This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
DEUTSCHE BANK, et al. _________________________/ MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION Appellant, DANIEL WILLIAM BECKER, pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.030 and 9.330, moves for certification by this Court that the opinion filed in this matter on May 9, 2012: passes upon a question of great public important. ARGUMENT 1. GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE A. A Significant Issue is Involved Here CASE NO: 4D11-1149 L.T. CASE: 10-28291(11)
Appellants urge the Court to certify as a matter of great public importance this question: WHETHER A SEPARATE PAGE VERIFICATION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH RULE 1.110(B), FLA. R. CIV. PRO., AS AMENDED AND THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS FOUND IN SECTION 92.525, FLA. STAT. (2011).
110 to specifically require the verification of the pleading itself the purpose of which was to provide incentive for the plaintiff to properly investigate and verify the ownership of the note and/or right to enforce the note and ensure the allegations in the complaint were accurate. Plaintiff lenders began submitting what appears to be a separate document which purports to be verification in foreclosure cases in compliance with the Rule 1.This question arises because of the conflicting cases coming out of the various circuits finding that a separate page verification negates the intent of the Florida Supreme Court in amending Rule 1. In Re: Amendments To The Florida Rules Of Civil Following the Court’s Procedure. For example. 2010).M. amendments. SC09-1460 (Fla. These separate page “verifications” frustrate the intent of the Court’s amending the Rule. a separate page “verification” lends itself for abuse by Plaintiff lenders who have repeatedly shown a propensity to circumvent the requirements of the law by creating documents marginally in compliance such as post-dated Assignment of Mortgages and separate page document titled “Verification of Complaint”.110 as amended by the Supreme Court but which facilitates the very abuse the Court was trying to curtail. when W. Specialty 2 . Indisputably.
Salomon. 4th DCA 1996) which found that any verification must be in conformity with F. 673 So. 874 So.S.2d 680 (Fla.2d 885 (Fla. Jacobson. v.” If in fact this Court is of the opinion that the “nothing in the rule prohibits the verification from starting on a separate page” then this Court is urged to Certify the question to the Florida Supreme Court so that it may revisit its decision following the implementation of its rule by the very Plaintiffs that caused it to be spawned in the first place to determine if a separate page verification is in compliance with the purpose of the Rule change and reconcile same with Section 92. The vast majority of foreclosure cases fail to plead sufficient facts to support an equitable transfer and rarer still are those instances where an evidentiary hearing is held to determine if Plaintiff had the required standing to bring the action.2d 84 (Fla. 3 .Mortgage LLC v.525. Lennar Florida Partners. 4th DCA 2004) was decided there was a sudden influx of post-dated Assignment of Mortgages that contained language memorializing an earlier transfer for the purpose of avoiding a dismissal based on standing pursuant to Jeff Ray Corp. Indeed. this Court’s ruling is a departure from Muss v. 566 So. 4th DCA 1990). 92.525 even when “strict interpretation of this statute might lead to inequitable results.
(Fla. FLWSupp 1801DEUT. 29. Aurora Loan Services v. Deutsche Bank. 2010)). Cir. Cir.g. 15th Circuit Palm Beach County (May 1. Ct. Weekly Supp. Ct. Ct. Htay. etc. Deutsche Bank National Trust v. 2012). Cir. Decker. Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon v. Ct. 18 Fla. Stat. Stat. Deutsche Bank v. (Fla.Fla. Cir. Cir.. 20th Circuit. Florida (12/13/2010). See e. 6th Jud. 4 . 2011). 18 FLWSupp 285a. 189a. 2010). Cir. (2011). 13th Jud.525 (1) & (2). Fla. Menke. 10 CA 026549MB (AW). Trustee. Pinellas County. Cir. Chase Home Finance v Frank Long. Case No: 2010-CA-3249-ES (J4). 19th Jud. Cir. (Fla. 95-525(2). Collier Case No: 1100045 (Sept. L. 6th Jud. FLWSupp 1804 AURO. 6th Jud. Cir. Several trial courts from both this and other circuits routinely rule that separate page verifications do not comply with the requirement of Fla. Fleetwood.” Section 92.. Court. (2010) which states in pertinent part: “[w]hen it is authorized … by rule … that a document be verified …the verification … shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration. 2011). 2010). v Everett. Losier. (Fla. Stat.
the only documents ever submitted in this case in support of Plaintiff’s claim of ownership and standing stemmed from an employee of the servicer. who executed the Verification as attorney in fact for Deutsche. up 2 percent from the same period of 2011 according the RealtyTrac listing firm. A Significant Number of People Will be Affected. wearing hats for the original lender.In this case. Lenders filed 2. later the very same person executed the Assignment of Mortgage as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and this person is the Assistant Vice President of One West.525. assignee and servicing agent. B.100(b) with Section 92. Fla. In other words. One West.746 foreclosure lawsuits January through March. Total filings in Florida rose 26 percent from a year ago – the 5 . assignor. Stat. the person that executed the Verification for Deutsche Bank was an employee of the loan servicing agent. In Broward County alone the number of new foreclosure cases filed grew slightly in the first three months of 2012 compared to 2011. for the purpose of reconciling form and substance and practical application of the Rule and Statute. The Florida Supreme Court should be allowed an opportunity to conclusively determine and reconcile Rule 1.
S. In Muss v. 92. second only to California. It should be a considered a matter of great public importance that this decision has elevated a Rule of Civil Procedure over the requirements of a Florida Statute and worthy of consideration by the Florida Supreme Court. postage prepaid.first increase after five quarterly declines. This Court’s decision. this ___ 6 . the first in any District. Clearly. Accordingly. a not insignificant number of the “public” are directly affected by the decision here. Florida had 73.2d 84 (Fla. this decision strictly construes the Supreme Court’s rule change without any consideration for the reasons behind it and without reconciling it with the applicable statute.S. 4th DCA 1996) this Court rejected a verification when it failed to comply with F. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Appellant’s Motion for Certification was furnished by U. 673 So. could potentially impact a substantial number of those foreclosure cases and appears to be a departure from a previous ruling regarding an interpretation of what a verification requires.344 properties in some stage of foreclosure during the first quarter. Mail. Lennar Florida Partners.525.
Michael Muniz..1120 Fax: (561) 265.1828 By: __________________________ □ Joann M. CIVIL JUSTICE ADVOCATES. Commercial Boulevard Ste 18 Fort Lauderdale. P. Mirchandani Florida Bar No.: 192465 □ Kunal A. 8201 Peters Road. KAHANE & ASSOCIATES. PL 3601 W. Florida 33309 Tel: (561) 265. Ste: 3000. Esq.: 86161 7 .A. Hennessey Florida Bar No.day of May 2012 upon H. Fl 33324.100(1) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Plantation. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this petition complies with the font requirements of rule 9..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.