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.
Original Title
Mark Stopa Answer Brief - the Issue of Verification
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 SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE,
Appellant,
Case No.: 2D11-2961
v.
L.T. No.: 2010-0148-CI
ATHUR TOBOADA, et. al.,
Appellee.
/
ee
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLEE’S ANSWER BRIEF
Mark P. Stopa, Esquire
FBN;: 550507
Stora Law FIRM
2202 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33607
(727) 851-9551
MarkPStopa76@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEETABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CITATIONS..
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..
ARGUMENT
1 THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
BY DISMISSING APPELLANT’S LAWSUIT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE...
A. The lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to file its
Amended Complaint 71 days after the Court’s deadline. ..
B The lower court’s sanction of dismissal without
Prejudice was within its discretion after Appellant
refused to comply with its Order......
C. Appellant cannot be heard to challenge the
Order on review as it invited the dismissal...
Order on review as it invited the dismissal,
Il. THE LOWER COURT’S ORDER APPLIED THE CORRECT
LEGAL STANDARD FOR VERIFICATION
CONCLUSION..........
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...
CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE...TABLE OF CITATIONS
Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero,
569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)...
E & E Electric Contractors, Inc, v. Singer.
aoe eectric Lontractors, Inc. v. Singer,
236 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970
+0 9-10
Flowers v. Coveney,
324 So, 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) .....
Gazil v. Gazil,
343 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1977)...
Hawkins v. Perry,
1 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1941)...
Jacnos v. Ward,
989 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)...
Inre. Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure,
eee 4h So. 3d 355 le UO ee Pomc,
44 So. 3d 555 (Fla, 2010).....
Kirkland’s Stores, Inc. v. Felicett 4
931 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Kozel v. Ostendorf,
629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993).....
McLemore v. McLemore,
567 So, 2d 23 (Fla. Ist DCA 1990) ...
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez,
640 So, 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Rubin v. Gordon,
165 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
iii