UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

ROTHFOS CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

H&H COFFEE INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SEQUESTRATION OF RENTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Rothfos Corporation’s (“Rothfos”) 

Expedited Motion for the Sequestration of Rents, ECF No. [29] (“Motion”), filed on May 15, 2023. 

Defendant H&H Coffee Investments, LLC (“H&H”) filed a Response, ECF No. [32], to which 

Rothfos filed a Reply. ECF No. [33]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Response, the 

Reply, the record as a whole, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully informed. For the reasons 

set forth below, Rothfos’s Motion is granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

In this action, Rothfos alleges that H&H breached a corporate guaranty that was secured 

by a mortgage on a warehouse in Miami-Dade County. ECF No. [9]. In addition to seeking 

damages from H&H, Rothfos seeks to foreclose on that warehouse. Id. at 11-14. 

In the instant Motion, Rothfos seeks to enforce the mortgage’s “assignment of rents” 

provision, in which H&H agreed to assign to Rothfos “all rents, royalties, issues, profits, revenue, 

income, proceeds, licenses, concessions, and other benefits from the Mortgaged Property” upon 

H&H’s default. ECF No. [9-5] at 7. Rothfos’s Motion relies upon Fla. Stat. 697.07, which 

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2023 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

authorizes the Court to order H&H, as the mortgagor, to “deposit the collected rents into the 

registry of the court, or in such other depository as the court may designate.” Fla. Stat. § 697.07(4).

H&H responds that Rothfos’s Motion is “premature” because it has not yet been 

established that this is “a court of competent jurisdiction.” ECF No. [32] at 1. H&H argues that, as 

shown in its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, ECF No. [13], “subject-matter jurisdiction 

remains in dispute” in this case.” Id. H&H additionally asserts that it has not had an opportunity 

to develop its affirmative defenses to Rothfos’s claims. Id. at 2.

In reply, Rothfos points to Fla Stat. 697.07’s explicit instruction that a Court may order the 

sequestration of rents “notwithstanding any asserted defenses or counterclaims of the 

mortgagor[.]” Fla. Stat. § 697.07(4).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Fla. Stat. § 697.07 provides a mechanism for mortgagees to request the sequestration of 

rents in the registry of the court: 

Upon application by the mortgagee or mortgagor, in a foreclosure action, and 

notwithstanding any asserted defenses or counterclaims of the mortgagor, a court 

of competent jurisdiction, pending final adjudication of any action, may require the 

mortgagor to deposit the collected rents into the registry of the court, or in such 

other depository as the court may designate.

Fla. Stat. § 697.07(4) “To prevail” on a motion for the sequestration of rents, “the plaintiff need 

only make a bare showing of a pending foreclosure action with an assignment of rents provision.” 

Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Jomar Hudson, LLC, No. 13-cv-1952, 2014 WL 957134, at *1 (M.D. 

Fla. Mar. 10, 2014) (citing Wane v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 128 So. 3d 932, 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2013)). “Before such collected rents are deposited, however, a court may authorize the use of same 

to: (a) pay the reasonable expenses solely to protect, preserve, and operate the property, including 

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2023 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

real estate taxes and insurance; (b) escrow sums required by separate assignment of rents 

instruments; and (c) make payments to the mortgage.” Id. (citing Fla. Stat. § 697.07(4)(a)-(c)).

III. DISCUSSION

Rothfos asserts that it has made the “bare showing” required for its Motion for 

sequestration of rents to be granted. ECF No. [29] at 9. Rothfos has credibly alleged that (1) H&H

has defaulted under the terms of the Guaranty and Mortgage, ECF No. [29] at 9; (2) the Mortgage 

contains an assignment of rents provision, assigning to Rothfos “all rents, royalties, issues, profits, 

revenue, income, proceeds, licenses, concessions, and other benefits from the Mortgaged 

Property” in the event of default, ECF No. [9-5] at 7; and (3) the Mortgage was publicly recorded. 

ECF No. [29] at 9. 

In response, H&H does not dispute any of Rothfos’s three contentions stated in the 

preceding paragraph. Rather, H&H argues that Rothfos’s Motion is “premature” because (1) there 

is a pending Motion to Compel Arbitration that relates to subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) 

Rothfos has not had an opportunity to assert its affirmative defenses. ECF No. [32] at 1.

H&H’s first argument is a nonstarter because the Court denied its Motion to Compel 

Arbitration. See ECF No. [37]. There is therefore no pending challenge to the Court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

As for H&H’s second argument, the Court agrees with Rothfos that, for the purpose of 

Rothfos’s Motion for sequestration of rents, H&H’s affirmative defenses are irrelevant. ECF No. 

[33] at 3. The relevant Florida statute explicitly authorizes the Court to grant Rothfos’s Motion for 

sequestration of rents “notwithstanding any asserted defenses or counterclaims of the 

mortgagor[.]” Fla. Stat. § 697.07(4). To establish entitlement to the relief Rothfos seeks, Rothfos 

need only make “a bare showing of a pending foreclosure action and an assignment of rents 

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2023 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-24000-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

provision in the applicable mortgage[.]” Wane, 128 So. 3d at 934. Rothfos has made that showing 

in its Motion, which includes the Corporate Guaranty stating H&H’s duties toward Rothfos, ECF 

No. [29-1], the Mortgage over the warehouse which contains an unambiguous assignment of rents, 

ECF No. [29-2] at 7, and the Final Notice of Default sent to H&H. ECF No. [29-4]. H&H does not 

contest the authenticity of any of those documents. Accordingly, Rothfos has met its burden of 

making a “bare showing” of entitlement to the sequestration of rent. Wane, 128 So. 3d at 934.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Rothfos’s Motion, ECF No. [29], 

is GRANTED. Defendant H&H shall:

1. Deposit rents into the registry for the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida, less the exceptions as outlined in Fla. Stat. § 697.07(4)(a)-(c), if 

any;

2. Provide Rothfos with a certified rent roll reflecting all collected Rents received yearto-date for the Property and expenses associated with the Property;

3. Provide Rothfos with a monthly certified rent roll reflecting all collected Rents received 

from the Property, and all expenses associated with the Property as of the fifteenth 

(15th) day of each and every month following the entry of the Order; and

4. Provide Rothfos with a receipt for each expense reflected on every certified rent roll.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 16, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24000-BB Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2023 Page 4 of 4