vevs mo
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE
EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-3,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 05-2009-CA-011937-xxxx-xx
LARRY CARTER, et al.,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANT CITY OF PALM BAY’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT,
WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW,
Defendant, CITY OF PALM BAY (hereinafter “Defendant CITY"), by and through the
undersigned attomey of record, and pursuant to Rule 1.140(6)(6) of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure, hereby moves to dismiss the Complaint filed in the above-styled matter based upon
Plaintiff's failure to state a cause of action upon which itis entitled to relief. In the altemative,
Defendant CITY moves, pursuant to Rule 1.140(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for a
more definite statement of Plaintiff's alleged interest in the real property, Ripe Binis
foreclosure action. In support of these Motions, Defendant CITY states as ong =
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY sb
1. Onor about January 6, 2009, Plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, PRS apse
FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE EQUITY LOAN ASSETHACKED
cg me.
17 Logg
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-3 (hereinafter “Plaintiff BANK”), filed a Complaint in the
instant case asserting two causes of action: (1) Count I ~ Mortgage Foreclosure and (2) Count II -
Reestablishment of Note.
2. Attached to the Complaint as an Exhibit was a copy of the Mortgage, which was
made a part of the Complaint by reference. See Complaint at §5.
_ —
‘Case # 05-2009-CA-011937-XXXX-XX
iui
| 013699896vevd mo
3. The Summons and Complaint were served upon Defendant CITY on February 4,
2009, requiring a response on or before February 17, 2009.
4, In the Mortgage, the mortgagee is listed as Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. and the Lender
sted as Delta Funding Corporation.
5. Plaintiff BANK is neither the mortgagee nor the lender in the Mortgage attached
to the Complaint.
6. The only reference to Plaintiff BANK in either the Complaint or the attached
Exhibits is the conclusory statement that “Plaintiff is now the owner and holder of the note and
mortgage by virtue of an assignment.” See Complaint at § 3.
7. Plaintiff BANK has failed to attach an Assignment of Mortgage to the Complaint
or provide any explanation of if, how and when the Mortgage was transferred or assigned to it.
8. This Court is being asked to accept, on faith alone, that Plaintiff BANK has some
legal interest in this real property
9. With there being no proof that Plaintiff BANK has any legal interest in the real
property which is the subject of the instant litigation, Defendant CITY hereby moves to dismiss
this lawsuit based upon Plaintiff's lack of standing; alternatively, Defendant CITY seeks a more
definite statement as to Plaintiff's alleged ownership interest.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
1 STANDARD OF REVIEW
“tis axiomatic that in ruling upon a motion to dismiss a complaint the issue before the
court is whether the complaint states a valid cause of action.” Temples v. Florida Industrial
Constr. Co., 310 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). “A motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6), tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to state a
cause of action and is not intended to determine issues of ultimate fact. Therefore, in ruling on a
motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state cause of action, the trial court must confine
itself strictly to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint.” McWhirter, Reeves,
Page 2 of 7vev3 mo.
McGlothlin, Davidson, Rief & Bakas, P.A. v. Weiss, 704 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
citations omitted).
I, PLAINTIFF HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED ANY LEGAL INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY AND HAS NO STANDING TO INSTITUTE THIS LITIGATION
The Complaint must be
issed, for Plaintiff BANK has neither shown any legal
interest in the matter being litigated nor any entitlement to foreclose upon Defendants Larry
Carter and Ina M. Brinson, As such, Plaintiff BANK has no standing in this matter and cannot
proceed in this litigation,
“The determination of standing to sue concems a court's exercise of jurisdiction to hear
and decide the cause pled by a particular party. Generally, one with a legally protectible right or
interest at stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy is a proper party to obtai
judicial
resolution of that controversy. The party with the right or interest at stake generally should also
be a ‘real party in interest,” that is, ‘the person in whom rests, by substantive law, the claim
sought to be enforced.” Rogers & Ford Constr. Corp. v. Carlandia Corp., 626 So. 2d 1350,
1352 (Fla, 1993) (quoting Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd., 462 So. 2d 1178, 1183 (Fla. 34
DCA)) (citations omitted). “The party must allege that he has suffered or will suffer a special
injury. Thus, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has a sufficient interest at stake in
the controversy which will be affected by the outcome of the litigation.” Wexler v. Lepore, 878
So. 2d 1276, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citations omitted). “To establish standing it must be
shown that the party suffered injury in fact (economic or otherwise) for which relief is likely to
be redressed and, in non-constitutional situations, that the interest sought to be protected falls
within a statutory or constitutional guarantee (i.e., the zone of interest...). The injury must be
distinct and palpable. It may not be abstract, conjectural or hypothetical.” Peregood v.
Cosmides, 663 So. 2d 665, 668 (Fla. Sth DCA 1995) (citations omitted).'
* Proof of interest is clearly required at the onset of litigation. Moreover, during the pendency of litigation, if
interest transfers, evidence of the transfer must be produced to the Court for the Court's determination of whether
the new party has a real interest in the matter. “In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or
Page 3 of 7vevS awn,
Without some proffer of evidence that Plaintiff BANK has a legally protectable right or
interest in this real property, i.e., standing, this Court must dismiss the Complaint as a matter of
law for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff BANK is not
‘ed in the Mortgage Documents provided to the Court. Moreover, no allegation, other than a
conclusory statement of ownership, was set forth in the Complaint to show that Plaintiff BANK
has any legal interest in this matter. Lastly, Plaintiff BANK has inexcusably failed to attach an
Assignment of Mortgage to the Complaint. Without any proof of Plaintiff BANK’s interest, this,
Court is unable to grant the relief which Plaintiff BANK purports to seek, and this matter must
be dismissed pursuant to Rule 1.140(b)(6).
In a case with facts substantially similar to the instant case, Washington v, Independent
Realty Co., 99 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1958), the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court erred
when it failed to dismiss the Complaint as a matter of law for failure to state a cause of action
upon which relief can be granted:
There is nothing in this record to establish such fact, such as an
assignment or any transfer of said obligation to Independent Realty
Company sufficient to protect Fred and Mary Washington in the
event they were later sued by Wayco on the same cause of action.
For this reason, it is obvious that Independent Realty Company has
no standing to maintain this suit for declaratory decree against the
Washingtons. It simply has no cause of action nor any legal claim
against the defendants. For this reason, the motion to dismiss the
complaint should have been sustained.
Id, at 615 (emphasis added). This Court must follow the precedent set forth in Washington and
dismiss the instant Complaint.
I, IF THE INSTANT MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED, THE CITY ASKS THAT
THE COURT REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE A MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT OF ITS INTEREST IN THIS LAWSUIT.
It is Defendant CITY'S position that Plaintiff BANK has not proffered any evidence
demonstrating its legal interest in the subject property, and the Complaint must be dismissed as a
‘against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be
substituted in the action or joined with the original party.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(c)
Page 4 of 7coaeaaes
matter of law for failure to state a cause of action. Nonetheless, should the Court find that
Plaintiff BANK’s conclusory statement of ownership is minimally sufficient, Defendant CITY
moves this Court for an Order requiring the Plaintiff BANK file a more definite statement
clarifying and supporting its ownership interest in the real property at issue. See Augustine v.
Southern Bell Tel, & Tel. Co., 91 So. 2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956) (“If the claims for damages are
inadequate or indefinite and itis the desire of the defendant to have a more specific allegation, he
can obtain the desired relief by a motion for a more definite statement.”).?
“Where a complaint states, in substance, a cause of action by way of allegations of
conclusions...but fails to do so by short and plain statements of the ultimate facts, the
n for a more definite statement under Florida Rule of
complaint...may be subject to...a m
Civil Procedure 1.140(e).” Feller v. Eau Gallie Yacht Basin, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Fla.
Sth DCA 1981). Rule 1.140(e), entitled “Motion for More Definite Statement,” reads as follows:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is,
so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required
to frame a responsive pleading, that party may move for a more
definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The
motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details
desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not
obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or such other time
as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the
motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.
Should this Court choose not to dismiss this Complaint as legally and factually
insufficient, Defendant CITY is entitled, at minimum, to a more definite statement. Without
such statement, Defendant CITY cannot properly respond to Plaintiff BANK’s Complaint, for
Defendant CITY’s position in defending the instant lawsuit depends entirely upon the date
Plaintiff BANK acquired its interest in the subject property, i.e., whether Plaintiff BANK’s
interest arose prior to or after the recording of Defendant CITY’s lien.
? iris necessary, pursuant to the Augustine cas, that Plaintiff allege atleast a minimal claim to the relief sought. It
is the position of Defendant CITY that Plaintiff BANK has not made such a “minimal” showing in this matter,
which is why Defendant CITY seeks Dismissal as its primary remedy.
Page 5 of 7Lastly, it must be noted that rule 1.140(a)(4) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that “[iJf the court permits or requires...a more definite statement, the. ..statement shall
be served within 10 days after notice of the court's action.” Accordingly, should the Court
choose only to require Plaintiff BANK to file a more definite statement, such statement must be
filed within ten (10) days and should expressly set forth if, how and when the legal interest in
this Mortgage was transferred or assigned to Plaintiff BANK.
CONCLUSION
FOR EACH OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant CITY OF PALM BAY,
respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss this action based upon the fact that the
Plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF
RENAISSANCE EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-3, has
entirely failed to establish any legal interest in the subject matter of this litigation and thus does
not have standing to pursue the instant litigation. In the alternative, Defendant CITY seeks an
Order requiring the Plaintiff to file a more definite statement within ten (10) days showing if,
how and when the legal interest in this Mortgage was acquired by the Plaintiff.
JAMES D. STOKES, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF PALM BAY
5240 Babcock Street NE, Suite 201
Palm Bay, Florida 32905-4643
Telephone: (321) 409-7185
Facsimile: (321) 409-7112
A Didu lf Lome
ANDREW P. LANNON
Deputy City Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0648140
e-mail: lannoa@pbfl.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by first class U. S.
Mail to Attorney for Plaintiff, Jami L. Beasley, Esq., Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A., 1701 West
Page 6 of 7
eeeved mw
Hillsboro Blvd., Suite 307, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442; Defendant Homeowners, Larry Carter
and Ina M. Brinson, 1052 Sablon Street, S.E., Palm Bay, FL 32909, this 9th day of March, 2009.
du Lerrm
ANDREW P. LANNON
Page 7 of 7