0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
63 tayangan23 halaman
Defending an Appeal on the Issue of Verification
by Mark Stopa
Several months ago, I got a foreclosure lawsuit against a Florida homeowner dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Shapiro & Fishman filed an appeal on behalf of the bank, arguing the court shouldn’t have dismissed the case because verifications of foreclosure complaints can be done “on information and belief,” not in the manner set forth in Fla. Stat. 92.525.
Defending an Appeal on the Issue of Verification
by Mark Stopa
Several months ago, I got a foreclosure lawsuit against a Florida homeowner dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Shapiro & Fishman filed an appeal on behalf of the bank, arguing the court shouldn’t have dismissed the case because verifications of foreclosure complaints can be done “on information and belief,” not in the manner set forth in Fla. Stat. 92.525.
Defending an Appeal on the Issue of Verification
by Mark Stopa
Several months ago, I got a foreclosure lawsuit against a Florida homeowner dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Shapiro & Fishman filed an appeal on behalf of the bank, arguing the court shouldn’t have dismissed the case because verifications of foreclosure complaints can be done “on information and belief,” not in the manner set forth in Fla. Stat. 92.525.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE
SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2D11-2961
WELLS FARGO BANK, N, A., TRUSTEE,
Appellant,
ARTHUR TOBOADA, J P MORGAN CHASE BANK, ET AL.
Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 6™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
CASE NO: 2010-000148-CI
INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
SHAPIRO, FISHMAN & GACHE, LLP
Barbara A, Couture
FL Bar# 0682535
4630 Woodland Corporate Blvd.
Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33614
Telephone: 813-880-8888
Fax: 813-880-8800
Attorneys for AppellantTABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. ii
CASES...
STATUTES.
RULES...
STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS.
STANDARD OF REVIEW...
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.
ARGUMENT.
ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING
APPELLANT’S AMENDED MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT
WHICH INCLUDED THE SPECIFIC VERIFICATION LANGUAGE
REQUIRED BY FLA.R.CIV.P. 1.110(b)?
ISSUE TWO: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
IN DENYING THE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
AMEND ITS COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS FILED AND SET FOR HEARING
DURING THE ORIGINAL TIME ALLOTTED BY THE COURT IN ITS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL?... Epa area ee
CONCLUSION...
CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...
Page iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civ. Procedure,
44 So. 3d $55, (Fla. 2010)
Boudot v. Boudot, 925 So. 2d 409 (Fla. Sth DCA 2006).
Carson v. Miller, 370 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1979...
Fla. Dept. of Revenue v. Fla. Mun. Power Agency,
789 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2001)...
Gervais v. City of Melbourne, 890 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004
Meadows Cmty. Ass’n., Inc. v. Russell-Tutty,
928 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006)
Reino v. State, 352 So. 2d 853 (Fla, 1977)
Rowe v. State, 394, So. 2d 1059 (Fla. Ist DCA 1981)
Syndicate Properties, Inc. v, Hotel Floridian Co., 94 So. 899 (Fla. 1927)
STATUTES
Chapter 673, Florida Statutes
Fla, Stat. § 92.595.
Fla. Stat. §92.525(2)..
RULES
Fla. R. Civ.P 1.090(b).....
FlaR.Civ. 1.110(b)....
FlaR.AppP 9.210(a)(2).
Page ii