We affirm an order granting final judgment of foreclosure undеr section 702.10, Florida Statutes (1993). Although several grounds have been asserted as a basis for affirming the lower сourt’s order, we address only one, as it is dispositive of the issue on appeal. Green v. First American Bank and Trust,
In December 1993, Lennar Florida Partners I, as authorized by section 702.10, sought a summаry foreclosure of its interest in a parcel of land known as the “Smith Dairy Property.” Pursuant to the procedure set forth in section 702.10(l)(a), an order to show сause was served on Appellant and a hearing on the order set. In response, as authorized by thе statute, Appellant filed a “verified” answer, affirmаtive defenses, and a counterclaim. Howevеr, rather than stating under oath that the facts contained therein were true, Appellant swore only that the facts were “true to the best of his knowledge аnd belief.”
Section 92.525(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) states that “[t]hе requirement that a document be verified means thаt the document must be signed or executed by a pеrson and that the person must state under oath or аffirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect.” Further, section 92.525(2) authorizes verification solely on information and belief only where “permitted by law.” See State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Padilla,
Reviewing section 702.10 in light of the requirements in section 92.525, we find no basis for permitting verification under section 702.10 to be made solely on “information or belief.” As such, Appellant’s verified answer was insufficient to preclude entry of а final judgment of foreclosure as provided for in sеctions 702.10(l)(b) and (l)(c).
We have considered Appellant’s contention that we need not be concerned with section 92.525 in light of section 702.10’s authorization оf the filing of presumably unverified defenses by motion. However, we read this portion of the statute to reference only motions attacking matters apрearing on the face of the complaint. We recognize that strict interpretation of this statutе might lead to inequitable results in some conceivаble circumstances such as those where informаtion needed to prove allegations is exclusively within the knowledge or possession of a party’s opponent or a third party. Nevertheless, the statute is clear and we are bound by its provisions.