~ 1 ~

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

17
th
J UDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

J AMES D. EVANS, CASE NO. CACE 11-006244(11)

Plaintiff,

vs.

STUART FINKELSTEIN AND EVELYN
FINKELSTEIN a/k/a EVELYN COOPER
FINKELSTEIN, husband and wife, COUNTRY
GLEN ASSOCIATION, INC., KING MOTOR
COMPANY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. and
BEST VALET, LLC,

Defendants.
_______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS STUART FINKELSTEIN, EVELYN FINKELSTEIN, AND BEST
VALET, LLCs OBJECTION TO FORECLOSURE SALE

COME NOW, Defendants STUART FINKELSTEIN and EVELYN FINKELSTEIN
(Collectively referred to as Finkelstein Defendants), by and through undersigned counsel, and
pursuant to 45.031, Florida Statutes, and hereby file this Objection to Foreclosure Sale, and as
grounds therefore state as follows:
1. Defendants Stuart Finkelstein and Evelyn Finkelstein are the owners of the real
property located at 13255 Lakeside Terrace, Cooper City, FL 33330, and described as
Lot 8, Block 7, of Country Glen, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book
154, Page 49 of the Public Records of Broward County, Florida.
2. A foreclosure sale was held on J uly 16, 2014, for the above described property.
3. Finkelstein Defendants object to the sale in that the procedures utilized for the
sale were and are inherently faulty and resulted in a noncompetitive and unreasonable auction.


~ 2 ~

4. This case highlights the problems inherent in the current foreclosure auction
system due to the following facts and circumstances.
5. Prior to the sale date, a potential purchaser entered into a short sale agreement to
purchase the property for $400,000.00. A copy of the short sale contract is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
6. As a short sale, the contract was subject to Evans approval, and Evans rejected
the short sale contract.
7. However, the contract demonstrates that a 3
rd
party was willing to pay
$400,000.00 for the property.
8. The property actually sold for $5,200.00 at the foreclosure sale. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 2 is a printout of the foreclosure auction website showing the auction information.
9. Evans had a maximum bid of $555,000 recorded in the foreclosure sale online
system, and said max bid was visible to anyone viewing that page of the foreclosure system
website, including potential bidders. Evans max bid of $555,000.00 was different from the
amount of the judgment in that the judgment amount was greater than the listed max bid.
10. There are 2 other ways that a plaintiffs max bid is listed: (1) the amount of the
judgment exactly matches the amount of the max bid, or (2) the amount of the max bid is hidden.
11. Finkelstein Defendants maintain that this case demonstrates that the system of
displaying a plaintiffs max bid, and allowing a plaintiff to automatically bid over anyone
bidding under that max bid, is unreasonable and leads to noncompetitive auctions that result in
unfairly low sales prices.
12. In order for foreclosure sales to be reasonable, the auctions must be competitive.
In order to be competitive, plaintiffs max bid should either not be disclosed, or the system


~ 3 ~

should not permit automatic bidding by plaintiffs with the first option being more crucial for
the existence of a fair system.
13. In this case, it is quite possible that the same 3
rd
party who attempted to purchase
the property via short sale (or another 3
rd
party) might have bid at the foreclosure sale. However,
the listing of plaintiffs max bid gives notice that any bid under $555,000.00 will not be a
winning bid. As a result, bidding is futile, and plaintiffs are permitted to scare away bidders
before they begin bidding.
14. Were a plaintiffs max bid not visible, in this case, the property could have very
well sold for more than $400,000.00. Evans may have been forced to outbid someone bidding
$400,000.00. Instead, Evans was able to avoid competition by posting a max bid that would
outbid any lower bid automatically up to $555,000.00.
15. The result is a noncompetitive auction process in which sales prices are frequently
unreasonably low.
16. If the automatic bidding did not exist, a portion of the problem would be solved in
that potential bidder in a foreclosure sale may bid to see whether someone else is bidding (in
other words, plaintiffs should be forced to actively bid, rather than passively).
17. However, a max bid amount different from the judgment amount has its own
chilling effect in that other potential bidders may assume that a plaintiff will bid up to that
amount (even assuming that automatic bidding did not exist).
18. For the above reasons, in order for a foreclosure sale to be fair and reasonable, a
plaintiffs max bid should not be visible to potential bidders.


~ 4 ~

19. Any potential bidder knows from the amount of the judgment what he or she is
potentially up against. However, a plaintiff could decide not to bid at all or might stop far short
of the judgment amount. Uncertainty creates competitive bidding.
20. The lack of competitive bidding, and the process tainted by it, is very important
for a number of reasons.
21. Firstly, pursuant to 45.031(8), Florida Statutes (2013), The amount of the bid
for the property at the sale shall be conclusively presumed to be sufficient consideration for the
sale.
22. Secondly, pursuant to the same subsection of the same statute, the sale price may
be considered as a factor when the Court is making a determination of the value of the property
upon a Motion for Deficiency J udgment.
23. Considering the legal implications of a foreclosure sale price, the process is very
important. As presently carried out, the foreclosure auction process is unfair and
noncompetitive. While 45.031(10), Florida Statutes (2013) permits a clerk to accept an
electronic proxy bid from a plaintiff, there is nothing in the statute that requires or permits this
information to be disclosed to the public before the foreclosure auction. The practice of
disclosing said bid makes any such auction conducted in that manner inherently unreasonable,
unfair, and ultimately noncompetitive.






~ 5 ~

WHEREFORE, Defendants STUART FINKELSTEIN, EVELYN FINKELSTEIN and
BEST VALET, LLC respectfully request that this Honorable Court sustain their objection,
vacate the sale of the property in this case, order that a new foreclosure sale be held in a fair and
reasonable manner, and grant any other relief that may be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

THE GOSZ PROFESSIONAL LIMITED COMPANY
Counsel for Finkelstein Defendants and Best Valet, LLC
2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3760
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305.505.6340
Facsimile: 866.860.9122

By: s/J oseph R. Gosz
J OSEPH R. GOSZ
Fla. Bar No. 570311
jrgosz@goszplc.com



























~ 6 ~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was served
via e-mail this 25th day of J uly, 2014, upon the following parties/individuals, pursuant to the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the Florida Rules of J udicial Administration:
1. Robert T. Slatoff, Esq. (rslatoff@fwblaw.net), Frank, Weinberg & Black, P.L., Counsel
for Plaintiff, 1875 NW Corporate Blvd Ste 100, Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
2. Mark D. Cohen (mdcohenpa@yahoo.com), Mark D. Cohen, P.A., former Counsel for
Stuart Finkelstein, Evelyn Finkelstein, and Best Valet, LLC, Presidential Circle, Ste.
#435 So., 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, FL 33021.
3. Charles F. Otto, Esq. (cfo@straleyottopa.com), Straley and Otto, P.A., Counsel for
Defendant Country Glen Association, Inc., 2699 Stirling Rd, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312.
s/J oseph R. Gosz