Raz Ofer v. Metropolitan Mortgage Company, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1845
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1845 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3487-CA-01 ________________

Raziel Ofer, Appellant,

vs.

Metropolitan Mortgage Company, LLC, et al., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Guzman, and Mavel Ruiz, Judges.

Raziel Ofer, in proper person.

Roniel Rodriguez IV, P.A., and Roniel Rodriguez IV, for appellee Drexel Financial Services, LLC.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On August 22, 2025, this Court dismissed the above-named appeal for

“ongoing failure to comply with and contempt of the lower tribunal’s discovery

order.” This Court retained jurisdiction to determine the veracity of self-

represented appellant Raziel Ofer’s attachment of a purported email

attached to a filing in this Court and related allegations incriminating both

appellee’s counsel and the trial judge.1 We directed the chief judge of the

Eleventh Judicial Circuit to appoint a circuit judge, other than the trial judge

below, as commissioner to conduct an evidentiary hearing “to determine the

origin and veracity” of the purported email and submit a written report

thereon. We explained that “[b]ased on the commissioner’s findings, this

Court may impose sanctions as appropriate.” By subsequent order, we held

the dismissal in abeyance pending review of the commissioner’s findings.

On October 21, 2025, the duly appointed commissioner, after an

evidentiary hearing, issued a report containing factual findings concerning

the above-referenced email. After a detailed summary of the evidence

presented, the commissioner found, in pertinent part, that:

i. Appellant has provided no credible evidence that Appellee [or Appellee’s counsel] created, or otherwise sent, the original email of April 18, 2025 . . . . Moreover, Appellant failed to provide any evidence to contradict fabrication. ii. The alleged metadata contained in the meta word document provided does not support the allegation, or

1 Raziel Ofer is also known as Raz Ofer.

2 otherwise prove, that the email originated from any of Appellee’s email accounts. iii. Numerous discrepancies between the meta word document and the original email show that the meta word document is also likely fabricated. The commissioner supported each finding with detailed evidentiary or

testimonial support from the hearing. The commissioner further found Ofer’s

testimony conclusory, contradicted by the evidence, or, at times,

contradicted by Ofer himself.

In sum, the commissioner did not find Ofer credible and found appellee

Drexel Financial Services, LLC’s counsel’s argument credible and

compelling. The commissioner concluded that Ofer failed to provide any

evidence that Drexel’s counsel created the email and that instead, it is likely

that Ofer fabricated or caused the email to be fabricated.

Based on the findings contained in the report, this Court then ordered

Ofer to show cause why this Court should not sanction him “for committing

fraud on this Court through unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations and

the fraudulent creation of emails that [Ofer] alleged in court filings were

created by counsel for [Drexel].” We further directed Ofer to “address, at a

minimum, the failure to supply the commissioner with a native format copy

of the email(s) at issue as well as any other record evidence or applicable

case law that would mitigate against imposing sanctions.” And we explained

3 that possible “[s]anctions may include barring [Ofer] from any future filings

before this Court without the review and signature of a member in good

standing of the Florida Bar.”

On November 24, 2025, Ofer responded to the order to show cause.

The response contains a series of conclusory allegations, complaints about

the evidentiary hearing, and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks on the

commissioner and the judiciary. The response fails to point to any fact

adduced at the evidentiary hearing (other than a repetition of the initial

conclusory allegations themselves) that would call the commissioner’s

findings into question, much less support any other conclusion. At its core,

this starts and ends with the copy of the purported email Ofer attached to a

court filing in this Court, accusing Drexel’s counsel and a judge of bribery.

Ofer never, despite repeated requests and court orders, provided a native

format copy of that email or provided any basis to question the

commissioner’s findings and detailed report. Ofer provides no factual support

for an alternative conclusion to that reached by the commissioner. Instead,

the weight of the evidence points to the fact that Ofer created the original

email and the purported metadata.

Ofer has failed to show cause why this Court should not adopt the

report and impose appropriate sanctions. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)

4 (“[T]he court may impose sanctions for any violation of these rules, or for the

filing of any proceeding, motion, brief, or other document that is frivolous or

in bad faith. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of

briefs or pleadings, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other

sanctions.”); Azran Miami 2, LLC v. US Bank Tr., N.A., 343 So. 3d 673, 682

(Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (imposing sanctions for “filing frivolous and bad-faith

motions and leveling false, malicious and meritless accusations against

adverse parties, opposing counsel and judges alike, after a trial court or an

appellate court has rejected [the lawyer’s] claims and arguments”).

Accordingly, the report is adopted and approved. The Court imposes the

following sanction: Raziel Ofer is barred from any filing before this Court

absent the review and signature of a member in good standing of the Florida

Bar. The appeal is dismissed. All pending motions are denied as moot.