Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

What’s the penalty for not complying with the Florida Supreme Court Rule that requires Foreclosure Complaints to be Verified? CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE!

So ethical, responsible attorneys from across the State of Florida have been madder than a bunch of Florida fire ants because the Millionaire Foreclosure Mills just continue to churn out foreclosure lawsuit after foreclosure lawsuit all across the State of Florida totally ignoring the Florida Supreme Court and the Rule that requires the Millionaire Foreclosure Mills to comply with Rule 1.110(b).

We keep filing our Motions to Dismiss, but the Millionaire Foreclosure Mills just keep on ignoring The Supreme Court of Florida…..that’s obscene in my mind, but I’m just one lawyer fighting for his client. Having said that, out of frustration I researched throughly what could be done to fight against the flagrant disrespect for the court. The answer to the vexing question is in the attached motion….

THE CASE LAW PROVIDES THAT ONE POTENTIAL SANCTION FOR A PARTY WILLFULLY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE COURT IS A DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE.

That means that the Plaintiff loses his ability to pursue the case again.   My Motion is attached here, along with the case law.   I invite critical input into this issue and serious case law inquiry into this appropriateness of dismissals with prejudice as a sanction for violating the court’s rules.

Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice here and just to make things easy on everyone, the cases cited are here.

I’m looking for critical inquiry here people….especially you hot shot lawyers….eat this alive and tell me if I’m wrong!

10 Comments

  • Andrew says:

    Pretty impressive to a non-lawyer Matt. Of course, after receiving a copy of your motion, the plaintiff’s could simply file their response which would finally include the verification language that they should have provided in the first place. But, you never know. Definitely report back on this motion as to it’s success/failure.

    • What does it take to be verified? Can we presume that all the cases are verifiable? Maybe the foreclosure mills are simply gatling gun their cases and mixing in to the verifiable batch unverifiable cases.

      • DENNIS SCHIAROLI says:

        Based on what I have seen the plaintiff “bears the burden” of demonstrating standing and must plead it components with specificity and the Plaintiff must be a proper proponent and the action a proper vehicle to vindicate the rights asserted.

        MY partner went to his forclosure and an attorney stood up for the bank to verify in Fort Myers. The judgement was filed based on his court appearance and testimony with right hands raised. Don’t let this happen!!!

        Fight fight fight

    • DENNIS SCHIAROLI says:

      Hey a non lawyer hear & I have held countrywide
      BAC home loans attorney at bay from Fort Myers, and so far alittle less than 30 days after a motion to produce they still have not shown with mortgage assignment. Im filing your evidence motion and I won’t stop till I get enough. One thing you can see these attorneys are stressed. It a full time job just dealing with my stuff when you resist and his complaint was generic so Im going to kick some tail. PS filed a notice to dismiss????? Still waiting

      Dennis

      • Peter Stilphen says:

        Hello Dennis,
        We are in LaBelle. BAC/Countrywide just served foreclosure papers. I hav been a Pro se for several cases in the past. anything you can provide would br great. My first action is a Motion to Dismiss based on this article and others I have found.

        Any links or advice would be appreciated. I really want to make these bastards work and hopefuly lose.

  • Leo says:

    I get the feeling that these Foreclosure Mills don’t want to testify or verify since all these assignments are fraudulent.

  • Craig says:

    Not to nit pick – but in Fact 2 – the Plaintiff was specified as ABC. Otherwise – great going!

    Craig

  • Jesse says:

    Great job Matt!

    There are several issues here, first and attorney cannot testify to any facts…..period!

    Second, your motion touches on jurisdiction but the truth is none of these FSJ are worth the paper they are written on and all of them are subject to a collateral attack.

    Here is the case history to prove that none of these courts have jurisdiction;

    ” A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action.” Lebanon Correctional Institution v. Court of Common Pleas 35 Ohio St.2d 176 (1973).

    One again, the Plaintiff fails to bring forth the injured party, and the Plaintiffs themselves have no real interest in the subject matter of this action.

    ” A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v.Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold,” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law”

    Indymac Bank v. Boyd, 880 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2009). To establish a prima
    facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note. It is the law’s policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . .

    When is the last time anyone seen a fact witness,individual,aggrieved person or a representative in the court room with their attorney who could testify? I never have and I doubt anyone ever has.

    This is part of my memorandum against their MFSJ, and it killed them!

    “The requirement for verified information to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court and empower the court to act has been applied to both courts of record and not of record. Defendant and apparently the Florida Supreme Court determine that the mandatory language of form 1.944 is nothing more than merely a “guaranty of good faith” of the prosecution. It, in fact, is required to vest the district court with subject matter jurisdiction, which in turn empowers the court to act. Only by the filing of an information which complies with this mandatory statutory requirement can the district court obtain subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance which then empowers the court to adjudicate the matters presented to it. Enough said!”

    Easy for the appeals court to make a decision on, only one subject. The Plaintiffs lack of invoking the courts subject matter jurisdiction.

    More of my motion;

    The assignment, what assignment?

    Mr. Tacoronte has shown that he never gave the note and mortgage to Plaintiff.

    Accordingly, Plaintiff needs to offer admissible evidence that it has standing. Id. Let us
    examine Plaintiff’s alleged assignment and thereby expose it for the sham that it is. The
    language is:

    FOR VALUE RECEIFVED, on or before September 26, 2008, the undersigned,
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, AS
    NOMINEE FOR AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, (“˜”˜Assignor”), whose address
    is 475 Crosspoint Pkwy, Getzville, NY 14068 assigned, transferred and conveyed to
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., whose address is 475 Crosspoint Pkwy, Getzville,, [sic]
    NY 14068, its successors and/or assigns, all the right, title and interest of Assignor
    in and to that certain mortgage …
    There is no language of grant in there, only a simple, unsworn recitation that at some
    unknown time, someone purporting to be MERS (but actually having the address of
    Plaintiff) allegedly did an assignment. Being unsworn, it is not admissible evidence.
    First North American Nat’l Bank .v Hummel at 504 (swearing is necessary).

    Without an assignment, there is no mortgage to foreclose. Neither can the Mortgage follow the Note; they were separated at birth with the Mortgage to MERS and the Note to ABC.

    Next on the list, no judge had the statutory authority to order a sale of a residential property or issue a writ of possession. Working with one of your guys in your group that we just showed this to and it blew his mind. It will make its way up to you I am sure.

    Keep up the fight and God Bless,

    Jesse

  • Steve says:

    I have tried to find your case at the court but could not find it on there website. I don’t see any updates on this site for your case. Could you please update as to the outcome.Thank You

  • Jorge L.Torres says:

    Keep up the good work torres

Leave a Reply