Preview
Filing # 191338292 E-Filed 02/06/2024 11:28:32 AM
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
LUCY QUINTANA, and
GABRIEL QUINTANA,
Plaintiffs, Case No.:2023-067790-SP-05
vs.
VICTOR GOIZUETA, and
VIRGINIA GOIZUETA,
Defendants.
__________________________/
AGREED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO TRANSFER
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA and GABRIEL QUINTANA (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court to transfer the above
styled action to the appropriate court of jurisdiction, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, and states as follows:
1. After filing this action, the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs
themselves, a surveyor representing the Plaintiffs met with counsel for VICTOR GOIZUETA and
VIRGINIA GOIZUETA (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively referred
to as “Parties”), the Defendants themselves, and a surveyor representing the Defendants at the
property that is the subject of this action.
2. At said meeting, it was discovered for the first time, and both surveyors agreed that
a portion of the Plaintiffs’ property did in fact overlap with a portion of the Defendants’.
3. While the overlapping portion of the Parties’ properties is not disposition of the
Plaintiffs’ trespass claim, resolution of the overlap is a necessary precondition for proper
adjudication of Plaintiffs’ trespass claim.
Page 1 of 3
4. Based upon the newly discovered title dispute, Plaintiffs move this Court for leave to
Amend their Complaint to include counts for quiet title and declaratory relief.
5. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complain is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.
6. This Court is without jurisdiction to preside over actions for quiet title and declaratory
relief.
7. The proper court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade, County Florida.
8. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants conferred as to all matters contained herein.
9. Defendants do not object, and do agree, to this Court granting the relief Plaintiffs
seek herein.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully
request, and Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA agree and consent,
that this Court grant Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend and to Transfer, and enter an Order
deeming the Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A as filed on the date of entry of this
Court’s Order, and ordering this action be transferred to the court of proper jurisdiction, the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of foregoing was electronically served
on all parties via the Florida E-filing Portal on this 6th day of February 2024.
[SPACEINTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
[SIGNATURE BLOCKS NEXT PAGE]
Page 2 of 3
Respectfully,
_/s/ Marlin Muller_
Marlin Muller, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1003675
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HERSHOFF, LUPINO & YAGEL, LLP.
9350 S Dixie Highway, Suite 1470
Miami, FL 33156
Tel.: 305-852-8440
Fax: 305-852-8848
Email: mmuller@hlylaw.com
Secondary: kvilchez@hlylaw.com
/s/ Theron Simmons
Theron Simmons, Esq.
Fla. Bar #623385
Simmons Law Group
101 NE 3rd Ave., Ste 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 332-3706
tsimmons@law-bsa.com
Counsel for Defendants
Page 3 of 3
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
LUCY QUINTANA, and
GABRIEL QUINTANA,
Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2023-067790-SP-05
vs.
VICTOR GOIZUETA, and
VIRGINIA GOIZUETA,
Defendants.
__________________________/
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff’s, LUCY QUINTANA and GABRIEL QUINTANA (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this action against Defendants,
VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and
Defendants collectively referred to as “Parties”), and states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The real property giving rise to this action is located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami,
Florida 33187 (the “Subject Property”) in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
2. This is an action for damages of less than $8,000.00.
3. All material events giving rise to this action occurred in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
4. Plaintiffs are residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
5. Defendants reside in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
6. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, satisfied
or waived.
Page 1 of 7
7. Claimant has retained the services of the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for prosecution of this action.
8. Jurisdiction and venue are proper.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9. Plaintiffs are the record owners of the Subject Property.
10. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were the owners of the Subject
Property.
11. A true and accurate copy of two separate surveys which correctly depicting the
Subject Property is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (collectively referred to herein as “Survey”).
12. Since purchasing the Subject Property in 1997, Plaintiffs have paid the property
taxes and insurance for the Subject Property as depicted by the Survey.
13. Defendants reside at 17324 SW 149th Place, Miami, Florida 33187 (“Defendants’
Property”).
14. At all times material to this action, Defendants resided at Defendants’ Property.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendants are the record title owners of the
Defendants’ Property.
16. A true and correct copy of the survey belonging to, and provided by the Defendants
is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.
17. The two properties referenced above share a common boundary which is the eastern
boundary of the Subject Property, and the western boundary of the Defendants’ Property (said
boundary specifically referred to herein as “Common Boundary”).
18. On or about August of 1997, the developer that built the Plaintiffs’ home on the
Subject Property erected a fence (“Fence”) paralleling the Common Boundary.
Page 2 of 7
19. The Fence runs north and south approximately two feet to the west of the Common
Boundary; or more simply stated, the Fence sits two feet inside of the Subject Property.
20. The Fence is depicted on Survey and can be seen as the dashed line located
approximately two feet to the west of the Common Boundary and running parallel to the Common
Boundary.
21. Upon completion of the Fence, the builder and the Plaintiffs realized that the Fence
was incorrectly built two feet to the west of the Common Boundary due to marking stakes and
construction tape being wrongfully moved, as evidenced by the Survey.
22. In 1997, after the Fence was built, rather than remove the Fence and rebuild it on,
or near, the Common Boundary, Plaintiffs chose to leave the Fence as it was until such time as the
Fence exhausted its useful life and needed replacement, at which time Plaintiffs would build a new
Fence nearer the Common Boundary.
23. Plaintiffs, knowing that the two feet of property to the east of the Fence abutted the
Defendants’ Property without obstruction, consented to the Defendants’ use and enjoyment of that
portion of the Subject Property until such time as the Plaintiffs rebuild the existing Fence or
withdraw consent.
24. By early 2023, the Fence had become severely dilapidated and was falling apart.
25. The current state of the Fence creates a safety hazard.
26. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought to remove the Fence and install a new fence.
27. Plaintiffs hired a surveyor and fence contractor.
28. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that the trees the
Defendants had planted behind the Fence were rooted on the two feet of the Subject Property lying
to the east of the Fence.
Page 3 of 7
29. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence
could only be installed where it presently stands (two feet inside of the Subject Property) if the
trees and their roots were largely removed.
30. Both the surveyor and fence contractor also informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence
could only be installed along the Common Boundary if the trees were entirely removed.
31. At this time, Plaintiffs approached Defendant, Victor Goizueta (“Victor”) to
remove the trees to make way for the new fence.
32. Victor became confrontational and refused to cut or remove his trees, or consent to
same.
33. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sent the Defendants written notice that they have withdrawn
their consent of the Defendants’ use of the two feet of the Subject Property lying to the east of the
Fence and demanded that Defendants vacate the Subject Property and remove their trees and any
other obstructions belonging to them from same so that Plaintiffs could replace their fence.
34. A true and correct copy of the above referenced written notice is attached hereto as
“Exhibit C”.
35. Defendants refuse to vacate the Subject Property.
36. Defendants refuse to remove their trees and obstructions from the Subject Property.
COUNT I
TRESPASS
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth
herein.
37. Plaintiffs withdrew consent of Defendants’ use of the Subject Property.
38. The Defendants, by and through the wrongful placement of their trees on the
Subject Property trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property.
Page 4 of 7
39. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ prior demands that Defendants cease and desist
trespassing on the Subject Property and remove their trees from the Subject Property, Defendants’
willfully and intentionally refuse vacate and remove said trees, thus, continuing to trespass on the
Subject Property.
40. Plaintiffs have retained an arborist who has estimated the cost of removing
Defendants’ trees at $2,500. This estimate does not include the cost of restoration after the trees
are removed.
41. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel, and incurred attorneys’ fees and
costs.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the trespass Plaintiffs have suffered damages
and will continue to suffer damage until the Defendants remove their trees from the Subject
Property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA, respectfully
request this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and
VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, award damages for the removal and restoration of the Subject Property,
attorneys’ fees and costs, for relief requested herein, and any other relief deemed just and proper.
COUNT II
QUIET TITLE
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth
herein.
43. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject
property, or a portion thereof adverse to the Plaintiffs’ by virtue of a claim that a portion of
Plaintiffs’ property is part of the Defendants’ property.
Page 5 of 7
44. The claim of the Defendants is without any rights whatsoever, and Defendants have
no right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the property, or portion thereof.
45. As such, Plaintiffs are uncertain as to the condition of the title to the Subject
Property.
46. Florida Statute Section 65.021 provides:
“Real Estate; removing clouds. – Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions
brought by any person or corporation, whether in actual possession or not, claiming
legal or equitable title to land against any person or corporation not in actual
possession, who has, appears to have or claims an adverse legal or equitable estate,
interest or claim therein to determine such estate, interest, or claim and quiet or
remove clouds from the title to the land. It is not bar to relief that the title has not
been litigation at law or that there is only one litigant to each side of the controversy
or that the adverse claim, estate, or interest is void upon its face, or though not void
on its face, requires extrinsic evidence to establish its validity.”
47. Plaintiffs hereby claims legal and equitable title to the Subject Property against the
Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA and ALL OTHER PERSONS
CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE REAL
ESTATE DESCRIBED IN THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT.
48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully
requests this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order quieting title of the Subject
Property described above in favor of Plaintiffs and for such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT III
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth
herein.
Page 6 of 7
49. Plaintiffs own the Subject Property located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida
33187.
50. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject
property, or portion thereof.
51. An actual, present, bona fide disputed exists as to the extent of the Warranty and
Quit Claim Deeds, and the delimitations of the subject property.
52. Plaintiffs believe the Subject Property in its entirety belongs to same (Plaintiffs).
53. However, due to conflicting and incorrect assertions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs
are of what, if any, rights the Defendants have in Plaintiffs’ property.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully
request this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order declaring that the real property
located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187 or a portion thereof is not now, nor has ever
been, part of Defendants’ property, and granting any and all other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
Sincerely,
_/s/ Marlin Muller_
Marlin Muller, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1003675
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HERSHOFF, LUPINO & YAGEL, LLP.
9350 S Dixie Highway, Suite 1470
Miami, FL 33156
Tel.: 305-852-8440
Fax: 305-852-8848
Email: mmuller@hlylaw.com
Secondary: kvilchez@hlylaw.com
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
Filing # 192560039 E-Filed 02/22/2024 05:49:02 PM
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
LUCY QUINTANA, and
GABRIEL QUINTANA,
Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2023-067790-SP-05
vs.
VICTOR GOIZUETA, and
VIRGINIA GOIZUETA,
Defendants.
__________________________/
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff’s, LUCY QUINTANA and GABRIEL QUINTANA (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this action against Defendants,
VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and
Defendants collectively referred to as “Parties”), and states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The real property giving rise to this action is located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami,
Florida 33187 (the “Subject Property”) in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
2. This is an action for damages of less than $8,000.00.
3. All material events giving rise to this action occurred in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
4. Plaintiffs are residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
5. Defendants reside in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
6. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, satisfied
or waived.
Page 1 of 7
7. Claimant has retained the services of the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for prosecution of this action.
8. Jurisdiction and venue are proper.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9. Plaintiffs are the record owners of the Subject Property.
10. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were the owners of the Subject
Property.
11. A true and accurate copy of two separate surveys which correctly depicting the
Subject Property is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (collectively referred to herein as “Survey”).
12. Since purchasing the Subject Property in 1997, Plaintiffs have paid the property
taxes and insurance for the Subject Property as depicted by the Survey.
13. Defendants reside at 17324 SW 149th Place, Miami, Florida 33187 (“Defendants’
Property”).
14. At all times material to this action, Defendants resided at Defendants’ Property.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendants are the record title owners of the
Defendants’ Property.
16. A true and correct copy of the survey belonging to, and provided by the Defendants
is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.
17. The two properties referenced above share a common boundary which is the eastern
boundary of the Subject Property, and the western boundary of the Defendants’ Property (said
boundary specifically referred to herein as “Common Boundary”).
18. On or about August of 1997, the developer that built the Plaintiffs’ home on the
Subject Property erected a fence (“Fence”) paralleling the Common Boundary.
Page 2 of 7
19. The Fence runs north and south approximately two feet to the west of the Common
Boundary; or more simply stated, the Fence sits two feet inside of the Subject Property.
20. The Fence is depicted on Survey and can be seen as the dashed line located
approximately two feet to the west of the Common Boundary and running parallel to the Common
Boundary.
21. Upon completion of the Fence, the builder and the Plaintiffs realized that the Fence
was incorrectly built two feet to the west of the Common Boundary due to marking stakes and
construction tape being wrongfully moved, as evidenced by the Survey.
22. In 1997, after the Fence was built, rather than remove the Fence and rebuild it on,
or near, the Common Boundary, Plaintiffs chose to leave the Fence as it was until such time as the
Fence exhausted its useful life and needed replacement, at which time Plaintiffs would build a new
Fence nearer the Common Boundary.
23. Plaintiffs, knowing that the two feet of property to the east of the Fence abutted the
Defendants’ Property without obstruction, consented to the Defendants’ use and enjoyment of that
portion of the Subject Property until such time as the Plaintiffs rebuild the existing Fence or
withdraw consent.
24. By early 2023, the Fence had become severely dilapidated and was falling apart.
25. The current state of the Fence creates a safety hazard.
26. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought to remove the Fence and install a new fence.
27. Plaintiffs hired a surveyor and fence contractor.
28. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that the trees the
Defendants had planted behind the Fence were rooted on the two feet of the Subject Property lying
to the east of the Fence.
Page 3 of 7
29. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence
could only be installed where it presently stands (two feet inside of the Subject Property) if the
trees and their roots were largely removed.
30. Both the surveyor and fence contractor also informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence
could only be installed along the Common Boundary if the trees were entirely removed.
31. At this time, Plaintiffs approached Defendant, Victor Goizueta (“Victor”) to
remove the trees to make way for the new fence.
32. Victor became confrontational and refused to cut or remove his trees, or consent to
same.
33. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sent the Defendants written notice that they have withdrawn
their consent of the Defendants’ use of the two feet of the Subject Property lying to the east of the
Fence and demanded that Defendants vacate the Subject Property and remove their trees and any
other obstructions belonging to them from same so that Plaintiffs could replace their fence.
34. A true and correct copy of the above referenced written notice is attached hereto as
“Exhibit C”.
35. Defendants refuse to vacate the Subject Property.
36. Defendants refuse to remove their trees and obstructions from the Subject Property.
COUNT I
TRESPASS
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth
herein.
37. Plaintiffs withdrew consent of Defendants’ use of the Subject Property.
38. The Defendants, by and through the wrongful placement of their trees on the
Subject Property trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property.
Page 4 of 7
39. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ prior demands that Defendants cease and desist
trespassing on the Subject Property and remove their trees from the Subject Property, Defendants’
willfully and intentionally refuse vacate and remove said trees, thus, continuing to trespass on the
Subject Property.
40. Plaintiffs have retained an arborist who has estimated the cost of removing
Defendants’ trees at $2,500. This estimate does not include the cost of restoration after the trees
are removed.
41. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel, and incurred attorneys’ fees and
costs.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the trespass Plaintiffs have suffered damages
and will continue to suffer damage until the Defendants remove their trees from the Subject
Property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA, respectfully
request this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and
VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, award damages for the removal and restoration of the Subject Property,
attorneys’ fees and costs, for relief requested herein, and any other relief deemed just and proper.
COUNT II
QUIET TITLE
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth
herein.
43. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject
property, or a portion thereof adverse to the Plaintiffs’ by virtue of a claim that a portion of
Plaintiffs’ property is part of the Defendants’ property.
Page 5 of 7
44. The claim of the Defendants is without any rights whatsoever, and Defendants have
no right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the property, or portion thereof.
45. As such, Plaintiffs are uncertain as to the condition of the title to the Subject
Property.
46. Florida Statute Section 65.021 provides:
“Real Estate; removing clouds. – Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions
brought by any person or corporation, whether in actual possession or not, claiming
legal or equitable title to land against any person or corporation not in actual
possession, who has, appears to have or claims an adverse legal or equitable estate,
interest or claim therein to determine such estate, interest, or claim and quiet or
remove clouds from the title to the land. It is not bar to relief that the title has not
been litigation at law or that there is only one litigant to each side of the controversy
or that the adverse claim, estate, or interest is void upon its face, or though not void
on its face, requires extrinsic evidence to establish its validity.”
47. Plaintiffs hereby claims legal and equitable title to the Subject Property against the
Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA and ALL OTHER PERSONS
CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE REAL
ESTATE DESCRIBED IN THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT.
48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully
requests this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order quieting title of the Subject
Property described above in favor of Plaintiffs and for such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT III
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth
herein.
Page 6 of 7
49. Plaintiffs own the Subject Property located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida
33187.
50. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject
property, or portion thereof.
51. An actual, present, bona fide disputed exists as to the extent of the Warranty and
Quit Claim Deeds, and the delimitations of the subject property.
52. Plaintiffs believe the Subject Property in its entirety belongs to same (Plaintiffs).
53. However, due to conflicting and incorrect assertions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs
are of what, if any, rights the Defendants have in Plaintiffs’ property.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully
request this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order declaring that the real property
located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187 or a portion thereof is not now, nor has ever
been, part of Defendants’ property, and granting any and all other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
Sincerely,
_/s/ Marlin Muller_
Marlin Muller, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1003675
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HERSHOFF, LUPINO & YAGEL, LLP.
9350 S Dixie Highway, Suite 1470
Miami, FL 33156
Tel.: 305-852-8440
Fax: 305-852-8848
Email: mmuller@hlylaw.com
Secondary: kvilchez@hlylaw.com
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
Filing # 176848742 E-Filed 07/06/2023 03:56:45 PM
FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET
The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing
and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the
plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant
to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.)
I. CASE STYLE
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gabriel Quintana, Lucy Quintana
Plaintiff Case #
Judge
vs.
Victor Goizueta, Virginia Goizueta
Defendant
II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM
Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of
the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim
shall not be used for any other purpose.
☒ $8,000 or less
☐ $8,001 - $30,000
☐ $30,001- $50,000
☐ $50,001- $75,000
☐ $75,001 - $100,000
☐ over $100,000.00
III. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most
definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader
category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines.
-1-
CIRCUIT CIVIL
☐ Condominium
☐ Contracts and indebtedness
☐ Eminent domain
☐ Auto negligence
☐ Negligence—other
☐ Business governance
☐ Business torts
☐ Environmental/Toxic tort
☐ Third party indemnification
☐ Construction defect
☐ Mass tort
☐ Negligent security
☐ Nursing home negligence
☐ Premises liability—commercial
☐ Premises liability—residential
☐ Products liability
☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure
☐ Commercial foreclosure
☐ Homestead residential foreclosure
☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure
☐ Other real property actions
☐Professional malpractice
☐ Malpractice—business
☐ Malpractice—medical
☐ Malpractice—other professional
☐ Other
☐ Antitrust/Trade regulation
☐ Business transactions
☐ Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance
☐ Constitutional challenge—proposed amendment
☐ Corporate trusts
☐ Discrimination—employment or other
☐ Insurance claims
☐ Intellectual property
☐ Libel/Slander
☐ Shareholder derivative action
☐ Securities litigation
☐ Trade secrets
☐ Trust litigation
COUNTY CIVIL
☒ Small Claims up to $8,000
☐ Civil
☐ Real property/Mortgage foreclosure
-2-
☐ Replevins
☐ Evictions
☐ Residential Evictions
☐ Non-residential Evictions
☐ Other civil (non-monetary)
COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT
This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the
Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒
IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):
☒ Monetary;
☐ Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief;
☐ Punitive
V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ]
(Specify)
1
VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?
☐ yes
☒ no
VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?
☒ no
☐ yes If “yes,” list all related cases by name, case number, and court.
VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?
☐ yes
☒ no
IX. DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE?
☐ yes
☒ no
I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of
my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.
Signature: s/ Marlin Scott Muller Fla. Bar # 1003675
Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney)
Marlin Scott Muller 07/06/2023
(type or print name) Date
-3-
JUAN FERNANDEZ—BARQUIN
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT AND COMPTROLLER
Miami-Dade County, Florida
CIVIL DIVISION
ROOM 137
73 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
Telephone: (305) 349-7442
T0: MARLIN MULLER ESQ Re; 2023-67790-SP05
Hershoff Lupino & Yagel Attorneys
9350 S Dixie Hwy Ste 1470
Miami, FL 33156-2949
Date: 02/22/2024
From: Transfer Clerk
This letter is to advise you that:
X This case is to'be transferred to CIRCUIT COURT
Please submit the filing fee of $ 101.00
Other
Please make check or money order payable to the Clerk of Courts and mail to:
Miami-Dade County Courthouse
Attn: Transfer Clerk
73 West Flagler Street, Room #137
Miami, FL 33130
Sincerely,
Juan Fernandez-Barquin
Clerk bf the Court and Comptrdller
Miami-Dade County
By: MARIA GUEVARA
Deputy Clerk
Central Depository - Civil Division - Clerk of the Board - Code Enforcement — Comptroller/Auditor - County Recorder - Criminal Division — District
Courts Division- Family Courts Division — Human ResourceslAdministrative Services — Juvenile Division Marriage License — Parking Violations —
Records/Archives Management — Technical Services Division - Traffic/Misdemeanor Division - V.A.B.
CLK/CT.594 Rev. 1/23 Clerk's web address: www.miamidadeclerk.gov
Filing # 185860775 E-Filed 11/09/2023 03:38:27 PM
DOCKET CODE: MREP
IN THE COUNTY COURT, IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
COUNTY COURT/CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 2023-067790-SP-05
Lucy Quintana; Gabriel SECTION: SD 06
Quintana,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
Victor Goizueta; Virginia
Goizueta
Defendant(s),
/
MEDIATOR’S REPORT
THIS CAUSE was referred for Mediation by Order of this Court. The undersigned Mediator reports as
follows:
PARTIES PRESENT AT MEDIATION: Marlin Muller, Plaintiff’s atty.; Lucy Quintana and Gabriel
Quintana; Theron Simmons, Defendant’s atty.; Victor Goizueta and Virginia Goizueta
☐ THE CASE WAS SETTLED THROUGH MEDIATIO N
D OCUMENTS S UBMITTED : ☐ Stipulation for Payment (via courtMAP)
☐ Landlord and Tenant Stipulation (via courtMAP)
☐ Order of Disbursement from Court Registry (via courtMAP)
☐ Agreed Final Judgment (via courtMAP)
☐ Voluntary Dismissal (via the E-Filing Portal)
☐ THE CASE WAS SETTLED PRIOR TO MEDIATION.
☒ THE CASE WAS CONTINUED BY ALL PARTIES PENDING SETTLEMENT . (30 days)
☐ NO AGREEMENT.
☐ PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION.
☐ DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION
☐ NO SHOW, BOTH PARTIES FAILED TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION.
☐ BOTH PARTIES REQUEST CASE TO BE RESET-
☐ CASE CANCELED AS PER- _____________________________________.
☐ OTHER: _______________________________________________________.
Dated this 9th day of November, 2023
/s/ Osmart J. Martinez
Revised 4/21
Osmart J. Martinez, Mediator
County Court Mediation Division
73 West Flagler Street, Room #2200
Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: (305) 349-7337
Revised 4/21
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Il;\?SION CASE NUMBER
CIVIL MEMO OF DISPOSITION 2023-0677906P-05 » ,.
[:1 OTHER Section 5-1
. E
a W
PLAINTIFF(S) VS. DEFENDANT(S) ® XOCK-IN |.\ 7313
Gabriel Quintana; Lucy Quintana ®Victor Goizueta; Virginia Goizueta N36 ? R03 &
G\
M FR 0:; QOQRTE »
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S) DEFENDANT ATTORNEY(S) DATE OF HE¥EI§S$§D PE
Muller, Marlin S |/ No Known Name 08/24/2023 - Small Claims
9:30 AM Pre-Trial
Conference
MOTIONS CALENDAR DIRECTIONS
COURT RULING ON MOTION: D NOTICE OF SERVICE PROCESS
[:1 GRANTED E] DENIED [:1 WITHHELD PENDING SERVICE MIR 0 ¢ 6) [I PENDING SETTLEMENT
ESTIMATED
COMMENTSH [:1 SET CASE FOR (I (0 [25 @3200 Pm TIME REQUIRED
f .- 100'
MW5 MEDIATION 30 S [I NON JURY TRIAL
' bl! I)? wmvet » " D JURY TRIAL
El STIPULATED WAIVER FOR APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL
E] ORDER INVOKING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
E] MOTION TO INVOKE THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
DISPOSITIONS
[:1 DEFAULT [:I FINAL JUDGMENT 1:] DEFAULT JUDGMENT El SUMMARY JUDGMENT E] AGREED JUDGMENT
El ORDER OF DISMISSAL AMOUNT OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF
El WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRINCIPAL $ INTEREST $ E] STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
E] WITH PREJUDICE COURT COSTS $ ATFORNEY FEES $
[:I VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
CONDITION OF DISPOSITION
E] EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT WITHHELD El ORDER WITHHOLDING JUDGMENT El PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROOF
PENDING PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AT A RATE OF
$ PER . COMMENCING
WEEK/MONTH DATE
SWORN TESTIMONY TAKEN IN COURT:
JUDGMENT OR ORDER TO BE PREPARED BY: El PLAINTIFF [I DEFENDANT El COURT
E] DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER IN DAYS
E] A DEFAULT IS HEREBY ENTERED AGAINST
FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRETRIAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW
By: Elizabeth del Riesgo 'jUffE JIM. 1.: »-.-...,? 1 q
DEPUTY CLERK »; -- «wa. 172'r32~-V'7m
Juan Fernandez-Barquin Lnuniy r » (CFQUGS
Clerk of the Court and Comptroller m eguuge
COURT REPORTER
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
DIVISION CASE NUMBER
E] CIVIL MEMO 0F DISPOSITION 2023-067790-SP-05
El OTHER Section No. 8006
PLAINTIFF(S) VS. DEFENDANT(S)
Gabriel Quintana; Lucy Quintana Victor Goizueta; Virginia Goizueta
, 0F wiT on
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S) DEFENDANT ATI'ORNEY(S) DATE OF H RM 3N“ RT5 ’1
Muller, Marlin S \/ No Known Name 02/21/2024 -LO-Ir/
C 0 on Calendar
Th (rm Simmer); 10.30 AM
MOTIONS CALENDAR DIRECTIONS
TYPE OF MOTION - STATUS CONFERENCE CASE CONTINUED:
SET BY coum Case Pendin PTC and [:1 NOTICE OF SERVICE PROCESS
D PEND'NG SERV'CE El PENDING SETTLEMENT
Mediation Settlement
COURT RULING ON MOTION:
ESTIMATED
E] GRANTED El DENIED El WITHHELD El SET CASE FOR TIME REQUIRED
c NT; $1] [I MEDIATION E] NON JURY TRIAL
. a [I JURY TRIAL
El STIPULATED WAIVER FOR APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL
El ORDER INVOKING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
+5 "I‘ . [3 MOTION TO INVOKE THE RULES OF CML PROCEDURE
DISPOSITIONS
E] DEFAULT E] FINAL JUDGMENT C] DEFAULT JUDGMENT [I SUMMARY JUDGMENT El AGREED JUDGMENT
I] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AMOUNT OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF
D WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRINCIPAL $ INTEREST $ D STIPULATION'FOR PAYMENT AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
D WITH PREJUDICE COURT COSTS $ ATTORNEY FEES $
E] VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
CONDITION OF DISPOSITION
El EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT WITHHELD E] ORDER WITHHOLDING JUDGMENT E] PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROOF
PENDING PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AT A RATE OF
3 PER . COMMENCING
WEEKIMONTH DATE
SWORN TESTIMONY TAKEN IN COURT: /
JUDGMENT OR ORDER TO BE PREPARED BY: I3 PLAINTIFF E] DEFENDANT MURT
E] DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER IN DAYS
U A DEFAULT IS HEREBY ENTERED AGAINST
FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRETRIAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW
ay:_Eli_Qhejh_dej_mE%°_ Christopher Green
Juan Fernandez-Barquin DEPUTY CLER County Court Judge
Clerk of the Court and Comptroller JUDGE
COURT REPORTER
Filing # 189205844 E-Filed 01/05/2024 03:42:14 PM
Filing # 189205844 E-Filed 01/05/2024 03:42:14 PM
Filing # 189245306 E-Filed 01/08/2024 07:57:44 AM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
LUCY QUINTANA, and GABRIEL CASE NO.: 2023-067790-SP-05
QUINTANA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Preview
Filing # 191338292 E-Filed 02/06/2024 11:28:32 AM IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA LUCY QUINTANA, and GABRIEL QUINTANA, Plaintiffs, Case No.:2023-067790-SP-05 vs. VICTOR GOIZUETA, and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, Defendants. __________________________/ AGREED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO TRANSFER COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA and GABRIEL QUINTANA (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court to transfer the above styled action to the appropriate court of jurisdiction, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami- Dade County, Florida, and states as follows: 1. After filing this action, the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs themselves, a surveyor representing the Plaintiffs met with counsel for VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively referred to as “Parties”), the Defendants themselves, and a surveyor representing the Defendants at the property that is the subject of this action. 2. At said meeting, it was discovered for the first time, and both surveyors agreed that a portion of the Plaintiffs’ property did in fact overlap with a portion of the Defendants’. 3. While the overlapping portion of the Parties’ properties is not disposition of the Plaintiffs’ trespass claim, resolution of the overlap is a necessary precondition for proper adjudication of Plaintiffs’ trespass claim. Page 1 of 3 4. Based upon the newly discovered title dispute, Plaintiffs move this Court for leave to Amend their Complaint to include counts for quiet title and declaratory relief. 5. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complain is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”. 6. This Court is without jurisdiction to preside over actions for quiet title and declaratory relief. 7. The proper court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade, County Florida. 8. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants conferred as to all matters contained herein. 9. Defendants do not object, and do agree, to this Court granting the relief Plaintiffs seek herein. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully request, and Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA agree and consent, that this Court grant Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend and to Transfer, and enter an Order deeming the Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A as filed on the date of entry of this Court’s Order, and ordering this action be transferred to the court of proper jurisdiction, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of foregoing was electronically served on all parties via the Florida E-filing Portal on this 6th day of February 2024. [SPACEINTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] [SIGNATURE BLOCKS NEXT PAGE] Page 2 of 3 Respectfully, _/s/ Marlin Muller_ Marlin Muller, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1003675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs HERSHOFF, LUPINO & YAGEL, LLP. 9350 S Dixie Highway, Suite 1470 Miami, FL 33156 Tel.: 305-852-8440 Fax: 305-852-8848 Email: mmuller@hlylaw.com Secondary: kvilchez@hlylaw.com /s/ Theron Simmons Theron Simmons, Esq. Fla. Bar #623385 Simmons Law Group 101 NE 3rd Ave., Ste 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 332-3706 tsimmons@law-bsa.com Counsel for Defendants Page 3 of 3 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA LUCY QUINTANA, and GABRIEL QUINTANA, Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2023-067790-SP-05 vs. VICTOR GOIZUETA, and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, Defendants. __________________________/ AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Plaintiff’s, LUCY QUINTANA and GABRIEL QUINTANA (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this action against Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively referred to as “Parties”), and states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The real property giving rise to this action is located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187 (the “Subject Property”) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2. This is an action for damages of less than $8,000.00. 3. All material events giving rise to this action occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 4. Plaintiffs are residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 5. Defendants reside in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 6. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, satisfied or waived. Page 1 of 7 7. Claimant has retained the services of the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for prosecution of this action. 8. Jurisdiction and venue are proper. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiffs are the record owners of the Subject Property. 10. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were the owners of the Subject Property. 11. A true and accurate copy of two separate surveys which correctly depicting the Subject Property is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (collectively referred to herein as “Survey”). 12. Since purchasing the Subject Property in 1997, Plaintiffs have paid the property taxes and insurance for the Subject Property as depicted by the Survey. 13. Defendants reside at 17324 SW 149th Place, Miami, Florida 33187 (“Defendants’ Property”). 14. At all times material to this action, Defendants resided at Defendants’ Property. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendants are the record title owners of the Defendants’ Property. 16. A true and correct copy of the survey belonging to, and provided by the Defendants is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”. 17. The two properties referenced above share a common boundary which is the eastern boundary of the Subject Property, and the western boundary of the Defendants’ Property (said boundary specifically referred to herein as “Common Boundary”). 18. On or about August of 1997, the developer that built the Plaintiffs’ home on the Subject Property erected a fence (“Fence”) paralleling the Common Boundary. Page 2 of 7 19. The Fence runs north and south approximately two feet to the west of the Common Boundary; or more simply stated, the Fence sits two feet inside of the Subject Property. 20. The Fence is depicted on Survey and can be seen as the dashed line located approximately two feet to the west of the Common Boundary and running parallel to the Common Boundary. 21. Upon completion of the Fence, the builder and the Plaintiffs realized that the Fence was incorrectly built two feet to the west of the Common Boundary due to marking stakes and construction tape being wrongfully moved, as evidenced by the Survey. 22. In 1997, after the Fence was built, rather than remove the Fence and rebuild it on, or near, the Common Boundary, Plaintiffs chose to leave the Fence as it was until such time as the Fence exhausted its useful life and needed replacement, at which time Plaintiffs would build a new Fence nearer the Common Boundary. 23. Plaintiffs, knowing that the two feet of property to the east of the Fence abutted the Defendants’ Property without obstruction, consented to the Defendants’ use and enjoyment of that portion of the Subject Property until such time as the Plaintiffs rebuild the existing Fence or withdraw consent. 24. By early 2023, the Fence had become severely dilapidated and was falling apart. 25. The current state of the Fence creates a safety hazard. 26. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought to remove the Fence and install a new fence. 27. Plaintiffs hired a surveyor and fence contractor. 28. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that the trees the Defendants had planted behind the Fence were rooted on the two feet of the Subject Property lying to the east of the Fence. Page 3 of 7 29. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence could only be installed where it presently stands (two feet inside of the Subject Property) if the trees and their roots were largely removed. 30. Both the surveyor and fence contractor also informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence could only be installed along the Common Boundary if the trees were entirely removed. 31. At this time, Plaintiffs approached Defendant, Victor Goizueta (“Victor”) to remove the trees to make way for the new fence. 32. Victor became confrontational and refused to cut or remove his trees, or consent to same. 33. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sent the Defendants written notice that they have withdrawn their consent of the Defendants’ use of the two feet of the Subject Property lying to the east of the Fence and demanded that Defendants vacate the Subject Property and remove their trees and any other obstructions belonging to them from same so that Plaintiffs could replace their fence. 34. A true and correct copy of the above referenced written notice is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. 35. Defendants refuse to vacate the Subject Property. 36. Defendants refuse to remove their trees and obstructions from the Subject Property. COUNT I TRESPASS Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth herein. 37. Plaintiffs withdrew consent of Defendants’ use of the Subject Property. 38. The Defendants, by and through the wrongful placement of their trees on the Subject Property trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property. Page 4 of 7 39. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ prior demands that Defendants cease and desist trespassing on the Subject Property and remove their trees from the Subject Property, Defendants’ willfully and intentionally refuse vacate and remove said trees, thus, continuing to trespass on the Subject Property. 40. Plaintiffs have retained an arborist who has estimated the cost of removing Defendants’ trees at $2,500. This estimate does not include the cost of restoration after the trees are removed. 41. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel, and incurred attorneys’ fees and costs. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the trespass Plaintiffs have suffered damages and will continue to suffer damage until the Defendants remove their trees from the Subject Property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA, respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, award damages for the removal and restoration of the Subject Property, attorneys’ fees and costs, for relief requested herein, and any other relief deemed just and proper. COUNT II QUIET TITLE Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth herein. 43. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject property, or a portion thereof adverse to the Plaintiffs’ by virtue of a claim that a portion of Plaintiffs’ property is part of the Defendants’ property. Page 5 of 7 44. The claim of the Defendants is without any rights whatsoever, and Defendants have no right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the property, or portion thereof. 45. As such, Plaintiffs are uncertain as to the condition of the title to the Subject Property. 46. Florida Statute Section 65.021 provides: “Real Estate; removing clouds. – Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions brought by any person or corporation, whether in actual possession or not, claiming legal or equitable title to land against any person or corporation not in actual possession, who has, appears to have or claims an adverse legal or equitable estate, interest or claim therein to determine such estate, interest, or claim and quiet or remove clouds from the title to the land. It is not bar to relief that the title has not been litigation at law or that there is only one litigant to each side of the controversy or that the adverse claim, estate, or interest is void upon its face, or though not void on its face, requires extrinsic evidence to establish its validity.” 47. Plaintiffs hereby claims legal and equitable title to the Subject Property against the Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA and ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE REAL ESTATE DESCRIBED IN THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT. 48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully requests this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order quieting title of the Subject Property described above in favor of Plaintiffs and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth herein. Page 6 of 7 49. Plaintiffs own the Subject Property located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187. 50. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject property, or portion thereof. 51. An actual, present, bona fide disputed exists as to the extent of the Warranty and Quit Claim Deeds, and the delimitations of the subject property. 52. Plaintiffs believe the Subject Property in its entirety belongs to same (Plaintiffs). 53. However, due to conflicting and incorrect assertions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs are of what, if any, rights the Defendants have in Plaintiffs’ property. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully request this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order declaring that the real property located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187 or a portion thereof is not now, nor has ever been, part of Defendants’ property, and granting any and all other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Sincerely, _/s/ Marlin Muller_ Marlin Muller, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1003675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs HERSHOFF, LUPINO & YAGEL, LLP. 9350 S Dixie Highway, Suite 1470 Miami, FL 33156 Tel.: 305-852-8440 Fax: 305-852-8848 Email: mmuller@hlylaw.com Secondary: kvilchez@hlylaw.com Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C Filing # 192560039 E-Filed 02/22/2024 05:49:02 PM IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA LUCY QUINTANA, and GABRIEL QUINTANA, Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2023-067790-SP-05 vs. VICTOR GOIZUETA, and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, Defendants. __________________________/ AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Plaintiff’s, LUCY QUINTANA and GABRIEL QUINTANA (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this action against Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively referred to as “Parties”), and states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The real property giving rise to this action is located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187 (the “Subject Property”) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 2. This is an action for damages of less than $8,000.00. 3. All material events giving rise to this action occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 4. Plaintiffs are residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 5. Defendants reside in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 6. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, satisfied or waived. Page 1 of 7 7. Claimant has retained the services of the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for prosecution of this action. 8. Jurisdiction and venue are proper. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiffs are the record owners of the Subject Property. 10. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were the owners of the Subject Property. 11. A true and accurate copy of two separate surveys which correctly depicting the Subject Property is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (collectively referred to herein as “Survey”). 12. Since purchasing the Subject Property in 1997, Plaintiffs have paid the property taxes and insurance for the Subject Property as depicted by the Survey. 13. Defendants reside at 17324 SW 149th Place, Miami, Florida 33187 (“Defendants’ Property”). 14. At all times material to this action, Defendants resided at Defendants’ Property. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendants are the record title owners of the Defendants’ Property. 16. A true and correct copy of the survey belonging to, and provided by the Defendants is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”. 17. The two properties referenced above share a common boundary which is the eastern boundary of the Subject Property, and the western boundary of the Defendants’ Property (said boundary specifically referred to herein as “Common Boundary”). 18. On or about August of 1997, the developer that built the Plaintiffs’ home on the Subject Property erected a fence (“Fence”) paralleling the Common Boundary. Page 2 of 7 19. The Fence runs north and south approximately two feet to the west of the Common Boundary; or more simply stated, the Fence sits two feet inside of the Subject Property. 20. The Fence is depicted on Survey and can be seen as the dashed line located approximately two feet to the west of the Common Boundary and running parallel to the Common Boundary. 21. Upon completion of the Fence, the builder and the Plaintiffs realized that the Fence was incorrectly built two feet to the west of the Common Boundary due to marking stakes and construction tape being wrongfully moved, as evidenced by the Survey. 22. In 1997, after the Fence was built, rather than remove the Fence and rebuild it on, or near, the Common Boundary, Plaintiffs chose to leave the Fence as it was until such time as the Fence exhausted its useful life and needed replacement, at which time Plaintiffs would build a new Fence nearer the Common Boundary. 23. Plaintiffs, knowing that the two feet of property to the east of the Fence abutted the Defendants’ Property without obstruction, consented to the Defendants’ use and enjoyment of that portion of the Subject Property until such time as the Plaintiffs rebuild the existing Fence or withdraw consent. 24. By early 2023, the Fence had become severely dilapidated and was falling apart. 25. The current state of the Fence creates a safety hazard. 26. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought to remove the Fence and install a new fence. 27. Plaintiffs hired a surveyor and fence contractor. 28. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that the trees the Defendants had planted behind the Fence were rooted on the two feet of the Subject Property lying to the east of the Fence. Page 3 of 7 29. Both the surveyor and fence contractor informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence could only be installed where it presently stands (two feet inside of the Subject Property) if the trees and their roots were largely removed. 30. Both the surveyor and fence contractor also informed the Plaintiffs that a new fence could only be installed along the Common Boundary if the trees were entirely removed. 31. At this time, Plaintiffs approached Defendant, Victor Goizueta (“Victor”) to remove the trees to make way for the new fence. 32. Victor became confrontational and refused to cut or remove his trees, or consent to same. 33. Thereafter, Plaintiffs sent the Defendants written notice that they have withdrawn their consent of the Defendants’ use of the two feet of the Subject Property lying to the east of the Fence and demanded that Defendants vacate the Subject Property and remove their trees and any other obstructions belonging to them from same so that Plaintiffs could replace their fence. 34. A true and correct copy of the above referenced written notice is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. 35. Defendants refuse to vacate the Subject Property. 36. Defendants refuse to remove their trees and obstructions from the Subject Property. COUNT I TRESPASS Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth herein. 37. Plaintiffs withdrew consent of Defendants’ use of the Subject Property. 38. The Defendants, by and through the wrongful placement of their trees on the Subject Property trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property. Page 4 of 7 39. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ prior demands that Defendants cease and desist trespassing on the Subject Property and remove their trees from the Subject Property, Defendants’ willfully and intentionally refuse vacate and remove said trees, thus, continuing to trespass on the Subject Property. 40. Plaintiffs have retained an arborist who has estimated the cost of removing Defendants’ trees at $2,500. This estimate does not include the cost of restoration after the trees are removed. 41. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel, and incurred attorneys’ fees and costs. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the trespass Plaintiffs have suffered damages and will continue to suffer damage until the Defendants remove their trees from the Subject Property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA, respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA, award damages for the removal and restoration of the Subject Property, attorneys’ fees and costs, for relief requested herein, and any other relief deemed just and proper. COUNT II QUIET TITLE Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth herein. 43. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject property, or a portion thereof adverse to the Plaintiffs’ by virtue of a claim that a portion of Plaintiffs’ property is part of the Defendants’ property. Page 5 of 7 44. The claim of the Defendants is without any rights whatsoever, and Defendants have no right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the property, or portion thereof. 45. As such, Plaintiffs are uncertain as to the condition of the title to the Subject Property. 46. Florida Statute Section 65.021 provides: “Real Estate; removing clouds. – Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions brought by any person or corporation, whether in actual possession or not, claiming legal or equitable title to land against any person or corporation not in actual possession, who has, appears to have or claims an adverse legal or equitable estate, interest or claim therein to determine such estate, interest, or claim and quiet or remove clouds from the title to the land. It is not bar to relief that the title has not been litigation at law or that there is only one litigant to each side of the controversy or that the adverse claim, estate, or interest is void upon its face, or though not void on its face, requires extrinsic evidence to establish its validity.” 47. Plaintiffs hereby claims legal and equitable title to the Subject Property against the Defendants, VICTOR GOIZUETA and VIRGINIA GOIZUETA and ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE REAL ESTATE DESCRIBED IN THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT. 48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully requests this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order quieting title of the Subject Property described above in favor of Plaintiffs and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one 1 through 36 above as if set fully forth herein. Page 6 of 7 49. Plaintiffs own the Subject Property located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187. 50. Defendants have claimed a right, estate, title, lien or interest in and to the subject property, or portion thereof. 51. An actual, present, bona fide disputed exists as to the extent of the Warranty and Quit Claim Deeds, and the delimitations of the subject property. 52. Plaintiffs believe the Subject Property in its entirety belongs to same (Plaintiffs). 53. However, due to conflicting and incorrect assertions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs are of what, if any, rights the Defendants have in Plaintiffs’ property. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, LUCY QUINTANA, GABRIEL QUINTANA respectfully request this Court take jurisdiction of this action, enter an order declaring that the real property located at 17291 SW 150th Ct, Miami, Florida 33187 or a portion thereof is not now, nor has ever been, part of Defendants’ property, and granting any and all other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Sincerely, _/s/ Marlin Muller_ Marlin Muller, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1003675 Attorneys for Plaintiffs HERSHOFF, LUPINO & YAGEL, LLP. 9350 S Dixie Highway, Suite 1470 Miami, FL 33156 Tel.: 305-852-8440 Fax: 305-852-8848 Email: mmuller@hlylaw.com Secondary: kvilchez@hlylaw.com Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C Filing # 176848742 E-Filed 07/06/2023 03:56:45 PM FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.) I. CASE STYLE IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Gabriel Quintana, Lucy Quintana Plaintiff Case # Judge vs. Victor Goizueta, Virginia Goizueta Defendant II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim shall not be used for any other purpose. ☒ $8,000 or less ☐ $8,001 - $30,000 ☐ $30,001- $50,000 ☐ $50,001- $75,000 ☐ $75,001 - $100,000 ☐ over $100,000.00 III. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines. -1- CIRCUIT CIVIL ☐ Condominium ☐ Contracts and indebtedness ☐ Eminent domain ☐ Auto negligence ☐ Negligence—other ☐ Business governance ☐ Business torts ☐ Environmental/Toxic tort ☐ Third party indemnification ☐ Construction defect ☐ Mass tort ☐ Negligent security ☐ Nursing home negligence ☐ Premises liability—commercial ☐ Premises liability—residential ☐ Products liability ☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure ☐ Commercial foreclosure ☐ Homestead residential foreclosure ☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure ☐ Other real property actions ☐Professional malpractice ☐ Malpractice—business ☐ Malpractice—medical ☐ Malpractice—other professional ☐ Other ☐ Antitrust/Trade regulation ☐ Business transactions ☐ Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance ☐ Constitutional challenge—proposed amendment ☐ Corporate trusts ☐ Discrimination—employment or other ☐ Insurance claims ☐ Intellectual property ☐ Libel/Slander ☐ Shareholder derivative action ☐ Securities litigation ☐ Trade secrets ☐ Trust litigation COUNTY CIVIL ☒ Small Claims up to $8,000 ☐ Civil ☐ Real property/Mortgage foreclosure -2- ☐ Replevins ☐ Evictions ☐ Residential Evictions ☐ Non-residential Evictions ☐ Other civil (non-monetary) COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒ IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply): ☒ Monetary; ☐ Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief; ☐ Punitive V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ] (Specify) 1 VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? ☐ yes ☒ no VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED? ☒ no ☐ yes If “yes,” list all related cases by name, case number, and court. VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? ☐ yes ☒ no IX. DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE? ☐ yes ☒ no I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. Signature: s/ Marlin Scott Muller Fla. Bar # 1003675 Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney) Marlin Scott Muller 07/06/2023 (type or print name) Date -3- JUAN FERNANDEZ—BARQUIN CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT AND COMPTROLLER Miami-Dade County, Florida CIVIL DIVISION ROOM 137 73 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Telephone: (305) 349-7442 T0: MARLIN MULLER ESQ Re; 2023-67790-SP05 Hershoff Lupino & Yagel Attorneys 9350 S Dixie Hwy Ste 1470 Miami, FL 33156-2949 Date: 02/22/2024 From: Transfer Clerk This letter is to advise you that: X This case is to'be transferred to CIRCUIT COURT Please submit the filing fee of $ 101.00 Other Please make check or money order payable to the Clerk of Courts and mail to: Miami-Dade County Courthouse Attn: Transfer Clerk 73 West Flagler Street, Room #137 Miami, FL 33130 Sincerely, Juan Fernandez-Barquin Clerk bf the Court and Comptrdller Miami-Dade County By: MARIA GUEVARA Deputy Clerk Central Depository - Civil Division - Clerk of the Board - Code Enforcement — Comptroller/Auditor - County Recorder - Criminal Division — District Courts Division- Family Courts Division — Human ResourceslAdministrative Services — Juvenile Division Marriage License — Parking Violations — Records/Archives Management — Technical Services Division - Traffic/Misdemeanor Division - V.A.B. CLK/CT.594 Rev. 1/23 Clerk's web address: www.miamidadeclerk.gov Filing # 185860775 E-Filed 11/09/2023 03:38:27 PM DOCKET CODE: MREP IN THE COUNTY COURT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA COUNTY COURT/CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: 2023-067790-SP-05 Lucy Quintana; Gabriel SECTION: SD 06 Quintana, Plaintiff(s), vs. Victor Goizueta; Virginia Goizueta Defendant(s), / MEDIATOR’S REPORT THIS CAUSE was referred for Mediation by Order of this Court. The undersigned Mediator reports as follows: PARTIES PRESENT AT MEDIATION: Marlin Muller, Plaintiff’s atty.; Lucy Quintana and Gabriel Quintana; Theron Simmons, Defendant’s atty.; Victor Goizueta and Virginia Goizueta ☐ THE CASE WAS SETTLED THROUGH MEDIATIO N D OCUMENTS S UBMITTED : ☐ Stipulation for Payment (via courtMAP) ☐ Landlord and Tenant Stipulation (via courtMAP) ☐ Order of Disbursement from Court Registry (via courtMAP) ☐ Agreed Final Judgment (via courtMAP) ☐ Voluntary Dismissal (via the E-Filing Portal) ☐ THE CASE WAS SETTLED PRIOR TO MEDIATION. ☒ THE CASE WAS CONTINUED BY ALL PARTIES PENDING SETTLEMENT . (30 days) ☐ NO AGREEMENT. ☐ PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION. ☐ DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION ☐ NO SHOW, BOTH PARTIES FAILED TO APPEAR FOR MEDIATION. ☐ BOTH PARTIES REQUEST CASE TO BE RESET- ☐ CASE CANCELED AS PER- _____________________________________. ☐ OTHER: _______________________________________________________. Dated this 9th day of November, 2023 /s/ Osmart J. Martinez Revised 4/21 Osmart J. Martinez, Mediator County Court Mediation Division 73 West Flagler Street, Room #2200 Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: (305) 349-7337 Revised 4/21 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Il;\?SION CASE NUMBER CIVIL MEMO OF DISPOSITION 2023-0677906P-05 » ,. [:1 OTHER Section 5-1 . E a W PLAINTIFF(S) VS. DEFENDANT(S) ® XOCK-IN |.\ 7313 Gabriel Quintana; Lucy Quintana ®Victor Goizueta; Virginia Goizueta N36 ? R03 & G\ M FR 0:; QOQRTE » PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S) DEFENDANT ATTORNEY(S) DATE OF HE¥EI§S$§D PE Muller, Marlin S |/ No Known Name 08/24/2023 - Small Claims 9:30 AM Pre-Trial Conference MOTIONS CALENDAR DIRECTIONS COURT RULING ON MOTION: D NOTICE OF SERVICE PROCESS [:1 GRANTED E] DENIED [:1 WITHHELD PENDING SERVICE MIR 0 ¢ 6) [I PENDING SETTLEMENT ESTIMATED COMMENTSH [:1 SET CASE FOR (I (0 [25 @3200 Pm TIME REQUIRED f .- 100' MW5 MEDIATION 30 S [I NON JURY TRIAL ' bl! I)? wmvet » " D JURY TRIAL El STIPULATED WAIVER FOR APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL E] ORDER INVOKING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE E] MOTION TO INVOKE THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DISPOSITIONS [:1 DEFAULT [:I FINAL JUDGMENT 1:] DEFAULT JUDGMENT El SUMMARY JUDGMENT E] AGREED JUDGMENT El ORDER OF DISMISSAL AMOUNT OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF El WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRINCIPAL $ INTEREST $ E] STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL E] WITH PREJUDICE COURT COSTS $ ATFORNEY FEES $ [:I VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL CONDITION OF DISPOSITION E] EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT WITHHELD El ORDER WITHHOLDING JUDGMENT El PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROOF PENDING PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AT A RATE OF $ PER . COMMENCING WEEK/MONTH DATE SWORN TESTIMONY TAKEN IN COURT: JUDGMENT OR ORDER TO BE PREPARED BY: El PLAINTIFF [I DEFENDANT El COURT E] DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER IN DAYS E] A DEFAULT IS HEREBY ENTERED AGAINST FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRETRIAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW By: Elizabeth del Riesgo 'jUffE JIM. 1.: »-.-...,? 1 q DEPUTY CLERK »; -- «wa. 172'r32~-V'7m Juan Fernandez-Barquin Lnuniy r » (CFQUGS Clerk of the Court and Comptroller m eguuge COURT REPORTER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA DIVISION CASE NUMBER E] CIVIL MEMO 0F DISPOSITION 2023-067790-SP-05 El OTHER Section No. 8006 PLAINTIFF(S) VS. DEFENDANT(S) Gabriel Quintana; Lucy Quintana Victor Goizueta; Virginia Goizueta , 0F wiT on PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S) DEFENDANT ATI'ORNEY(S) DATE OF H RM 3N“ RT5 ’1 Muller, Marlin S \/ No Known Name 02/21/2024 -LO-Ir/ C 0 on Calendar Th (rm Simmer); 10.30 AM MOTIONS CALENDAR DIRECTIONS TYPE OF MOTION - STATUS CONFERENCE CASE CONTINUED: SET BY coum Case Pendin PTC and [:1 NOTICE OF SERVICE PROCESS D PEND'NG SERV'CE El PENDING SETTLEMENT Mediation Settlement COURT RULING ON MOTION: ESTIMATED E] GRANTED El DENIED El WITHHELD El SET CASE FOR TIME REQUIRED c NT; $1] [I MEDIATION E] NON JURY TRIAL . a [I JURY TRIAL El STIPULATED WAIVER FOR APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL El ORDER INVOKING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE +5 "I‘ . [3 MOTION TO INVOKE THE RULES OF CML PROCEDURE DISPOSITIONS E] DEFAULT E] FINAL JUDGMENT C] DEFAULT JUDGMENT [I SUMMARY JUDGMENT El AGREED JUDGMENT I] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AMOUNT OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF D WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRINCIPAL $ INTEREST $ D STIPULATION'FOR PAYMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL D WITH PREJUDICE COURT COSTS $ ATTORNEY FEES $ E] VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL CONDITION OF DISPOSITION El EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT WITHHELD E] ORDER WITHHOLDING JUDGMENT E] PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROOF PENDING PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AT A RATE OF 3 PER . COMMENCING WEEKIMONTH DATE SWORN TESTIMONY TAKEN IN COURT: / JUDGMENT OR ORDER TO BE PREPARED BY: I3 PLAINTIFF E] DEFENDANT MURT E] DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER IN DAYS U A DEFAULT IS HEREBY ENTERED AGAINST FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRETRIAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW ay:_Eli_Qhejh_dej_mE%°_ Christopher Green Juan Fernandez-Barquin DEPUTY CLER County Court Judge Clerk of the Court and Comptroller JUDGE COURT REPORTER Filing # 189205844 E-Filed 01/05/2024 03:42:14 PM Filing # 189205844 E-Filed 01/05/2024 03:42:14 PM Filing # 189245306 E-Filed 01/08/2024 07:57:44 AM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA LUCY QUINTANA, and GABRIEL CASE NO.: 2023-067790-SP-05 QUINTANA, Plaintiffs, v.