with a foreclosure if none i mean none of the complaints are verified.with first knowledge by a person at closing.how are these debt third party collector.stealing homes.shouldnt a motion to dismiss.or a motion to strick the whole complaint.kill the complaint
* Last updated by: VANCE1 on 1/17/2014 @ 10:37 AM *

There is no requirement that a pleading be "verified". Use your 5 discovery tools to get past their smoke and mirrors. Force them to show you who knows what and how, using your discovery tools. That's how you win, Vance.

could one file a motion to dismiss.for them to prove at the motions hearing

kiss = (keep it simple stupid)that's what my drill sergeant demanded!

there is a period in the middle of the statement?
is the rest part of the sentence? or what?

what do they want to prove?

how strong are your causes of actions?

aren't motion hearing (oral argument) for the purpose to prove a point?

what grounds would you use to dismiss?

Evidence is not supposed to be heard or admitted at hearings on motions to dismiss. The court is supposed to look only at the documents, not evidence.

You are going about it all wrong. Please study the tutorial on discovery, Vance.

Funny I thought rather recently Florida made it maditory that ALL foreclosure cause of action be verified complaints....
please explain your statement
are complaints pleadings?
"It’s been more than a year now since the Florida Supreme Court passed a very simple rule. The Rule requires Plaintiffs to verify their complaint. All that means is they must be willing to say the allegations are TRUE AND CORRECT. That’s it folks. Nothing more. This isn’t the moonshot. And the effective date is February 11, 2010!!! Nothing mindblowing about that."
FLWSUPP

Cynthia L. Cox, Judge.
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

"The verification must be included in the complaint itself for the Court to be certain that the affiant has read the actual allegations and to make it clear what is being verified. The purpose of the verification is to create accuracy and accountability. There is no provision in the rule for the filing of a separate verification in a separate document. Common sense dictates that without verification in the complaint itself, it would never be clear what the affiant reviewed and what allegations they verified". ... and so on.

What I find most interesting is the people who instruct sometimes do not define their terms- so as to cause much confusion. It's not always more study that is always needed rather defining words so that one understands the first time. Studying in an ignorant fashion is not study...

Vance:
I dont mean to complicate the situation but what do you make of this?
In florida there was a recent change and in MY foreclosure case the bank filed a verified complaint

The court hereby places the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel on notice that any complaint filed in this cause shall be
verified as required by In Re: AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 2010 WL
455295 (Fla. 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly S317a], F.S. 92.525 and Muss v. Lennar Florida Partners, 673
So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). If it is thereafter determined that the verification was not based upon an
appropriate investigation or that the allegations were false, the Plaintiff and the person who signs the verified
complaint will be subject to sanctions which may include? dismissal of the action with prejudice, assessment of
fees and costs, monetary or incarcerative sanctions and referral to the State Attorney for prosecution pursuant to
F.S. 837.

Please explain your position more please
* Last updated by: ROBERT39 on 6/20/2014 @ 7:38 PM *

The banks are beginning to get "bloody noses" because when they don't file a verified complaint (one in which they have done their due diligence) the case can be thrown out. BUT what can they verify? They DO NOT have a firsthand competent fact witness. They can't possibly. If it's a servicer/debt collector they must also prove agency relationship with the alleged owner/holder/holder in due course of the note. This is my understanding and I've been studying and working with other people who are also contesting their foreclosure cases. YOU are the ONLY firsthand, competent fact witness so be careful as to what are they actually verifying and get specific.

Also, the endorsements on the alleged note - that's key. For instance, Lehman Brothers Bank FSB was supposedly my lender and they endorsed "without recourse" over to Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. But the first Plaintiff in my case was Aurora Loan Services (a servicer - a servicer cannot be a holder). But anyway, the alleged assignment was from Lehman Brothers Bank to Aurora. NOT POSSIBLE. If Lehman Brothers Bank had signed it over to Lehman Brothers Holdings then they have to show an assignment from the Bank to the Holdings first! So right there is a break in the chain of title.
If your plaintiff is filing "verified" assignments it means nothing unless all proper chain of title is provided, as well as the pooling and servicing agreements. I'm in Florida too. Hope that helps!

Hi Christina:
yes and I think you meant in your explanation that it was chain of assignment...But anyway yes, silly stuff and must be kept a watchful eye on. It gets even crazier when the bank is basing their agency status on previous corp mergers- not necessarily note assignment. I'm thinking of moving and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for their claim is based on a merger and that enters into inter-state commerce and federal district court. If you or any one reading this post may know of any case law in florida that could be used in my cites on the merits please let me know.

Yes you're right.

I just filed a motion to dismiss. Lehman Brothers Bank was in chapter 11 from 9/2008 so while it's not a corporate merger it's similar.
My MTD is also "lack of subject matter jurisdiction of this matter"
But I have nothing on intercommerce.
Good luck! If I come across anything I'll let you know.

In your MTD make sure you put cites to back up your motion. Lehmen got taken down by Goldman so make sure that the date of assigment pre dates that BK- if no asignment but merger then you have the same problem I have- no cites to back up the MTD for lack of sub jurisdiction
Always have a motive of appeal preped in your back pocket and ready to go if they move for sum judgement and get it - then serve the opposing side right there in court and sched a hearing date
The cite for MTD should come from an appellant case/annotated staues- or a case that was remanded back to the lower court
keep in touch

Thanks. Not sure I understand. The assignment is 2010 and the bankruptcy went from 2008 through even this year things were being settled. I'll check out the Goldman thing but not sure I understand. Yes will stay in touch when I can.
I have a hearing on the motion this Thursday.