The Florida Supreme Court, in it’s rules governing residential mortgage foreclosures demanded that PLAINITFFS VERIFY FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS! The Supreme Court did not include slippery language that would allow agents, acting on behalf of undisclosed principals to come before the court and act on their behalf…specifically in the context of verifying complaints.
I read the Supreme Court’s language, it is clear and so we moved to dismiss their complaint. The trial judge agreed and dismissed, the bank appealed and the Second DCA just issued a Per Curiam Dismissal of the bank’s absurd Appeal….and so,
TRIAL COURT JUDGE PAMELA CAMPBELL’S ORDER DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROPERLY VERIFIED BY A SERVICER STANDS AS THE LAW IN THE 2ND DCA!
This is a HUGE step in holding the UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPALS in foreclosure actions accountable. All courts must start to carefully examine all principal/agency relationships in foreclosure cases and not allow undisclosed agents with no clearly defined authority to come into courts purporting to act!
It’s absurd that trial courts have allowed plaintiff’s to come in court waving around original notes with no other proof of relationship, no servicing contracts, nothing that even comes close to showing they have any authority to throw our neighbors into the streets and seize American homes.
THAT STOPS NOW!
(WELL, TRUTHFULLY MANY GOOD TRIAL COURT JUDGES PUT A STOP TO IT LONG AGO, AND NOW THE APPELLATE COURTS ARE AFFIRMING THEIR WISDOM)
This is great news! Does it affect any previous foreclosures that have been fraudulently sued out? I have the robo-signed evidence, but don’t know what rights I might have.
Your blog is excellent, btw.
Where does this leave me ,, basically complaint is unverified (person signing isn’t identified with servicer or Wells Fargo .. no affiliation listed , probably just a secretary at the plaintiffs firm) ,, I am sued by “WF” but I know it is really AHMSI … ??
Thanks in advance Matt… we’re making progress …
As I read US Bank’s position, it says that if it has to verify that the allegations in a complaint for foreclosure are true, it would have the choice of committing perjury or not pursuing a foreclosure. Obviously, if it cannot verify its allegations to support its foreclosure, it should not pursue the foreclosure. What kind of mind thinks that the alternative to not being allowed to steal a home with unverified statements of fact is to commit the crime of perjury? A criminal mind, obviously.
This case clearly proves that the banks are committing crimes in our courts. QUERY: If the complaint survives because it did not have to be verified, is the next step perjurious affidavits swearing that forged documents prove standing and the right to collect the debt through foreclosure? We know it is because we have seen this movie too often.
I see a link to the briefs. Where is the opinion ?
Do you know of such a requirement, and statute, in California???
To my knowledge, Florida is the only state in which there is a Supreme Court Rule requiring verification of foreclosure pleadings. California is a nonjudicial foreclosure state, so you will not see foreclosure pleadings like those filed in Florida, to which the verification rule applies.
Great work Matt and thanks to your client for allowing post. Good to see the 2DCA following the High Court as it should. Appears you may have irked someone with this (wonder who???), as the above links to the order and briefs now have a cold and shut down IE without opening. Luckily I downloaded to my phone yesterday! Please repost the links or the case style if you can so folks can find this. Good stuff.