BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, L.P. F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., APPELLANT,
v.
BILL R. STENTZ A/K/A WILLIAM R. STENTZ, JACKLYN L. STENTZ, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AND TIERRA DEL SOL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
BAC Home Loan Servicing appealed a trial court order dismissing its residential foreclosure complaint against homeowners for failure to properly verify the complaint. The appellate court reversed, holding that BAC's verification language complied with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) and that the verification need not be contained within the complaint itself.
The court held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) applies to residential mortgage foreclosure complaints and permits verification based on knowledge and belief, which supersedes the more stringent language in section 92.525. The court further held that the rule does not require the verification to be incorporated within the complaint; it may appear on a separate page.
[1] A verification of a residential foreclosure complaint that states facts are true "to the best of my knowledge and belief" satisfies Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(…
[2] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) does not require a verification to be incorporated within the body of a complaint.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because rule 1.110(b) specifically provides for a verification based on knowledge and belief, the generally applicable declaration in section 92.525(2) that the facts 'are true,' without limitation, does not control”
Establishes that rule 1.110(b) verification language supersedes section 92.525's stricter language in residential mortgage foreclosure cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBAC filed a residential foreclosure complaint against Bill R. Stentz and Jacklyn L. Stentz. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint for insu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Verification Of Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
BAC Homes Loan Servicing, L.P. (BAC), appeals a trial court order dismissing with prejudice its residential foreclosure complaint against homeowners Bill R. Stentz and Jaeklyn L. Stentz. The trial court determined that BAC did not properly verify its complaint in accordance with section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2010). We conclude that the trial court erred by requiring BAC to provide verification that was not required under the plain language of the recently amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b),1 and therefore we reverse.
The trial court dismissed BAC’s original complaint due to what it believed was BAC’s failure to sufficiently allege standing and its failure to verify the complaint. BAC filed an amended complaint and attached a verification attested to by a BAC employee stating that the facts alleged in the complaint “are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” However, the trial court dismissed BAC’s complaint with prejudice2 upon finding that BAC’s usage of the terms “to the best of my knowledge and belief’ did not sufficiently verify the complaint pursuant to section 92.525. The trial court also noted that the verification was improper because it was attached to the amended complaint instead of being incorporated within it.
This court recently determined in Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 v. Pelt, 84 So.3d 369, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), that “because rule 1.110(b) specifically provides for a verification based on knowledge and belief, the generally applicable declaration in section 92.525(2) that the facts ‘are true,’ without limitation, does not control.” Thus, rule 1.110(b) applies, and like in Trucap, we conclude that BAC properly used the verification language contained in the rule. Id. at 373. Further, there is no requirement in rule 1.110(b) that the verification be contained within the complaint, and “[njothing in the rule prohibits the verification from starting on a separate page.” Becker v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 88 So.3d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Like the Fourth District, “[w]e will not read more into [rule 1.110(b) ] than its plain language dictates.” Id.
Accordingly, we adopt the reasoning in Trucap and Becker and hold that the trial *237court erred by dismissing BAC’s amended complaint with prejudice. On remand, the trial court is directed to reinstate BAC’s amended complaint against the Stentzes.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donado v. Pennymac Corp., 174 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…necessary for compliance with the amendment to rule 1.110(b) in place at that time, nor were there any other terms or attachments that reasonably could have satisfied the verification requirement. See, e.g., BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Stentz, 91 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing trial court’s decision to dismiss appellant’s amended complaint with prejudice for failure to verify because the court found that appellant’s “usage of the terms ‘to the best of my knowledge and belief ” satisfied…
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Morgan Stanley ABS Cap. I Inc. Tr. 2006-HE8 v. Plageman, 133 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Wanio-Moore, 111 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…st of my knowledge and belief.” Thus, the rule does not require any information about the signer’s positional authority, and a court cannot “read more into [rule 1.110(b) ] than its plain language dictates.” BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Stentz, 91 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); accord Becker v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 88 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). REVERSED and REMANDED. LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments TO THE Fla. Rules OF Civil Procedure. In re Amendments to The Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure-Form 1.996 (Final Judgment of Foreclosure), 44 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 2010)
- Trucap Grantor Tr. 2010-1 v. Pelt, 84 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Becker v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 88 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)