EFTA01333221.pdf

NO. 23838 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAII ROBERT COELLO , Petitioners-Appellees, v. TOM DONNAN, Respondent-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DSS 00-1030) MEMORANDUM OPINION (By: Watanabe, Acting C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.) Respondent-Appellant Tom Donnan (Donnan) appeals from an Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment (the Injunction)' granted to Petitioners-Appellees Robert Coello VThe Injunction was granted pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 5 604-10.5 (Sapp. 2001), which provides, in relevant part: 5604-10.5 Power to enjoin and temporarily restrain . (a) For the purposes of this section: 'Course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over any period of time evidencing a continuity of purpose. 'Harassment' means: (2) An intentional or knowing course of conduct directed at an individual that seriously alarms or disturbs consistently or continually bothers the individual, and that serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. (b) The district courts shall have power to enjoin or prohibit or temporarily restrain harassment. (c) Any person who has been subjected to harassment may petition the district court of the district in which the petitioner resides for a temporary restraining order and an injunction from further harassment. (d) A petition for relief from harassment shall be in writing and shall allege that a past act or acts of harassment may have occurred, or that threats of harassment make it probable that (continued...) SDNY_GIN_02763185 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250027 EFTA01333221  (Coello) by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division2 (the district court), on September 20, 2000. On appeal, Donnan contends that: (1) because the matter arises from a real estate dispute, the district court lacks jurisdiction; (2) the Injunction unlawfully prohibits constitutionally protected activity; (3) the district court erred when it denied Donnan's Objections to Video Document and Objections to Declaration of Petitioners; and (4) the district acts of harassment may be imminent; and shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath or statement made under penalty of perjury stating the specific facts and circumstances from which relief is sought. (e) Upon petition to a district court under this section, the court may temporarily restrain the person or persons named in the petition from harassing the petitioner upon a determination that there is probable cause to believe that a past act or acts of harassment have occurred or that a threat or threats of harassment may be imminent. The court may issue an ex parte temporary restraining order either in writing or orally; provided that oral orders shall be reduced to writing by the close of the next court day following oral issuance. (f) A temporary restraining order that is granted under this section shall remain in effect at the discretion of the court for a period not to exceed ninety days from the date the order is granted. A hearing on the petition to enjoin harassment shall be held within fifteen days after the temporary restraining order is granted. In the event that service of the temporary restraining order has not been effected before the date of the hearing on the petition to enjoin, the court may set a new date for the hearing; provided that the new date shall not exceed ninety days from the date the temporary restraining order was granted. The parties named in the petition may file or give oral responses explaining, excusing, justifying, or denying the alleged act or acts of harassment. The court shall receive all evidence that is relevant at the hearing, and may make independent inquiry. (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit constitutionally protected activity. YThe Honorable Barbara P. Richardson presided. 2 SDNY_GNI_02763186 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250028 EFTA01333222  court denied Donnan due process of law and equal protection of the law in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 53 of the Hawaii Constitution. I. BACKGROUND Coello and filed an Amended Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against Harassment (the Petition) in the district court on August 24, 2000. On the Petition, Coello and wrote the following declaration detailing the alleged harassment: Since taking ownership of the house bordering Mr. Donnan's house, we have had numerous visits from several city and county departments responding to complaints from Mr. (Donnan) 6 his tenants. ie, (sic) Humane Society, building inspectors, fire department, Dept. of Land Utilization, Sewer Dept., etc., with none finding any fault or wrong actions. After taking ownership, we had to evict Donnan's friend, Malou Mallison due to non-payment of rent for 6 months. After winning the court date on Aug. 16", Donnan 6 all his friends 6 tenants on his yard, started making vulgar, racial 6 threatening comments towards Sarah and Robert, which we recorded on video. They said they've only just begun harassing us, and we haven't seen anything yet. After surveying the property line, we posted "no trespassing" signs on Donnan's aide of our property. This upset them very much since they had the illusion part of our property belonged to them. They tore off the signs s threw them in our yard. Usually the one to instigate the comments is Donnan'S immediate friend 6 companion, Percy. We fear for the safety of Sarah, a young female who Donnan 6 his ltHaw. Const. art. I, 5 5 41993), provides: DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION Section 5. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the employment of the person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex or ancestry. 3 SDNY_GIV1_02763187 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250029 EFTA01333223  friends try intimidate. They called her "Bitch" and also to go made numerous racial slurs saying no one likes us, and back across the border. In addition to all this, every time we leave the house to go to the beach, snide L snearful [sic! comments are made by Donnan a friends toward Robert, Sarah i their dogs. by On August 24, 2000, a temporary restraining order was entered a the district court against Donnan and Donnan was notified that hearing on the petition would be held on September 6, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. On September 1, 2000, Donnan filed a Motion for Order g Declaring Temporary Restraining Order Null and Void, Dissolvin Fees Same and to Dismiss Petition and for Reasonable Attorney's and Costs (Motion Declaring TRO Null and Void). Donnan's motion lacked stated that the Petition was frivolous, the district court ng jurisdiction over a real property dispute, and the restraini Donnan's order denied him his protected constitutional rights. motion came for hearing on September 6, 2000, and was denied.' A hearing on the Petition was held September 20, 2000, at which the following evidence was adduced. Coello testified that he had purchased a duplex next door to Donnan's property. In order to settle a property line of his dispute with Donnan, Coello paid for an official survey property to satisfy Donnan. Coello found out that he had more lithe Honorable Rhonda A. Nishimura presided. 4 SDNY_GIV1_02763188 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250030 EFTA01333224  yard than he originally thought he owned. During June and July of 2000, Coello was visited by the police department, a building inspector, the Sunset Beach Fire Department, an inspector from the Department of Land Utilization, and the health department. The visits were made in response to telephone calls from Donnan's residence. No violations were found by any of these entities. There were approximately 12 people residing on Donnan's property. On June 19, 2000, Coello was given access to clean out the possessions of Malou Mallison (Mallison), who had been evicted in April from the adjoining half of Coello's duplex. Coello had been awarded $800 from Mallison for payment of back rent after a summary possession hearing on August 16, 2000. Mallison was a friend of Donnan. Three hours after the August 16, 2000, hearing, Coello videotaped Donnan and his guests arguing with across the property line. Much of the speech on the videotape was transcribed as indiscernible. Donnan objected to the admission of the videotape on the basis that the tape was edited and was an invasion of Donnan's privacy. The district court overruled the objection and allowed one minute of the videotape to be played, stating: The portions that are being shown to the Court are unedited, or unsp lined and that the camera person was one of the petitioners, and the petitioner was taking the video from the petitioner's own property, and the subject of the video was in part Mr. Donnan. 5 SDNY_WA_02763189 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250031 EFTA01333225  The Court finds that the evidence vill be admitted as being relevant, and the Court overrules the objection. After viewing the videotape, Donnan again objected on the ground that there was no harassment shown by Donnan on the videotape. The district court did not find the videotape was that instructive with respect to any acts of harassment and allowed further testimony. Coello testified that when he and walked out to the beach, Donnan and his guests would yell vulgarities and racial slurs at and make obscene gestures towards Coello and . Coello believed the animosity stemmed from an official survey that added to Coello's property and the eviction of Donnan's friend from Coello's property. testified that Donnan had verbally harassed her by yelling racial slurs at her and had threatened future harassment. Donnan called Samson Santos (Santos), an investigator for the Hawaiian Humane Society, as the only defense witness. Santos testified that two complaints had been made against Coello for violations of the leash law. Only one of the complaints had been made by Donnan. Santos visited Coello three times and found no violations, so the case had been closed. 6 SDNY_WA_02763190 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250032 EFTA01333226  At the close of evidence, Donnan moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction over a real property dispute. The district court of denied Donnan's motion and granted the Injunction for a period three years. The district court stated: THE COURT: Alright, the Court does find by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent, Mr. Donnan, has intentionally or knowingly conducted himself towards the petitioners in a manner which seriously alarms or disturbs them by consistently or continually bothering the individuals with complaints to the building inspectors, fire department, land utilization, and sewage departments, et cetera, thereby -- which is serving no legitimate purpose other than to bother the petitioners, and that it caused the petitioners to suffer emotional distress and reasonably so. Therefore, the Court is going to grant the order of injunction enjoining Mr. Donnan for a period of three years from further harassment of the petitioners . . . And with respect to your motion if it is a motion, [Defense Counsel], to dismiss on the basis that this is a is real property dispute, the Court finds that the motion which going to be denied. This is a matter of harassment the the district court has the power to enjoin and which Court is going to enjoin at this time. With respect to any property disputes, that does order belong in circuit court and the Court is not by this preventing the respondent from filing a legitimate action circuit with respect to a dispute of a property line in the court, okay. The Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment was filed September 20, 2000. Donnan filed his Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2000. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Interpretation of a Statute of law The interpretation of a statute is a question reviewable de novo. When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the 7 SDNY_GNI_02763191 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250033 EFTA01333227  intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained In the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. Ka Pa'akai 0 Ka'aina v. Land Use Comm'n, 94 Hawaii 31, 41, 7 P.3d 1068, 1078 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting Apantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawaii 152, 160, 977 P.2d 160, 168 (1999)). B. Admissibility of Evidence (D)ifferent standards of review must be applied to trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. . . . Where the evidentiary ruling at issue concerns admissibility based upon relevance, under HawaCi Rules of Evidence (FIRE) Rules 401 and 402, the proper standard of appellate review is the right/wrong standard. . . . Evidentiary decisions based on FIRE Rule 403, which require a "judgment call" on the part of the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. 944 P.2d Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co., 85 Hawaii 336, 350-51, 1279, 1293-94 (1997) (quoting State v. Arceo 84 Hawaii 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996)) (citations and brackets omitted). C. Denial of Equal Protection and Due Process "(Where) no fundamental rights or suspect is classifications are involved, the rational basis standard 8 SDNY_GM_02763192 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EF-EA_00250034 EFTA01333228  used. Only if there is no rational basis to sustain the challenged statutes will there be a violation of due process under U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Haw. Const. art. I, 4 5." Haw. 192, 202, Washington v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 68 708 P.2d 129, 136 (1985) (citation omitted). We recognize that, unless fundamental rights or the suspect classifications are implicated, we will apply denial of rational basis standard of review in examining a prevail, a equal protection claim. Under this standard, to statutory party challenging the constitutionality of a of classification on equal protection grounds has the burden with convincing clarity that the classificat ion is showing, that the not rationally related to the statutory purpose, or ground of challenged classification does not rest upon some the difference having a fair and substantial relation to arbitrary object of the legislation, and is therefore not and capricious. 380, 773 Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, P.2d 250, 262 (1989) (citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction Donnan contends that Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) jurisdiction 604-5(d) precludes the district court from taking over issues of real property ownership. Section 604-5(d) (Supp. have 2001) states that "Itihe district courts shall not the title to cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which real estate comes in question[.]" case The statute granting jurisdiction in the instant the district is HRS 6 604-10.5(b) (Supp. 2001), which vests 9 SDNY_GIA_02763193 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250035 EFTA01333229  courts with the "power to enjoin or prohibit or temporarily restrain harassment." Furthermore, at the September 6, 2000, hearing on the Motion Declaring TRO Null and Void, the district court stated the following: THE COURT: The Court is not, the Court is not looking at boundary disputes. The Court does not have jurisdiction, I agree with you, (Defense Counsel), in terms of determining quiet title actions or if there's ownership in dispute, but in looking at the TRO petition, there's talc) particular statements which have been made by the petitioners, i.e., that Donnan, it's alleged that Donnan and all his friends and tenants in his yard started making vulgar, racial and threatening comments toward petitioners which was (sic) recorded on video. They said they've only just begun harassing us and we haven't seen anything yet. That's enough to have granted the TRO(.) The district court had jurisdiction over the Petition. S. Constitutionally Protected Activity Donnan's second point states: HRS S 604-10.5(i) enjoins the District Court from selecting out a victim of crime and preventing him, under the threat of contempt, from calling the Honolulu Police Department, or the Humane Society or other authorities, when he is a victim of criminal conduct or he observes violations of law. Section 604-10.5(i) provides that "(nlothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit constitutionally protected activity." The Injunction does not prevent Donnan from calling on public safety authorities "when he is a victim of criminal conduct or he observes violations of law." The Injunction, on its face, prevents Donnan from: 10 SDNY_GM_02763194 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250036 EFTA01333230  A. Contacting, threatening or physically harassing Petitioner(s). "Contacting" is defined to include but is not limited to the telephone, mail, facsimile, pager, internet, etc. B. Contacting, threatening or harassing any person(s) while residing at Petitionerls)' residence. C. Entering and/or visiting the premises of the fetitioneris) 1 residence and/or the place of the fetitionerls)' employment. Donnan was not enjoined from constitutionally protected activity. C. Admission of the Videotape into Evidence Donnan contends the district court erred when it refused to suppress the videotape. Donnan argues,"(t)he Video and and the petition were acts of hate crimes and acts of revenge they retaliation against Donnan and his tenant and friend because thereof." had followed the law and reported criminal violations Hawaii Revised Statutes 5 604-10.5(f) states that at the "(t)he court shall receive all evidence that is relevant hearing, and may make independent inquiry." The district court the admitted the videotape, stating "(t)he Court finds that evidence will be admitted as being relevant, and the Court overrules the objection." The videotape showed interacting with Donnan and Donnan's guests and was, therefore, relevant. However, the instructive district court did not find the videotape was "that with regard to any acts of harassment(.)" The district court based on the found clear and convincing evidence of harassment 11 SDNY_GIN_02763195 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250037 EFTA01333231  nce received, and not testimony of the witnesses and other evide solely on the videotape. The district court was correct in ant to the allegations admitting one minute of videotape as relev of harassment. D. Equal Protection and Due Process of Law to defend Donnan contends he was denied the right filing any defensive himself because he was "prohibited from would establish his response, including any counterclaim that es, proof of ownership by way right to a restraining order, damag and the right to have this of adverse possession, a trial by jury jurisdiction, namely, the case determined in a Court of competent First Circuit Court." 608, 726 P.2d 254 Donnan cites Ramil v. Keller, 68 Haw. 409, 17 S. Ct. 841 (1897), (1986), and }loves, v. Elliott, 167 U.S. in support of his argument. In Ramil, the Supreme Court of ions after the defendants Hawaii upheld litigation-ending sanct s. 68 Haw. at 621, 726 refused to comply with discovery order Court found P.2d at 263. In Hovey, the United States Supreme ng "(a] sentence of a court denial of due process of law, stati hearing him, or giving him an pronounced against a party without judicial determination of his opportunity to be heard, is not a ct in any other tribunal." rights, and is not entitled to respe (internal quotation marks 167 U.S. at 414, 17 S. Ct. at 843 omitted). 12 SDNY_GM_02763196 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00250038 EFTA01333232  In contrast, Donnan was given the opportunity to be heard. Donnan was not allowed a counterclaim, but was not denied the opportunity to file an adverse possession claim in circuit court. Donnan contends he was denied the right to a jury trial. The right to a jury trial in civil cases guaranteed by the United States Constitution applies to federal, not state, courts. U.S. Const. amend VII. Trial by jury in civil cases is guaranteed by the state constitution only where the value in controversy exceeds five thousand dollars. Haw. Const. art. I, 5 13. Coello and sought no monetary damages in this case; therefore, the value in controversy did not exceed five thousand dollars. Furthermore, HRS S 604-10.5 does not provide for trial by jury. Donnan contends he was denied the right to subpoena records by way of deposition and written interrogatories; however, the district court granted a two-week continuance to allow Donnan to produce the city and county agency records by subpoena duces tecum. Furthermore, as the district court advised Donnan, a hearing on a petition to enjoin harassment may not be held later than ninety days after the date the temporary restraining order is granted. HRS 5 604-10.5(f). 13 5DNY_GIV1_02763197 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00250039 EFTA01333233  Donnan contends he was denied the right to testify, yet the record shows Donnan chose not to take the witness stand based on the advice of his counsel. Donnan's contentions are without merit. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment entered on September 20, 2000, by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 9, 2002. On the briefs: Joseph A. Ryan for Respondent-Appellant Acting Chief Judge Robert Coello Pro se e i toners-Appellees Associate Judge Associate Judge 14 SDNY_WA_02763198 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250040 EFTA01333234  Page I Transmission Log FAX Thursday, 2007-08-16 11:35 Job S Date Time Length Speed Station Name/Number Type Pga Statue 00522 2007-08-16 11:34 2:09 31200 8337970 SEND 15 OK -- V.34 ÁH31 MKS ...4114.49•Pd.Pd. LOOZ- 91, 80:01.0 SI ,hed aIW 50qApta need jo naqumbi 0. Paw. aavo$4 'esia %NM, 0000 PO suokoanb Ave 00eq no.4 10.4.10.0 OMOd 0009 MIN '0010009 oor 0.930100 .013 " 3 .. 09a Kid 00:10001 133HSN3AO2XVi m.wMP1 Kun suogefinsamilepeds IN3IALLBVd30 3311Od H0V38 lAllVd SDNY_GbA_02763199 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250041 EFTA01333235  Page 1 of 6 AutoTrackM--) It3lind I ogi Logged In: JOSEPH REC Refe Home I Results Manager I Search Catak‘g I Timmy' I Help I My Account View ica Sections National Comprehensive Report Visualize This Report Printer-friendly format Save Report 0811612007 - 12:45PM - Reference: None Entered bjec tIt SSN DOB 'User Supplied Information Last Name: First Name: DOB: Address 1: dick on links to see detail 'Sections Available in Report 1 Record Subject 1 Record Possible AKAs for Subject 1 Record Possible Driver Licenses 5 Records Possible Addresses Associated with Subject 1 Record Possible SAFESCAN 2 Records Possible High Risk Address 1 Record Phone Listings for Subject's Addresses 2 Records Possible Property Owners of Subjects Addresses 2 Records Possible Vehicles Registered at Subject's Addresses (1 Record) Top I Possible AKAs for Subject. Name SSN Date Of Birth (I Record) Top I Possible Driver Licenses 8/16/2007 https://atxp.choicepoint.com/at/GetReports_XRasp?File=2HG114.1)8NO1.11TM SDNY_GM_02763200 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250042 EFTA01333236  Page 2 of 6 Name: DOB: DLit: Issue State: Issue Date: Expire Date: Height: Weight: Eye Color: Hair Color: Previous DL State: Previous DL #: SSN: 'Possible Addresses Associated with Subject (5 Records) Top Show Names at Each Address Date Range Address/Phone Source Source Reported Dates 04/2004 - 12/2004 Consumer Bureau 2 04/2004 - 12/2004 04/2004 - 08/2004 . Composite Info 08/2004 - 08/2004 Consumer Bureau 2 04/2004 - oarzoo4 03/2004 - 03/2004 Consumer Bureau 3 03/2004 - 03/2004 03/2004 - 03/2004 Consumer Bureau 3 03/2004 - 03/2004 03/2004 - 03/2004 Consumer Bureau 3 03/2004 - 03/2004 I Possible SAFESCAN Regi r mark of EQUIFAX INC. (I Record) Top SSN: Warning Social Security number issued by Social Security Administration within the last five years. Definition Social Security number has been issued within the past five years: could belong to a minor (child). Possible Causes Operator input inaccurate or incomplete. Consumer may be a new US citizen. Consumer may be using child's Social Security number. Consumer inadvertently provided incorrect number. Consumer intentionally provided incorrect number (for non-fraudulent reasons). Consumer intentionally attempting to create new credit identity. Notice Information reported by SAFESCAN services is provided for tip and lead purposes only and must be independently verified prior to any use. SAFESCAN services information may or may not apply to the subject of this report. SAFESCAN services information should not be used in the decision making process for granting or extending credit, underwriting insurance or making employment decisions. ,Possible High Risk Address I (2 Records) Top •••Alert - The Folkming High Risk Address(es) Matched Your Subject's Address History"' Risk Description: SIC Code SIC Code: 801101 SIC Description: PHYS & SURGEONS https://atxp.choicepoint.com/at/GetReports_XP.asp?File=2HGH4D8NG1.1ITM 8/16/2007 SDNY_GM_02763201 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00250043 EFTA01333237  Page 3 of 6 Risk Description: SIC Code SIC Code: 801101 SIC Description: PHYS 8 SURGEONS 'Phone Listings for Subject's Addresses I (I Record) Top 358 EL BRILLO WAY PALM BEACH, FL 33480 Name: EPSTEIN JEFFERY E Phone: 175 phone numbers found, only same last name considered. ** No Phone numbers found during search " 'Possible Property Owners of Subject's Addresses (2 Records) Toff 358 EL BRILLO WAY PALM BEACH, FL 33480 Owner Name: EPSTEIN JEFFREY Assess State: Florida County: PALM BEACI Parcel Number. 5043432/060000391 Type: SFR Short Legal Description: SUPPLMNTRY PL OF EL BRAVO PARKW 24.30 FT OF LT 398 LT 40 8 TH FILLED SUBMRGED LAND AS IN OR4266P1926 ADJ TO LT 40 Document Number: 000000272127 Recorded Date: 09/20/1990 Situs Address: 358 EL BRILLO WAY Book: 006587 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 -4730 Mailing Address: 358 EL BRILLO WAY Page: 001099 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 -4730 Assessment Year: Tax Year: 2006 Assessed Land Value: Market Land Value: $6,440.000 Assessed Improvements: Market Improvements:$1.439.655 Total Assessed Value: $7.879,855 Total Market Value: $7,879,655 Most Recent Sale: $2,500,000 Prior Sale Price: $1.585.000 Florida Deed Transfer Records - County of: PALM BEACH Parcel Number: 50434327060000391 Legal Desc: Sale Price: $2.500,000 Loan Amount: Contract Date: 09/17/1990 Document Type: Resale/New RE-SALE Construction: Lender: Title Co.: Nue Address: 358 EL BRILLO WAY PALM BEACH, FL 33480 Seller(s): GLASS HERBERT I Seller Address: Buyer(s): EPSTEIN JEFFREY haps://atxp.choicepoint.com/at/GetReports_XP.asp?File=2FIGH4D8NG1.11TM 8/16/2007 SDNY_GM_02763202 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00250044 EFTA01333238  Page 4 of 6 Buyer Address: PALM BEACH. FL Owner Name: Assess State: New York County: NEW YORK Parcel Number: Type: COMMERCU Short Legal Description: Document Number: