~/

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA -;~J...,." ~.-c '\ \_~-) ",) ROMANPINO, Case No.: SCll_~7c\. r-:> " \ Petitioner, L.T. No.: 4DI0-37S Cir. Ct. No.: CA vs XXXX MB \ " \ THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FIKIA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWALT, INC. AL TERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006 OC8, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES C8, MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION L,;' Respondent ~/ Petitioner ROMAN PINO, pursuant to Rule 9.330, Fla. R. App. P. hereby moves this Court for clarification and correction of its order dated February 7, 2013 (the Order). PINO has identified what appear to be two scrivener's errors in the Order, both of which have the potential to cause widespread confusion in pending and future mortgage foreclosure actions. In a good faith effort to provide the Court with a "helpful and...important part of our appellate quality control system," Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(Anstead, J., specially concurring), PINO asks the court to correct these two errors and issue a corrected opinion. 1 1 PINO is aware that the BANK has served on the Clerk of this Court a letter requesting that the Court correct these same two issues. See Letter from counsel 1015 N. STATE RD. 7, SUITE C, ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411' TELEPHONE (561)

2 First, on page 5 of the Order in the last sentence of the first full paragraph, the court refers to the "letter" when it appears from the context and the underlying record that it intended to refer to the "latter." Op. at 5. The full sentence reads: "Pino claimed the letter was crucial to establishing BNY Mellon as a real party in interest..." Op. at 5 (emphasis added). But there was no letter referred to in the record; PINO actually relied on the assignment referenced by the Court in the prior sentence. To avoid confusion, PINO respectfully requests that the Court change the word "letter" to "assignment" so that PINO's argument below and to this Court is accurately reported to future litigants. Second, on page 35, the Court states that "rule 1.11 O(b) requires attorney verification of foreclosure complaints...", but the rule makes no mention of attorneys verifying complaints. Op. at 35 (emphasis added). PINO submits that the word "attorney" should be stricken from the opinion and replaced with "plaintiff." Rule This Court amended Rule in 2010 to require plaintiffs to verify foreclosure complaints at the behest of the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases. In re Amendments to the Florida Rules ofcivil Procedure, 44 So. 3d 555,555 (Fla. 2010). In so doing, this Court explained that one of "primary purposes of this amendment" was "to provide incentive for the plaintiff to for Bank of New York Mellon dated February 15, However, because this Court's rules do not make any provision for requesting a correction via letter, PINO's counsel felt compelled to file this motion pursuant to Rule (a), Fla. R. App, P N. STATE RD. 7, SUITEC, ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL33411 TELEPHONE (561)

3 appropriately investigate and verify its ownership ofthe note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate." Id. at 556 (emphasis added). Thus, it is the plaintiff who is required to verify the complaint. There is no mention in the rule or its enacting opinion that an attorney could make the required verification. The scope and application of the foreclosure verification rule is an issue that is currently wending its way through the Florida Courts of Appeals. See, e.g., Trucap Grantor Trust v. Pelt, 84 So.3d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding trial court erred in requiring verification that the facts are "true" instead of following the language of Rule 1.110(b)); BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Stentz, 91 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)(same); Becker v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 88 So. 3d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), reh 'g denied (June 5, 2012)(verification required by Rule 1.110(b) may be attached to a separate page of the complaint). However, no Court of Appeal has ruled in a reported decision on the issue of whether an attorney can verify a mortgage foreclosure complaint on behalf of a plaintiff, and that issue was not presented in the instant matter, either. Because the issues of attorney verification was not briefed or otherwise presented to this Court, the Court should not inadvertently reach beyond the issues presented to it in this case and state that attorneys may verify foreclosure complaints pursuant to Rule 1.11 O(b). See Art. V, 3(b), Fla. Const. (describing jurisdiction of the N. STATE RD. 7, SUITEC, ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL TELEPHONE (561)

4 Florida Supreme Court). Leaving the word "attorney" in that sentence has the potential to cause a great deal of litigation, and may well thwart this Court's intentions in enacting the rule to begin with. WHERF ORE, PINO respectfully requests that this Court GRANT this narrow motion for reconsideration and amend its Order as follows, with omissions indicated by strikethrough and additions in bold: At page 5: "Pino claimed the lettef assignment was crucial to establishing BNY Mellon as a real party in interest to this foreclosure action." At page 35: "As amended in 2010, rule 1.110(b) requires attemey plaintiff verification of foreclosure complaints..." Dated: February 21,2013. ICE APPELLATE Counsel for Petitioner 1015 N. State Road 7, Suite C Royal Palm Beach, FL Telephone: (561) Designated for Service: service@ice1egal.com service service2@icelegal.com THOMAS ERSKINE ICE Florida Bar No N. STATE RD. 7, SUITE C, ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411' TELEPHONE (56!)

5 CASE NO. 2D CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this February 21, 2013 to all parties on the attached service list. Service was by to all parties not exempt from Rule Fla. R. Jud. Admin. at the indicated addressontheservicelist.andbyu.s.mail to any other parties. ICE APPELLATE Counsel for Petitioner 1015 N. State Road 7, Suite C Royal Palm Beach, FL Telephone: (561) Designated for Service: service@icelegal.com service l@icelegal.com service2@icelegal.com ~By: ~ THOMAS ERSKINE ICE Florida Bar No N. STATE RD. 7, SUITE C, ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL TELEPHONE (561)

6 SERVICE LIST Bruce S. Rogow, Esq. Tara A. Campion, Esq. BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A. 500 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1930 Fort Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) Facsimile: (954) Counsel for Respondent, BNY Mellon William P. Heller, Esq. AKERMAN SENTERFITT Las Olas Centre II, Suite East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida Telephone: (954) Facsimile: (954) Counsel for Respondent, BNY Mellon Mitchell W. Berger, Esq. Fred o. Goldberg, Esq. Elaine Johnson James, Esq. BERGER SINGERMAN LLP 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) Facsimile: (954) Counselfor Amici Curiae The Mortgage Bankers Association and The Florida Bankers Association Katherine E. Giddings, Esq. Nancy M. Wallace, Esq. AKERMAN SENTERFITT 16 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, FL Telephone: (850) Facsimile: (850) nancy. Counsel for Respondent, BNYMellon Kenneth Bradley Bell Clark Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse 125 West Romana St., Suite 800 Pensacola, FL Telephone: (850) Facsimile: (850) Counselfor Amici Curiae Florida Land title Association and American Land Title Association Craig Lynd, Esq. Robert Horst, Esq. Curtis Wilson, Esq. KAUFMAN, ENGLETT, AND L YND, PLLC 111 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL Telephone: (407) Facsimile: (407) craiglynd@kelattomeys.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae Kaufman, Engleft, and Lynd, PLLC N. STATE RD. 7, SUITE C, ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL TELEPHONE (561)