On November 10, 2010, the Fourth District Court of Appeals found that allegations of fraud are not enough to reverse a foreclosure. The entire ruling can be found here.
In this case the Appellant, the homeowner, moved for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). She based this claim on a deposition that her attorneys took of Bailey in connection with a different mortgage foreclosure involving a different bank. Freemon alleged that Ms. Bailey relies upon attorneys to draft the form affidavits in foreclosure cases, fails to understand most of the language in the affidavits she signs, and routinely signs these affidavits without personal knowledge of the facts stated therein.
The court based its ruling on the following:
To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for relief from judgment, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the fraud with particularity and explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside. If a motion does not set forth a basis for relief on its face, then an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, the time and expense of needless litigation is avoided, and the policy of preserving the finality of judgments is enhanced. The matter alleged must affect the outcome of the case and not merely be "de minimis." Thus, to obtain a hearing on a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion, the law requires a movant "to demonstrate a prima facie case of fraud, not just nibble at the edges of the concept.
In doing so the court reasoned that home owner's motion does not demonstrate fraud or show why any of the alleged facts would entitle her to relief sufficient to set aside a default judgment. She nowhere contends that she did not default on her mortgage, nor does she allege that the amounts due and owing, set forth in the affidavit and incorporated in the final judgment, are incorrect. The homeowner has not specifically alleged any fraud in connection with the Robo Signor's statements in this affidavit regarding the amount due. The homeowner merely alleges that the Robo Signor claimed personal knowledge of the matters in the affidavit, even though the Robo Signor admitted in her deposition in different case that she did not know who inputted information into the computer regarding the loan in question in that case.
Because of this the court disagreed with the characterization of the Affidavit and testimony.
While the homeowner contends that the affidavit was insufficient to satisfy the requirements for admissibility under the business records. The court found that this argument was not preserved for appellate review so the appellate court could not consider the argument.
It is important to properly lay the foundation for appeal so that a higher court can consider the legal argument if necessary.
To review your foreclosure case contact a Jacksonville Foreclosure Lawyer.