation, which are imputed to the creditor and viewed in conjunction with the creditor’s own knowledge.

BACKGROUND:

The Seventh Circuit ruled that a creditor could be held in civil contempt when its attorney violates the Bankruptcy discharge even though the attorney could not be held in contempt for the same violations where he lacked actual knowledge of the discharge order.

In In re: Jacqueline M. Sterling, No. 18-2773 (7th Cir. August 13, 2019) a judgment was awarded to the creditor in February 2002, and the debtor repeatedly failed to show up for state court collections hearings. Ultimately the court issued a body attachment in April 2010, and subsequently when the debtor’s car got a flat tire, a police officer stopped to assist and discovered the outstanding warrant. The debtor was arrested and spent two days in jail. However, the debtor had obtained a discharge in January 2010 from her 2009 bankruptcy petition which listed the debt.

The debtor brought suit in the bankruptcy court for violation of the discharge injunction and asked that the creditor and the attorney be held in civil contempt. The bankruptcy court ruled against the debtor, because the debtor had failed to establish that the attorney and creditor “had knowledge of the granting of her discharge … and, despite that knowledge, undertook actions which willfully violated the discharge injunction” for the Court to find contempt. The attorney did not know of the discharge order during the continuances, and the creditor had notice did not willfully violate the discharge order because there was no evidence it ever went beyond initially referring the case for collection proceedings. The district court affirmed and the debtor appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment for the creditor. Applying agency principles, finding the creditor could be held in civil contempt for the actions of its attorney, since the attorney was the creditor’s legal counsel and the creditor directed the attorney to collect the debt in violation of the discharge order of which it had notice.

What Qualifies A Fee When It Comes To Summary Judgment In Florida, Parties Must “Jockey Into Position” The Right Way To Be Successful

By: Jason D. Silver, Attorney

KK

TAKEAWAY:

A recent appellate opinion from a dispute over a failed racehorse highlights the importance of providing and filing testimony the correct way under Florida’s amended summary judgment standard in order to both obtain, as well as defeat, a summary judgment.

BACKGROUND:

Since Florida amended the summary judgment standard to be applied by the state courts in line with the federal standard, parties on the losing end of summary judgment have been appealing decisions to test how the appellate courts will apply the standard when there is opposition.

Now that it has been close to two years since the amendment of the standard, appellate opinions are revealing that the amended standard and thresholds are being applied strictly “across the board.” The results provide guidance to attorneys for banks and lenders prosecuting foreclosure actions in Florida.

Effective May 1, 2021, pursuant to In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2020), Florida became

the 39th state to adopt the federal summary judgment standard derailed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (otherwise known as the “Celotex” trilogy).

The latest application of the amended standard was issued in an interesting dispute in Palm Beach County, Fla., over a failed racehorse which was purchased for $400,000.00. See Green v. Rockefeller-Silvia, 4D22-226, 2023 WL 2314913, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 1, 2023).

In Green, one of the investors in the failed racehorse sued a famous equestrian sports athlete and model, alleging breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil theft, among other things.

The equestrian athlete defendant responded by seeking his own summary judgment, arguing the investor did not provide any evidence in support of summary judgment, pointing out that more than just argument of counsel is needed to obtain and/or defend against summary judgment.

The Green ruling emphasizes that a response to a Motion for Summary Judgment should supported

by actual substantive testimony and facts from a party in the case. Here, the only opposition to the Summary Judgment effort was legal argument from the attorney for the investor. This is not enough.

Parties defending against summary judgment often fail to file factual opposition sworn to by a party or only rely on legal argument about the issues. While such could possibly have worked before the amendment to the rules, it is becoming abundantly clear it will not anymore.

This is certainly applicable in foreclosure and banking law. The Third District Court of Appeal in Miami also applied this standard in a residential foreclosure action where a borrower’s opposition to summary judgment was held to be insufficient because the affidavit at issue filed only contained “conclusory averments, based on supposition and information not derived from personal knowledge.” See Passariello v. Bank of New York Mellon, 347 So. 3d 446, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

The above discussed Green opinion shows that “jockeying into position” the correct way when both seeking and defending against summary judgment under the new summary judgment standard is crucial in Florida courts.

Admissibility Of Pooling And Servicing Agreements To Prove Trustee’s Standing At Trial

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for RAMP2006EFC2 v. Bell et al., No. 5D21-2528, 2023 WL 446866, at *1, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D218a (Fla. 5th DCA 2023), reh’g denied (Feb. 16, 2023).

By: Irina Danilyan, Partner KK TAKEAWAY:

Pooling and Servicing Agreements are crucial in the absence of other valid evidence of standing. Plaintiffs’ counsel must be prepared to utilize the readily available, well-established decisional law to promptly deflect defendants’ evidentiary challenges to the admission of such evidence.

BACKGROUND:

In our Fall 2022 Real Estate Edition issue of In the Know, we discussed a recent First District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) opinion, in which the appellate court ruled on the issue of standing of trustees under pooling and servicing agreements (“PSA”) in foreclosure actions. In that case, the First DCA disagreed with the trial court’s refusal to accept PSA as proof of standing because the parties to the PSA did not follow its note indorsement terms. In the current issue, we explore another twist on proof of the foreclosure plaintiffs’ standing at trials - the admissibility of the PSA.

In a recent opinion by the Fifth DCA, the trustee plaintiff in the underlying case sought to establish standing by showing it was the holder of the promissory note (“note”) by virtue of possession of the original note specially indorsed to the trustee. While this was sufficient to prove its holder status on the day of trial, the trustee also faced the task of proving by substantial competent evidence that it was the holder of the note when it filed suit, because a copy of the note with the requisite indorsements was not attached to the initial complaint.

The trustee made a proper attempt to do so through the PSA, pursuant to the established case law. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Marciano, 190 So. 3d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Bolous v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 210 So. 3d 691, 693-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Like in the case discussed in our prior issue, the PSA provided excellent “timing” evidence, in that it included the subject loan in the master schedule of loans transferred into the trust on a closing date predating the foreclosure complaint. This attempt was met with borrowers’ objection – sustained by the trial court – that the

trustee had not established that the PSA was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court further sustained an objection to the admissibility of the PSA as a non-hearsay document admissible for its independent legal significance, found that the trustee had failed to establish standing on the date it filed the complaint, and entered judgment for borrowers . The appeal ensued.

In its concise opinion, the Fifth DCA applied a long-established principle enunciated in multiple cited decisions, that signed instruments such as contracts, wills, promissory notes, assignments of mortgage, mortgage modifications, even PSAs , are not hearsay because they characterize verbal acts and thus are admissible into evidence as writings carrying independent legal significance. The District Court held that the PSA was admissible in evidence for its independent legal significance, reversed the trial court’s final judgment for borrowers, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Witness Preparedness

By: Danielle Spradley, Attorney

KK TAKEAWAY:

Individuals who serve as witnesses for mortgagors and servicers should spend a sufficient amount of time to prepare to testify in depositions, trials and other evidentiary hearings. A witness should know the case well and be prepared to answer the questions pertaining to the areas of inquiry as stated in the notice of taking deposition or know the case in general when testifying in a trial.

BACKGROUND:

If you operate in the world of litigation, the odds are great that you will be required to provide testimony at the request of opposing counsel or before a Judge as the main witness to prove the Plaintiff’s case in a foreclosure trial. While attorney such as myself, my ask you commit a few hours of your time to prepare you for your testimony, it will be time well spent.

A deposition is a formal statement that someone who has promised to tell the truth makes a statement that can be used in court. Pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310, “[a] fter the commencement of the action any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination.”

This may include the person who verified and executed the complaint, the person who executed the affidavit of indebtedness, or the person

designated as the corporate representative, who may testify at trial.

While motions for protective order are tools to be used to limit who may be deposed, the scope of the deposition, how long a deposition can be conducted, or the location where the deposition may take place, the deposition will be permitted if the person’s testimony is deemed to be relevant to the case. This testimony is binding on the corporation, as that individual is speaking on behalf of the corporation, whether the deposition goes well, or not.

A notice of taking deposition or notice of taking deposition duces tecum must disclose the topics for inquiry at the deposition so that the deponent knows how to prepare. These topics will typically include the statements made in the complaint, the allegations stated in the defendant’s affirmative defenses and other statements

made under oath. When a deposition includes a duces tecum, the documents to be produced are fair game for inquiry. Therefore, a witness should know the documents better than anyone else. Be sure to understand how to read the payment history. Some payment histories include all sorts of codes and internal lingo, which may require decoding. A witness must be able to explain in layman’s terms what those codes mean; when the payments were made and how much went to principal, interest, late fees, taxes, insurance, etc. A witness needs to know the authority by which the Plaintiff can collect attorney’s fees, or whether the Plaintiff was required to provide notice after the default before initiating the foreclosure action, or whether the subject loan requires approval by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to initiate an action; whether the servicer was required to attempt to have a face-to-face meeting with the borrower. In litigation, every factual detail is of great importance and these are all details that if stated incorrectly can damage Plaintiff’s case.

While, at the conclusion of the deposition, the witness has the right to read the deposition and confirm whether or not what was recorded was correct and may revise their answers with the explanation, it is a best practice to get it right the first time so that the veracity of your testimony is not under negative scrutiny by the finder of fact, in our cases.

Even though depositions and trials are currently being conducted via Zoom, your testimony should be based on your preparation before the deposition. Under no circumstance should you open/access your working portal to answer any questions.

So, take the time to prepare. Review the necessary documents to maximize preparedness and remember, it’s okay to say, “I don’t know.” Do not answer questions of which you do not know the answer. You are not required to guess the answer and it is better that you don’t. The answers provided are binding, so witness preparedness provides the best opportunity to answer the questions to the best of the witness’s ability with accuracy. This puts the Plaintiff in the best possible position for a successful prosecution.

When Mortgage Statements Become Mortgage Communications

Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

By: Jordan E. Shealy, Attorney

KK TAKEAWAY:

The mortgage statements required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) may constitute communications for the purpose of collecting a debt if: the letter states “this is an attempt to collect a debt,” if payment is requested by a certain date, if a late fee is identified, and the relationship of the parties would suggest that the statement is made for the purpose of debt collection.

BACKGROUND:

In 2009, Daniels modified her mortgage with her bank. This modification allowed her to make interest-only payments on her mortgage for a 10year period. For over a year, Daniels made these payments on time. Subsequently, the mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo and the servicer on the loan became Select Portfolio Servicing. Wells Fargo refused to accept the interestonly payments from Daniels and brought a foreclosure action against her. The lawsuit lasted 5 years. The court held that Daniels was entitled to the terms of the modification and Wells Fargo was sanctioned for improperly foreclosing on the property.

In the 5-year period of the suit, there were interest and escrow payments that were unpaid or unaccepted. Select Portfolio Servicing sent Daniels letters alerting her to these interest and escrow payments. TILA requires mortgagees to send their mortgagors periodic letters with the status of the loan payments, while the FDCPA prohibits harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The letters from Select Portfolio Servicing stated, “this is an attempt to collect a debt,” payment was requested by a certain date, and a late fee was identified. These letters incorrectly identified certain amounts on her debt. Daniels filed suit, alleging that Select Portfolio Services was harassing her and using unfair trade practices to collect a debt from her. The FDCPA and the FCCPA both define a “debt” as “any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,

whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.” Additionally, they both define “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.” The court recognized that Daniels’ mortgage was a debt.

The court then held that because the letters from the servicer to Daniels contained the requisite information for a communication of debt collection, and because the relationship between Daniels and Select Portfolio Services would suggest that the statement is made for the purpose of debt collection, the letters constituted communications for the purpose of collecting a debt. While the letters conformed to the requirements of TILA, the letters went beyond the requirements and crossed over into the realm of unfair debt collection practices.

Applicability of the Probate Act to Mortgage Foreclosures in Illinois

By: Travis P. Barry, Attorney

KK TAKEAWAY:

The requirement of the Probate Act whereby creditors must assert a claim against an estate within two years of the decedent’s death does not prevent a mortgagee from filing a complaint to foreclose on a mortgage where the default occurs more than two years after the borrower’s death.

BACKGROUND:

In a case of first impression, In Re: Estate of Thomas F. Topal, 2022 IL App (4th) 210613, the Illinois Appellate Court analyzed the applicability of a two-year limitations period set forth in section 18-12(b) of the Probate Act of 1975, 755 ILCS 5/18-12(b) (West 2016), to an action brought to foreclosure a mortgage given by the deceased borrower.

The scenario presented by Topal is common in cases with a sole remaining mortgagor who passed away – the family members continued making payments on the loan, owned by Associated Bank, and did not initially open a probate estate. As a result, the loan was not in default and the bank had no reason to pursue a foreclosure.

More than two years later, an estate was opened, and it moved to prohibit all of Associated Bank’s claims. In addition, the estate petitioned the court to require the bank to release its mortgage under the theory that the Probate Act prevented any action against it, as the two-year limitations period had lapsed. Under the Act, “all claims which could have been barred under this Section are, in any event, barred 2 years after decedent’s death, whether letters of office are issued upon the estate of the decedent.” 755 ILCS 5/18-12(b).

Ultimately, the trial court sided with the estate and found that Associated Bank did not file its claim against the decedent or estate within two years, and any claim that it had against the property was time-barred under section 18-12(b). The court ordered Associated Bank to execute a release of its lien and deliver it to the estate.

On appeal, however, the Fourth District noted a distinction between an action to pursue

estate assets to satisfy the debt owed on a defaulted loan and the bank’s ability to bring a foreclosure action against the property covered by the mortgage. While a mortgagee may be prevented from seeking a judgment against the estate under the Probate Act, the law does not prevent a lender from foreclosing its mortgage. In the event a foreclosure sale does not produce sufficient funds to satisfy the outstanding balance, the bank will simply be unable to collect against the estate. The Court analogized the situation to one where a borrower has had their personal obligation discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. “[T]he concept of personal liability diverges from the mortgagee’s right to enforce the lien securing its debt.” Topal at ¶ 29.

In summary, a mortgagee may pursue an action to foreclose a mortgage given by a deceased borrower, but it may not seek to collect from the assets of the borrower’s estate if more than two years have passed since the date of the decedent’s death.

CONTRIBUTORS

Jason M. Vanslette Editor and Business Unit Leader/Partner

Email Jason M. Vanslette

Jason Vanslette is an “AV” rated Partner and Business Unit Leader focusing his practice on Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters. 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 began his legal career as an Assistant Public Defender for the Office of the Public Defender – 9th 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 for a firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he provided legal representation to major financial institutions and mortgage servicers in various counties throughout the state, while focusing on non-jury trials and contested litigation.

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.

Marc A. Marra Partner

Email Marc A. Marra

Marc Marra is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg focusing on the Firm’s Real Estate Practice. With over ten years of experience, his practice focuses on assisting banks, lenders, mortgagees, and financial service providers with enforcing their rights in security instruments on real property. He protects, enforces, and litigates his clients’ rights in security instruments on real estate. He

also represents Condominium Associations and HOAs throughout South Florida as general counsel.

Marc is the founder of Heart Warriors, Inc., a non-profit corporation which supports children with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS) and other congenital heart diseases, and their families. This cause is very close to him as his daughter, Charlotte, has HLHS, and has undergone multiple major open-heart surgeries.

Marc prides himself on being available to his clients 24/7 and on his ability to assist with issues stemming from any dispute related to real estate – title, general real estate litigation, bankruptcy, sale, etc.

R. Elliott Halsey Partner

Email R. Elliott Halsey

Elliott Halsey is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg focusing his practice on mortgage foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters. 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 experience handling matters related to lien litigation, property tax litigation, evictions, family law, commercial property and Intellectual Property.

Elliott earned his Bachelor of Arts from Wittenberg 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.

Jason D. Silver Attorney

Email Jason D. Silver

Jason Silver is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg where he assists in handling matters related to Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigations.

Jason has close to a decade of experience in contested foreclosure litigation, guiding creditors from the beginning to completion of a court action.

Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Associate Attorney at an AmLaw 200 firm focusing his practice in the areas of banking and consumer finance. He also practiced bankruptcy and general litigation as well as municipal and government law,

having presided as the 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 he was elected to the Florida Blue Key Honor Society and awarded the Honorable Mention for the Outstanding Leadership and Service Award.

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, and Quality of Life Division and interned for the Hon. Judge David Gersten (ret.) at the Third District Court of Appeal.

Jason is an avid runner and successfully completed the ING Miami Half Marathon and 13.1 races in 2011 and the Hollywood Beach Half Marathon in 2020.

Irina Danilyan Partner

Email Irina Danilyan

Irina Danilyan is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg where she assists in handling matters related to Real Estate Litigation.

Irina previously focused her practice on mortgage foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters. Irina has extensive 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. She then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University College of Law. During law school, Irina received a CALI Book Award in recognition of achieving the highest score in her Legal Research & Writing course and served as a Professor’s Research Assistant.

Irina is fluent in Russian.

Danielle M. Spradley Attorney

Email Danielle M. Spradley

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, where she assists in handling matters related to Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation.

Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Danielle spent more than fifteen years handling every aspect of criminal and civil litigation, amassing substantial trial and dispute resolution experience. Most recently, Danielle served as Managing Attorney overseeing the Litigation Department of a renowned national law firm where she not only provided supervision and guidance to the firm’s attorney’s and staff, but also represented clients in complex civil litigation matters, and as counsel for major financial institution

Danielle received her Bachelor of Arts from Florida State University where she demonstrated academic excellence, earning inclusion on the Atlantic Coast Conference Honor Roll. She also achieved athletic and extracurricular excellence as a member of FSU’s Varsity Track and Field Team, also serving as the team’s Student Ambassador. Danielle went on to obtain her Juris Doctor degree from University of Miami School of Law where she served as an Executive Board Member of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society. While in law school, Danielle began amassing experience through a Judicial Clerkship for the Honorable Norman C. Roettger, Jr.

Email Jordan E. Shealy

Jordan Shealy is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg, where she handles real estate and mortgage foreclosure litigation matters. She also assists banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional, and litigation matters.

Jordan earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Florida, where she majored in English. During her time at the University of Florida, Jordan was a member of the Pre-Legal Honors Society.

Jordan then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University-Shepard Broad College of Law, where she was an associate Editor

for the ILSA Law Journal, as well as a member of the Moot Court Society. Jordan was the Vice President of her School’s Association 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 Court, and working as a Teaching Assistant to Adjunct Professor Gary Brown.

While in school, Jordan worked at Kelley Kronenberg as a Summer Associate and Law Clerk, where she worked directly with our construction department. Jordan gained experience by summarizing discovery reports, trial records, briefs, and other documents. She drafted deposition reports, pleadings, letters to insurance adjusters, and tender letters to carriers. She also served as a Judicial Intern to Judge Marcia Cooke for the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida.

Jordan E. Shealy Attorney

Email Travis P. Barry

Travis P. Barry is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg, where he handles matters related to real estate and mortgage foreclosure litigation. He also assists banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional, and litigation matters. Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Travis worked at

a national law firm, where he represented lenders in real estate matters, including title actions and foreclosure litigation.

Travis received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from DePaul University College of Law, where he was awarded the Benjamin Hooks Distinguished Public Service Award for completing over 200 hours of pro bono work. He was also a Dean’s Merit Scholarship recipient and served as a 1L Student Mentor.

Travis P. Barry Attorney

ACCOLADES AWARDS AND 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:

REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY AWARDS

South Florida Business and Wealth: Real Estate Awards

Jason M. Vanslette

Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating

Jason M. Vanslette

Marc A. Marra

Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars”

Jason M. Vanslette, Marc A. Marra, Jacqueline Costoya Guberman, Jason D. Silver

Broward County Bar Association, “Top 40 Under 40”, 2021

Marc A. Marra

Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch

Marc A. Marra

Jason D. Silver

South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers”

Jason M. Vanslette

American Legal & Financial Network, JPEG Picture the Future Award

Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer”

Jason M. Vanslette

Jason M. Vanslette Legal Elite “Up and Comer”

Marc A. Marra

A Firm Built on Relationships

KELLEY

KRONENBERG IS A MULTI-PRACTICE BUSINESS LAW FIRM.

with over the convenience of more than 400 15 200 Employees Attorneys Locations

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.