Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 v. Pelt, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4098

Petitioner Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 seeks certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying without prejudice its motion to amend to reestablish a lost note in a mortgage foreclosure action.
Trial court held that the amended complaint verification, under Rule 1.110(b), was insufficient because it relied on knowledge and belief and thus required stricter verification language than the rule provides.
The court allowed 45 days to amend to include what it believed to be the proper verification language and relied on section 92.525(2) to require the statement 'Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts stated in it are true.'
Trucap argued the verification language of 1.110(b) permits knowledge-and-belief verification and that Muss v. Lennar Fla. Partners I, L.P. was inapplicable post-amendment to 1.110(b).
The Florida Supreme Court amended 1.110(b) in 2010 to require verification for residential foreclosure with a verbatim oath or the 'to the best of my knowledge and belief' language; the trial court misapplied the law by relying on older authorities.
The court granted certiorari, quashed the trial court’s order, and held that Rule 1.110(b) controls the verification requirement in residential mortgage foreclosures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court depart from essential law by imposing stricter verification than 1.110(b)?	Trucap argued Muss governed, requiring no more than 'true' without qualifiers.	Pelt argued the court correctly applied 92.525(2) as controlling and Muss was applicable.	Yes; the trial court departed from essential law; 1.110(b) governs verification.
Is certiorari relief warranted given inability to obtain an appealable final judgment?	Trucap cannot proceed due to the stricter verification and may be left without an appealable final judgment.	The status of the action allows remedies by appeal after final judgment if denied; no certiorari necessity argued.	Yes; certiorari relief is warranted because the petitioner cannot obtain an appealable final judgment.

Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (certiorari review standards for interlocutory orders)
Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (certiorari inquiry framework)
Fassy v. Crowley, 884 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (jurisdictional limits of certiorari review for interlocutory orders)
Surette v. Galiardo, 309 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (special circumstances warranting certiorari relief)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (statutory and procedural rule bases for certiorari)
Muss v. Lennar Fla. Partners I, L.P., 673 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (document verification scope before 2010 amendment)
Garcia v. Stewart, 906 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (pleadings as documents for verification purposes)