A Complaint for mortgage foreclosure contained a verification by an employee of the “contractual servicer” for the Plaintiff and not the Plaintiff itself.
The court noted that in adopting the amendment to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110 which implemented the verification requirement, the Florida Supreme Court stated:
The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suits brought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations. In re Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P., 2010 WL 455295, at *I, 1 (Fla. Feb. 11, 2010) (emphasis added).
The Court then made a finding that the Florida Supreme Court clearly intended that foreclosure complaints are to be verified by the Plaintiff, not the servicer.
Because the subject Complaint was verified by the servicer, it does not comply with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110. The court dismissed the foreclosure, granting the Plaintiff sixty (60) days to file an amended complaint verified by the Plaintiff.
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2006-HE2, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- HE2, v. MAYO. Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 12003183CI. December 28, 2012. Amy M. Williams, Judge. Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2004USBA
HSBC BANK, vs. WIGLEY. Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 12004342CI. January 24, 2013. John A. Schaefer, Judge. Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2004WIGL.