U.S. BANK, N.A., APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA A. WANIO-MOORE, ET AL., 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.
U.S. Bank appealed a trial court's dismissal of its mortgage foreclosure complaint based on allegedly inadequate verification. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) does not require a verification to state the signer's position, only that the signer declare under penalty of perjury that the facts are true.
The verification is legally sufficient under Rule 1.110(b) without stating the signer's position. The rule requires only an oath, affirmation, or a statement that the signer declares under penalty of perjury that the facts alleged are true and correct to the best of the signer's knowledge and belief.
[1] A mortgage foreclosure complaint must be verified when filed.
[2] A verification of a mortgage foreclosure complaint is legally sufficient if it includes the statement: "Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing…
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“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."”
Establishes that Rule 1.110(b) must be interpreted according to its plain language, not expanded through judicial interpretation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Linda A. Wanio-Moore and others. The complaint was accompanied by a signed verification, but …
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
U.S. Bank, N.A. (Bank) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its mortgage foreclosure complaint, without leave to amend, for inadequate verification of the complaint. Determining that the verification provided by the Bank was legally sufficient, we reverse.
The trial court dismissed the Bank’s complaint because the signed verification accompanying it did not state the signer’s position. The court relied on a decision of another circuit, Aurora Loan Services v. Fleetwood, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 390 (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. Jan. 26, 2011), to support its ruling. There, the court wrote:
The complaint needs to be verified by an employee or officer of the plaintiff, by an employee or officer of its loan servicer, or by the attorney who files the case. Designations such as “authorized agent”, “authorized signatory”, “authorized officer”, “representative of the plaintiffs servicer”, “representative of the plain*942tiff’ and the like are meaningless, insufficient and tell the reader nothing. The rule requires a clean, plain statement of accuracy by a person who actually verifies the truth of the claims made, and who is identified as being in a position to actually do so.
(Emphasis omitted.)
The trial court erred in concluding that a foreclosure verification must state the signer’s position. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) provides, in relevant part:
Rule 1.110. General Rules of Pleading
(b) Claims for Relief. ....
When filing an action for foreclosure of a mortgage on residential real property the complaint shall be verified. When verification of a document is required, the document filed shall include an oath, affirmation, or the following statement: “Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec., Inc. v. Huber, 137 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…having the servicing agent merely verify the complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b). A plaintiffs loan servicing agent is a proper representative to verify a mortgage foreclosure complaint. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Wanio-Moore, 111 So. 3d 941, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The trial court improperly applied this court’s decision in Elston/Leetsdale, LLC v. CWCapital Asset Management LLC, 87 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), to base the involuntary dismissal in part on the servicing agent’s lack…
-
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)…l Trust Co., 88 So. 3d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). The Fifth District has concluded that a trial court erred in dismissing a foreclosure complaint because the verification did not relate the signer’s position. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Wanio-Moore, 111 So. 3d 941, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The court relied on Stentz to hold that “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.’ ” Id. at 942…
Authorities Cited
- Becker v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 88 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Stentz, 91 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)