UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov 

In re: 

COSTA HOLLYWOOD PROPERTY 

OWNER, LLC 

Debtor. 

Chapter 11 

Case No. 19-22483-AJC 

COSTA HOLLYWOOD PROPERTY 

OWNER, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A., a Florida 

professional association, & STEWART TITLE 

GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas 

corporation, 

Defendants. 

Adv. Proc. No. 20-01129-AJC 

DEFENDANT GREENBERG TRAURIG’S ANSWER AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT FOR TURNOVER, 

AND COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM FOR INTERPLEADER 

Defendant Greenberg Traurig, P.A. (“Greenberg Traurig” or “Defendant”), by and 

through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

the Complaint for Turnover, and Counterclaim and Crossclaim for Interpleader (the “Answer 

and Request for Interpleader”) in response to the Complaint for Turnover [ECF No. 1] (the 

“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff, Costa Hollywood Property Owner, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Costa 

Hollywood”), and respectfully states as follows:1

 

1

 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given in the Complaint. 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 23
2 

INTRODUCTION 

 Greenberg Traurig is currently holding funds in escrow in connection with Indemnity 

Agreements entered into between Plaintiff and co-Defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company 

(“Stewart”). A dispute has arisen between Plaintiff and Stewart regarding whether Greenberg 

Traurig should continue to hold the funds in escrow or distribute the funds. The dispute between 

Plaintiff and Stewart has exposed Greenberg Traurig to inconsistent and competing claims and 

demands. Greenberg Traurig files this Answer and Request for Interpleader as a mere stakeholder, 

to preserve the funds while the parties address, and the Court resolves, the contractual and other 

issues underlying the parties’ competing and conflicting claims and demands. 

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint contain legal conclusions 

to which no response is required, and such allegations are, therefore, denied. 

2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint contain legal conclusions 

to which no response is required, and such allegations are, therefore, denied. 

3. The allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint contain legal conclusions 

to which no response is required, and such allegations are, therefore, denied. 

4. The allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint contain legal conclusions 

to which no response is required, and such allegations are, therefore, denied. 

5. The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint contain legal conclusions 

to which no response is required, and such allegations are, therefore, denied. 

PARTIES 

6. The allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint are admitted. 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 23
3 

7. The allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint are admitted. 

8. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint purports to be a reservation of rights to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations 

contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

10. The allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint are admitted. 

11. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint and such allegations 

are, therefore, denied. 

12. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

13. The allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint are admitted in part and 

denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff and Stewart entered into two indemnity agreements. 

Defendant denies Plaintiff’s description of the Indemnity Agreements attached as Exhibits A and 

B to the Complaint because the Indemnity Agreements are the best evidence of their contents. 

14. The allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint are admitted in part and 

denied in part. Defendant admits that it is holding funds in escrow subject to the Indemnity 

Agreements. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint 

because the Indemnity Agreements are the best evidence of their contents. 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 3 of 23
4 

15. The allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied because the 

Indemnity Agreements are the best evidence of their contents. Defendant further denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, to the extent Plaintiff mischaracterizes the 

contents of the Indemnity Agreement. 

16. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

17. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. Defendant further denies the Plaintiff’s characterization of the Plan because the 

Plan is the best evidence of its contents. 

18. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

19. The allegations in paragraph 19 are denied. 

20. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

21. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

22. Defendant admits that it has been subject to conflicting demands from both Plaintiff 

and Steward regarding the escrowed funds, and otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 22. 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 4 of 23
5 

23. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint and such allegations are, 

therefore, denied. 

COUNT I 

Declaratory Judgment – 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Fla. Stat. Ch. 86 

24. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 

25. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint are conclusory legal allegations 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 

26. The allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint are conclusory legal allegations 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 

27. The allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint are conclusory legal allegations 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

The “WHEREFORE” clause, including sub-paragraphs (i) to (v) thereof, constitutes a 

prayer for relief and contains no factual averments to which a response is required. To the extent 

a response is required, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought therein. 

COUNT II 

Turnover — 11 U.S.C. § 542 

28. Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten herein. 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 5 of 23
6 

29. The allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint are conclusory legal allegations 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

30. The allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint are conclusory legal allegations 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 

31. The allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint are conclusory legal allegations 

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 

32. The allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions pursuant to section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code to which no response is required and 

such allegations are, therefore, denied. 

The “WHEREFORE” clause, including sub-paragraphs (i) to (ii) thereof, constitutes a 

prayer for relief and contains no factual averments to which a response is required. To the extent 

a response is required, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought therein. 

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

2. The claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 

3. The claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint are barred by the doctrine of laches. 

4. The claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint are barred by the doctrine of statute of 

limitations. 

5. The claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 6 of 23
7 

6. Defendant’s investigation into the claims set forth by Plaintiff are continuing. As 

such, Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend its Affirmative Defenses up through, 

and including, the time of trial. 

III. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM FOR INTERPLEADER 

Defendant Greenberg Traurig, pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

as made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7022 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, states 

as follows for its Counterclaim and Crossclaim for Interpleader against Plaintiff and Crossclaim 

Defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company (“Stewart”):

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff and Stewart are the same parties as in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the claims 

raised herein arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company 

authorized to do business in Florida which developed a condominium hotel project commonly 

known as “Costa Hollywood Beach Resort” located at 777 North Ocean Drive, in Hollywood, 

Florida. 

3. Upon information and belief, Stewart is a Texas corporation with a principal place 

of business at 1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77056, and which is authorized 

to and is conducting business in Broward County, Florida. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

4. Greenberg Traurig holds funds (the “Disputed Funds”) in the aggregate amount of 

$1,425,139.55 in escrow in connection with the Indemnity Agreements (as defined in the 

Complaint). Greenberg Traurig is an innocent stakeholder and claims no title to or interest in the 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 7 of 23
8 

Disputed Funds, and has no independent liability to Plaintiff or Stewart. 

5. Before the Petition Date, Plaintiff and Stewart entered into the Indemnity 

Agreements, pursuant to which the Disputed Funds were escrowed from sale proceeds to address 

certain identified risks. Placing the Disputed Funds in escrow was a necessary lynchpin to closing 

the sale of certain real property, considering certain construction lien risks that existed at the time. 

6. In recent months, Greenberg Traurig has been subjected to competing claims and 

demands with respect to the Disputed Funds. 

7. On August 21, 2019, Stewart instructed Greenberg Traurig to continue to hold the 

Disputed Funds in escrow. See Email dated August 21, 2019, Ex. A. 

8. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff, through counsel, requested that Greenberg Traurig 

distribute the funds to the Plaintiff, asserting that the Disputed Funds are property of the Debtor’s 

estate that need to be turned over immediately. See Email dated October 15, 2019, Ex. B. 

9. On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff, through counsel, again demanded that Greenberg 

Traurig release the Disputed Funds to the Plaintiff, contending that the conditions to release the 

funds have been satisfied. See Email dated December 10, 2019, Ex. C. Shortly thereafter, Stewart 

responded, explaining that Stewart was still facing exposure to certain risks. See Email dated 

December 11, 2019, Ex. D. 

10. On April 8, 2020, Stewart requested that Greenberg Traurig release certain amounts 

of the Disputed Funds to reimburse Stewart for legal costs incurred in connection with litigating 

matters related to the identified risks set forth in the Indemnity Agreements. See Email dated April 

8, 2020, Ex. E. 

11. On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, asserting that (i) Greenberg 

Traurig has refused to turn over the Disputed Funds to Plaintiff, and (ii) Plaintiff is entitled to 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 8 of 23
9 

possession of the Disputed Funds under Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code. Greenberg Traurig 

understands that Stewart disagrees with Plaintiff’s position, and Stewart has demanded that 

Greenberg Traurig refrain from distributing the Disputed Funds to Plaintiff. 

12. Based on the foregoing conflicting and irreconcilable claims asserted by Plaintiff 

and Stewart, Greenberg Traurig has been exposed to multiple liability due to the competing claims 

over the Disputed Funds. Greenberg Traurig may also be exposed to future liability due to the 

same competing claims on the Disputed Funds in the future. 

13. Greenberg Traurig makes no claim to the Disputed Funds. Due to the conflicting 

claims by Plaintiff and Stewart, Greenberg Traurig faces doubt and danger if it takes or refrains 

from taking any action related to the Disputed Funds absent an order from this Court judicially 

determining the rights of Plaintiff and Stewart to the Disputed Funds. 

COUNT I 

RULE INTERPLEADER PURSUANT TO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 22, AS 

MADE APPLICABLE BY FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 7022 

14. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 

15. Greenberg Traurig has been presented with conflicting claims and demands from 

Plaintiff and Stewart regarding the Disputed Funds. 

16. The competing claims of Plaintiff and Stewart expose Greenberg Traurig to risk of 

potential double or multiple liabilities. 

17. Greenberg Traurig is unable to retain or make any distributions of the Disputed 

Funds to any party, including the Plaintiff and Stewart, without this Court’s determination of the 

parties’ respective interests in the Disputed Funds. 

18. Greenberg Traurig is willing to deposit the Disputed Funds in the Court’s Registry, 

or with a party authorized by the Court, to preserve the Disputed Funds pending a determination 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 9 of 23
10 

by the Court of the parties’ respective rights to the Disputed Funds. 

WHEREFORE, Greenberg Traurig respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order: 

i. Authorizing Greenberg Traurig to turn over control of the Disputed Funds 

to this Court, or to a person duly authorized by the Court to receive the Disputed Funds, to satisfy 

the outstanding claims and preserve the Disputed Funds pending a determination by the Court of 

the parties’ respective rights to the Disputed Funds; 

ii. Restraining Plaintiff, Stewart, and any other interested parties from 

instituting or prosecuting any claims or proceedings in any court or tribunal against Greenberg 

Traurig to recover the Disputed Funds; 

iii. Releasing and discharging Greenberg Traurig from any and all claims and 

liability relating to the Disputed Funds or any right to, or interest in, the Disputed Funds; 

iv. Awarding Greenberg Traurig payment of its reasonable attorney’s fees and 

costs necessitated by the bringing of this action; and 

v. Granting Greenberg Traurig such further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

Dated: May 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 

By: /s/ John B. Hutton .

 John B. Hutton (Fla. Bar No. 902160) 

 Reginald Sainvil (Fla. Bar No. 1008135) 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305-579-0500 

Facsimile: 305-579-0717 

Email: huttonj@gtlaw.com 

Email: sainvilr@gtlaw.com 

Counsel for Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 10 of 23
11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 13, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record identified on the Service List, in the manner specified, 

either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other 

authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically 

Notices of Electronic Filing. 

 /s/ John B. Hutton .

 John B. Hutton 

Electronic Notice 

James C. Moon jmoon@melandrussin.com, ltannenbaum@melandrussin.com; 

mrbnefs@yahoo.com;jmoon@ecf.courtdrive.com;ltannenbaum@ecf.courtdrive.com; 

phornia@ecf.courtdrive.com 

Manual Notice 

Stewart Title Guaranty Company

Attn: Legal Department 

3402 West Cypress St. 

Tampa, FL 33607 

 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 11 of 23
Exhibit A 

Email dated August 21, 2019 

(Attached)

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 12 of 23
1

From: Lisa Delvecchio <Lisa.Delvecchio@stewart.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 11:02 AM

To: Sharpe, Andrew C. (AssocͲMiaͲRE) <sharpea@gtlaw.com>

Cc: Greg Hall <GHall@stewart.com>

Subject: RE: Costa

*EXTERNAL OF GT*

Not at this time. Until the case is completely resolved we will need to continue to hold the funds. We are still in the case

and defending our insureds.

Lisa S. Delvecchio, Esquire

Associate Senior Underwriting Counsel

Stewart Title Guaranty Company

3402 West Cypress Street

Tampa, FL 33607

O (813) 466Ͳ3844 | F (813) 315Ͳ6803

stewart.com | Lisa.Delvecchio@stewart.com

NYSE: STC

From: sharpea@gtlaw.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:41 PM

To: Lisa Delvecchio

Subject: [External] Costa

The developer wants to know if any portion of the escrow can be released in light of the recent court order denying the

appeal.

Thanks,

Andrew C. Sharpe

Associate

Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue | Miami, FL 33131

T +1 305.579.0581

sharpea@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 13 of 23
Exhibit B 

Email dated October 15, 2019 

(Attached)

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 14 of 23
1

From: James C. Moon <jmoon@melandrussin.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:15 AM

To: Jairo Romero <jairo@costahollywood.com>; Andrew Sharpe (sharpea@gtlaw.com) <sharpea@gtlaw.com>

Cc: Peter Russin <prussin@melandrussin.com>; Meaghan Murphy <mmurphy@melandrussin.com>; Lisa Tannenbaum

<ltannenbaum@melandrussin.com>

Subject: RE: Costa Hollywood Title Holdback Funds

Nice to meet you Andrew.

Please give me a call when you have a moment to discuss. Also, if you have an escrow agreement that describes the

conditions pursuant to which the funds have been held, I would appreciate your sending all relevant documents along.

It seems to me that the funds in escrow are estate property and need to be turned over ASAP. I look forward to

discussing with you though.

Warm regards,

Jim

JAMES MOON

Meland • Russin • Budwick

3200 Southeast Financial Center

200 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, Florida 33131

T: 305.358.6363

F: 305.358.1221

E: jmoon@melandrussin.com

W: www.melandrussin.com

Download VCard | View Bio

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only

for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,

dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email

administrator directly, please send and email to postmaster@melandrussin.com.

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 15 of 23
2

From: Jairo Romero <jairo@costahollywood.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:09 AM

To: Andrew Sharpe (sharpea@gtlaw.com) <sharpea@gtlaw.com>; James C. Moon <jmoon@melandrussin.com>

Subject: Costa Hollywood Title Holdback Funds

EXTERNAL EMAIL:

Good morning Andrew,

Let me introduce you to Jim Moon from Meland Russin, who is helping us with the bankruptcy case. He has questions

about the holdback moneys. Please help him with this issue.

Thanks,

Jairo Romero

Lic. Real Estate Broker

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us

immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 16 of 23
Exhibit C 

Email dated December 10, 2019 

(Attached)

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 17 of 23
1

From: James C. Moon [mailto:jmoon@melandrussin.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 10:17 AM

To: Jairo Romero <jairo@costahollywood.com>; Sharpe, Andrew C. (AssocͲMiaͲRE) <sharpea@gtlaw.com>

Cc: Peter Russin <prussin@melandrussin.com>; Meaghan Murphy <mmurphy@melandrussin.com>; Lisa Tannenbaum

<ltannenbaum@melandrussin.com>; Jerry Feuerstein <jfeuerstein@kandfllp.com>; Paul Battista (pbattista@gjbͲ

law.com) <pbattista@gjbͲlaw.com>

Subject: RE: Costa Hollywood Title Holdback Funds

Importance: High

*EXTERNAL TO GT*

Andrew,

Greetings.

Reaching out again to see if we can resolve the issue of turnover of the funds Greenberg Traurig is holding that needs to

be turned over to the Debtor Costa Hollywood Property Owner, LLC.

By way of a refresher, I understand there is no written escrow agreement detailing how and why Stewart Title required

funds to be held by Greenberg Traurig.

However, I am aware there are a couple of indemnity agreement related to (1) The Alexei Burya Litigation and (2) the

Design Engineering Litigation. See the attached. I believe these form the authority for the escrow of funds, but if I am

incorrect, please forward whatever documents may be relevant to the escrowed funds.

Note that pursuant to the terms of the Agreements, the condition to release the funds are set forth in section G of both

agreements:

With respect to the Burya case, there are no appeals and case is closed as I understand it.

With respect to the Design Engineering case, there are no appeals in that case and the case is stayed as to the Debtor.

Please contact me ASAP regarding this matter, as I would prefer to resolve this cooperatively rather than resort to a

Motion to Turnover.

Regards,

Jim

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 18 of 23
2

JAMES MOON

Meland • Russin • Budwick

3200 Southeast Financial Center

200 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, Florida 33131

T: 305.358.6363

F: 305.358.1221

E: jmoon@melandrussin.com

W: www.melandrussin.com

Download VCard | View Bio

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only

for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,

dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email

administrator directly, please send and email to postmaster@melandrussin.com.

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 19 of 23
Exhibit D 

Email dated December 11, 2019 

(Attached)

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 20 of 23
1

From: Greg Hall <GHall@stewart.com>

Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:18 PM

To: jmoon@melandrussin.com

Cc: Lisa Delvecchio <Lisa.Delvecchio@stewart.com>; Sharpe, Andrew C. (AssocͲMiaͲRE) <sharpea@gtlaw.com>; Mark

Johnson <Mark.Johnson@stewart.com>

Subject: RE: Costa Hollywood Title Holdback Funds

Dear Mr. Moon:

Thank you for your email, below, in which you pointed out that with respect to the Design Engineering case, there are

no appeals and the case is stayed as to the Debtor. My understanding of the language as set forth in the Design

Engineering indemnification agreement is that a condition to release of the funds is dismissal of Case Number CACͲ16Ͳ

005451 (03), with prejudice. Let me know if you disagree.

With respect to the Burya matter, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has expended approximately $20,000 in attorneys’

fees in dealing with that litigation and that will need to be reimbursed from those escrowed funds. Additionally, Costa

Investors has a pending Motion to Vacate Prior Orders Striking Lis Pendens, Affidavit and for Sanctions filed on May 29,

2019 in Case Number CACͲ18Ͳ011130, which is stayed by the bankruptcy. If Costa Investors succeeds in vacating the LP

and Burya affidavit, this will expose Stewart Title Guaranty Company to the Burya affidavit risk and will require

expenditure of additional attorneys’ fees to deal with it.

Perhaps we could talk about these matters later in the week or next week, when convenient for you.

Regards,

Greg

Gregory T. Hall

Senior Claims Counsel

Legal Department

Stewart Title Guaranty Company

3402 West Cypress St.

Tampa, FL 33607

O (813) 876Ͳ0619 | F (813) 769Ͳ2712

email: ghall@stewart.com

NYSE: STC

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 21 of 23
Exhibit E 

Email dated April 8, 2020 

(Attached) 

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 22 of 23
1

From: Greg Hall <GHall@stewart.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 5:13 PM

To: Sharpe, Andrew C. (ShldͲMiaͲRE) <sharpea@gtlaw.com>

Subject: STEWART's REQUEST for reimbursement from Costa Hollywood Title Holdback Funds 303556

*EXTERNAL TO GT*

Dear Mr. Sharpe:

There have been several title claims submitted to Stewart Title Guaranty Company ("STGC") involving litigation filed

against various STGC's insureds who purchased condominium units or provided financing for the purchases.These

insureds had received STGC title insurance policies.The title claims arose out of the "Identified Risk" as defined in the 2

attached STG Indemnity Agreements.

STGC understands that, pursuant to the STGC Indemnity Agreements, escrow funds were held back and are presently

being held by Greenberg Traurig in an escrow account for the purpose of protecting and reimbursing STGC for any losses

to STGC arising from the "Identified Risk".

Upon receipt of the title claims from these insureds, STGC retained Awerbach & Cohn, P.A. as counsel on behalf of the

insureds and paid attorneys’ fees to such retained counsel for their representation of the insureds.This will notify you

that STGC has paid attorneys’ fees to date in the total amount of $18,864.63 to Awerbach & Cohn, P.A. for the purpose

of protecting the insureds with respect to the "Identified Risk” and we request reimbursement of that amount. I have

attached paid attorneys’ fees invoices in support of this request.

Please advise if there is anything else that you need in order to disburse the requested funds.

Regards,

Greg

Gregory T. Hall

Senior Claims Counsel 

Legal Department 

Stewart Title Guaranty Company

3402 West Cypress St. 

Tampa, FL 33607 

O (813) 876-0619 | F (813) 769-2712 

email: ghall@stewart.com

NYSE: STC 

Has slowed back down to

Case 20-01129-AJC Doc 8 Filed 05/13/20 Page 23 of 23