Chapter 09 · Broward Circuit Court

The Davie property: a $962,000 note and a $2.09 million judgment

A senior mortgage foreclosure produced a July 2026 judgment against the property company and other defendants, but the reviewed records do not establish a completed sale.

The Ryan Burke Public Record · Updated November 11, 2026 · How this record was compiled

The final judgment in Broward case CACE-22-016620 identifies a $962,000 promissory note dated July 23, 2021. Five years later, on July 16, 2026, Senior Judge Christopher William Pole signed a foreclosure judgment stating a grand total of $2,089,122.81 and directing a conditional sale of 2045 SW 127th Avenue, Davie, Florida 33325. The judgment is a court decision about the lien and foreclosure. It is not a certificate showing that the property was sold, and it is not a later deficiency judgment establishing an unpaid balance after a sale.¹

The case concerns the same parcel that Kameka Management Solutions, Inc. and Eryck Dzotsi claimed as security in a separate equitable-lien action. Their role changes between the two cases: they are plaintiffs in CACE-22-001852, but defendants asserting an interest in the property in the senior foreclosure. Keeping those proceedings separate is necessary to understand both the amounts and the court’s priority ruling.²⁴

The note and the property

The July 2026 judgment calls its first financial entry “Principal on the July 23, 2021 Promissory Note” and gives $962,000. It then lists default interest at 25% for two periods beginning September 1, 2021. Those are amounts and terms stated in the signed judgment. The original note and the original foreclosure complaint are not among the filings reviewed for this chapter, so the judgment is the primary source here for the note’s date, principal and default-interest treatment.¹

The property is identified by more than its street address. The judgment gives parcel number 5040 14 01 0490 and describes Tract 177, less the north 25 feet for right-of-way, of Flamingo Groves Unit E, recorded in Plat Book 15, page 5. The Kameka/Dzotsi judgment attached to their bankruptcy claim uses the same legal description. That agreement between the descriptions establishes the shared collateral in these records; it does not mean the lenders made the same loan.¹⁴

The borrower company also used the property as the explanation for its bankruptcy filing. In its May 2025 case-management summary, 2045 SW 127th Avenue, LLC described its business as real-estate investment and stated that it owned this Davie property. The company identified Burke as its manager and sole shareholder. Its signature block named Burke Development Group, LLC as manager, with Burke signing as that company’s manager. These are the debtor’s descriptions, not separate judicial findings about every ownership or management relationship.⁷

No record reviewed here establishes that this property was concert-event collateral, that the senior note financed a particular performance, or that the judgment concerned ticket revenue. The foreclosure papers identify a promissory note, a property lien and defendants. The property’s appearance in a dossier about an entertainment promoter does not change the transaction described by those papers.¹⁷

The lender names in successive filings

The February 2025 hearing notice uses the abbreviated caption “Kenneth Duboff, et al.” against “Ryan Burke, et al.” The April 2026 deposition notice gives a longer plaintiff list and identifies Genuine Investments Land Trust “as Successor in Interest to Kenneth Duboff.” The July judgment identifies the lienholder as E&Y Assets, LLC, as trustee of Genuine Investments Land Trust. These are successive descriptions in the same numbered foreclosure case.³²¹

The April caption also names Steven H. Selznick in a custodial capacity, 153412 Canada Inc., AFE III Front Porch Investments, LLC, AFE III Rottweiler Growth Holdings, LLC, and other individual lenders. Their individual shares of the note or judgment are not quantified in that notice. It would therefore be inaccurate to allocate the $962,000 or the judgment total among them from the caption alone.²

The defendant list also needs care. The April notice includes the property company, Burke, Kameka, Dzotsi, VEW Live, LLC, 16260 Saddle Club Road, LLC and unknown tenants. The operative opening paragraph of the July judgment expressly grants relief against the property company, Burke, Kameka, Dzotsi and an identified tenant. It does not expressly include VEW Live or 16260 Saddle Club Road in that list. The later sale notice again lists those companies and contains an extra zero in the Saddle Club company’s name. The supplied filings do not explain the difference, so the judgment’s express list controls this chapter’s description of the relief granted.²¹⁸

Burke’s February 2025 request to stop a sale

A notice e-filed February 6, 2025 scheduled a hearing for February 18 at 9:15 a.m. before Judge Gary Farmer. The stated matter was the “Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Cancel/Vacate Sale date Scheduled for February 20, 2025.” Barry S. Mittelberg signed the notice as attorney for Burke and 2045 SW 127th Avenue, LLC. The notice thus establishes both a scheduled sale date and a defense request to cancel or vacate it.³

The actual emergency motion is not supplied. Neither is an order deciding it or a transcript of the scheduled hearing. The notice does not state the legal or factual grounds for cancellation. It cannot support a claim that Burke denied the note, disputed a particular interest charge, offered refinancing, or obtained a cancellation. Those would require the motion or a later ruling.³

There is also a date distinction within the document’s description. February 18 is the scheduled hearing date, not the filing date shown by its e-filing stamp. February 20 is the sale date that counsel sought to change. Treating any of those dates as interchangeable would obscure the sequence. The available record shows that counsel asked for a hearing before the scheduled sale; it stops short of showing what happened next.³

A later July 2026 judgment does not, by itself, explain the fate of the February 2025 auction. The records reviewed do not include the intervening orders needed to establish whether that sale was canceled, postponed, otherwise stopped or replaced. This chapter therefore reports the February event as an emergency request concerning a noticed sale, not as a completed sale or a proven successful defense.³¹

The debtor’s May 2025 financial picture

The company filed a second Chapter 11 case on April 21, 2025. Its May 2 case-management summary gave its reason as “Stop Foreclosure sale of 2045 SW 127th Avenue, Davie, FL 33325.” That statement is the debtor’s own account of its purpose. It does not specify the date of the sale it intended to stop. The February notice identifies February 20, a date already before this bankruptcy filing; it does not establish an April sale date.⁷³

The summary expressly warns that its figures are “approximations for background information only” and may be the debtor’s best estimates. It lists Keys Funding as the holder of a 2023 tax certificate under priority obligations. It lists Kameka and the Duboff group under secured claims, and says there are no unsecured claims. Its reported income is $21,000 for 2024 and $28,000 for 2025 in response to a question about prior-year and year-to-date gross income. None of these entries is a court-approved valuation or an allowed-claim determination.⁷

Those qualifications matter when comparing the $962,000 entry with the later foreclosure judgment. The debtor’s estimate matches the principal identified in that judgment, but the judgment also contains years of default interest and fees, followed by credits. The $962,000 estimate is not evidence that all charges had been adjudicated at that figure, and it cannot be used as the July 2026 balance.⁷¹

The estimated $2.9 million asset value is not an auction price. Nor does subtracting estimated obligations from that figure establish money available to Burke or to a subordinate creditor. The documents contain different dates, categories of debt and accrued charges. The senior court also reserved further decisions about subordinate lienholders and any remaining sale proceeds. The companion bankruptcy chapter addresses the company’s filings and conversion without treating them as personal bankruptcies by Burke.⁷¹

Kameka and Dzotsi’s separate lien claim

The historical amended default judgment in CACE-22-001852, dated July 12, 2022, established a $107,212 equitable lien for Kameka and Dzotsi against this parcel. Its calculation used $200,000 principal, $7,500 accrued interest, $17,500 default interest and $2,212 litigation costs, less $120,000 tendered. A separate paragraph addressed $4,080 in attorney fees. Those figures belong to the equitable-lien action, not to the $962,000 senior note.⁴

The default judgment’s procedural history is not a straight line. At the August 21, 2023 service hearing, Judge William W. Haury, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion to quash. The plaintiffs’ later verified motion describes a written order vacating the judgment. Their 2025 bankruptcy claim nevertheless relies on the historical judgment and recounts subsequent proceedings. The written orders needed to reconcile its complete enforceability history are not all in the records reviewed. The Kameka/Dzotsi chapter examines that dispute, Burke’s service defense and the later contempt order.⁵⁶⁴

On May 21, 2025, Kameka and Dzotsi filed joint Claim 4 in the company’s second bankruptcy. They claimed $178,415.77, divided into $131,104.73 secured and $47,311.04 unsecured. The secured part combined the $107,212 historical judgment with claimed interest; the unsecured part reflected additional claimed fees and costs. Filing that claim does not establish that the bankruptcy court allowed its full amount or classification.⁴

The July 2026 senior judgment resolves a different question: it declares the plaintiff’s lien superior to the defendants’ claims or estates, subject to specified statutory assessment exceptions. Kameka and Dzotsi are expressly among the defendants against whom summary judgment was granted. The same judgment reserves jurisdiction to determine amounts owed to subordinate lienholders. Priority and amount are therefore distinct in the order: the senior lien’s superiority is decided, while further subordinate-lien determinations are contemplated.¹

The April 2026 deposition notice

On April 1, 2026, Kameka and Dzotsi, acting as defendants in the senior foreclosure, filed a notice to take Eli Hen’s deposition on April 14 at 10 a.m. Danielle Cohen and Keith R. Gaudioso of Kelley Kronenberg appear as their lawyers. The notice says the deposition was for discovery, trial use or both. It was served on senior-lender counsel and Mittelberg.²

The notice is evidence of a procedural step taken by the subordinate claimants. It is not sworn testimony from Hen, an admission by Burke or a judicial finding about either lender’s accounting. Its broad statement of purpose does not identify the questions counsel planned to ask. No conclusions about Hen’s role, knowledge or answers can be drawn from the notice alone.²

The July 16, 2026 judgment

The final judgment records a July 15, 2026 hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of foreclosure. Its header names Carlos Augusto Rodriguez as the assigned judge in Division 11, but the electronic signature belongs to Senior Judge Christopher William Pole. Judge Farmer’s name appeared on the February 2025 hearing notice. Neither earlier name should replace Pole’s as the signer of this judgment.¹³

The monetary entries below reproduce the judgment’s displayed amounts. Credits are shown in parentheses. The per diem is separately stated rather than added as a single fixed fee. The table preserves the court’s stated subtotal and grand total; the arithmetic observation that follows does not amend them.¹

For attorney fees, the court found 82.85 hours reasonable and hourly rates between $185 and $595 appropriate. These findings support the $32,817.50 fee entry. The borrower-payment and escrow entries are credits, not additional sums awarded to the plaintiff. The judgment expressly recognizes them in arriving at its stated grand total.¹

The $658.90 per diem appears with the pre-judgment default-interest entries. A separate interest paragraph directs interest from the judgment date forward at the statutory rate under Florida Statutes section 55.03. For that reason, this chapter does not project the judgment forward at $658.90 a day or publish an estimated current balance. The amount reported is the amount at entry, and the current balance is unknown.¹

A reproducible arithmetic observation

Adding the displayed principal, both displayed default-interest amounts and all displayed fixed fees and costs produces $2,189,599.73. That is $3,067.85 below the judgment’s stated $2,192,667.58 subtotal. This calculation does not separately accumulate the per diem. The stated subtotal, less the two displayed credits, does equal the stated grand total of $2,089,122.81.⁹

The judgment describes its grand total as together with additional accrued interest as of judgment. Without a supporting calculation or explanatory filing, this publication cannot determine how the difference arose. It does not call the judgment invalid, attribute the difference to intentional conduct or substitute its own sum for the court’s award. Readers can examine the redacted judgment and distinguish the printed entries from the publication’s limited addition of them.¹⁹

The sale ordered for August 20

The judgment directs the clerk to sell the property electronically on August 20, 2026 at 10 a.m. if the total sum, applicable interest and subsequent costs are not paid. It requires a court order to postpone or cancel the sale. It also states that failures to pay sale and clerk fees or timely file proof of publication will stop the sale. These conditions are part of the order; the scheduled date alone does not establish that every condition was met.¹

On July 22, Kenneth M. Rehns of Lippes Mathias signed and filed a Chapter 45 sale notice for E&Y Assets as trustee of Genuine Investments Land Trust. It cites the July 16 judgment, repeats the parcel and legal description, and gives August 20 as the electronic auction date. The notice confirms scheduling under that judgment. It supplies no purchaser, successful bid or certificate of sale.⁸

The judgment makes later consequences depend on later filings. Its distribution paragraph begins with filing the certificate of title and directs payment of specified costs and sums due to the plaintiff, with remaining money retained pending further order. Its possession provisions also refer to certificates of sale and title. The court reserves jurisdiction for writs of possession, deficiency judgments and subordinate-lien determinations. Reservation of authority to enter those orders is not evidence that they were entered.¹

A deficiency would concern a remaining obligation after applying sale proceeds; the reviewed judgment reserves that issue rather than fixing a post-sale amount. This publication therefore does not describe $2,089,122.81 as a proven personal deficiency owed by Burke, or report that he was evicted from the parcel. The necessary later records are absent.¹

Davie code compliance: recorded as corrected

A separate local-government record concerns Town of Davie code-compliance case 24-085078. The July 10, 2025 Special Magistrate minutes name 2045 SW 127TH AVENUE LLC and the same folio, 5040 14 01 0490. They list Town Code section 12-544, “Permits,” and section 12-33(S)(2), “Landscape Maintenance,” and show that the matter had been continued from April 10, 2025.¹⁰

The minutes record correction before the hearing. They do not assess a fine, quantify a code lien or make a contempt finding personally against Burke in this matter. Their mention of permits and landscaping should not be converted into a claim that an unpaid municipal penalty added to the foreclosure judgment. Nothing in these minutes supplies such an amount, and the foreclosure components do not identify one.¹⁰¹

What remains unresolved

The records reviewed do not establish the outcome of the February 2025 emergency motion, whether Eli Hen’s noticed deposition occurred, or the calculation accounting for the $3,067.85 difference between displayed fixed components and the stated foreclosure subtotal. They do not establish a completed August 20, 2026 sale, a purchaser or price, transfer of title, possession proceedings, a deficiency judgment or the current balance. The full enforceability history and eventual recovery on Kameka and Dzotsi’s separate lien also remain unresolved. These missing records do not undo the signed July 16 judgment; they limit what can be said about events after it.³²⁹¹⁴