FL 5th DCA Fraudclosure Reversed | JOSECITE vs WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION – Process Server Failed to Include Date, Time of Service, Identification Number, or Initials on Any of the Documents Served

FL 5th DCA Fraudclosure Reversed | JOSECITE vs WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION

”the process server failed to include the date and time of service, his identification number, or his initials on any of the documents served on the Schofields.”

Statute 48.301(5):

“A person serving process shall place, on the first page of at least one of the processes served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process. The person serving process shall list on the return-of-service form all initial pleadings delivered and served along with the process. The person issuing the process shall file the return-of-service form with the court.”

Copy of the opinion below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

JOSECITE vs WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Comments
2 Responses to “FL 5th DCA Fraudclosure Reversed | JOSECITE vs WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION – Process Server Failed to Include Date, Time of Service, Identification Number, or Initials on Any of the Documents Served”
  1. G-man says:

    It’s crap like this that clutters up and backlogs the system:(

    Instead of attacking the issue and addressing the problems with the complaint, attacking server and service seems to be the new wave of legal wrangling these days.

    While I agree that the “rule of law” is the “rule of law”, it is an antiquated rule, much like not hitching your horse to a street sign and other such nonsense that still appear in many of our statute books, yet are no longer applicable in todays society.

    This is a matter which, IMHO, really needs to be seriously addressed by a higher court, and amended if possible to reflect our current technology.

    The date, server initials, and when applicable, ID number (not all states/locales issue them) should be more than sufficient on the face of a document. For that matter, the date alone should be sufficient.
    In reality, isn’t it simply there to begin with, to provide the defendant and his/her cousel, with a reference point for determining a response and default date?
    The affidavit should have the rest of the information necessary for the court.

    I recently had an attorney attempt to quash service based on the server not placing an ID number on the document.
    Had the attorney spent a little time researching the matter, he would have realized that this particular jurisdiction, does not have a certification process, that ID numbers are not issued, and that the servers are authorized by state statute to serve process. It’s the company that has a “license”, not the individual server!
    So much for his motion to quash (LOL).

    If you really want to abide by the “rule of law”, then most of the returns of service that are filed with the
    courts on behalf of the attorney/clients, should probably be ruled invalid.

    Statute 48.301(5):
    “The person issuing the process shall file the return-of-service form with the court.”

    Depending on how the court interprets “issuing”, the physical act of filing the return of service with the court could invalidate the service, if not done by the same person who had the document issued (filed), wouldn’t you agree?

    If the law firm has the process issued (filed), then it would be, under a strict rule of law, their responsibility to return the affidavit or return of service to the court, correct?
    Yet as servers and agencies, we do this routinely as a courtesy to our clients.

    And if the service companyfiles (issues) the document for the client, then again under a strict rule of law, shouldn’t the same person that filed the document, return the affidavit or return of service to the court?

    Do you now understand how useless that “rule of law” can be, and how it can be distorted?

    BTW-The opinion you posted, if I’m reading it correctly, addresses the sale of the property after a forebearance agreement, not the process servers failure to properly notate a document.
    Did I miss something?

  2. stripes says:

    Glad to see the rule of law upheld over what the bank would consider a “technicality.” The rule of law is the rule of law and it applies to everyone.

Leave a Reply