U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Williamson, Case No. 5D18-3992

Decision Date10 May 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 5D18-3992
Citation273 So.3d 190
Parties U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR the CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., BEAR STEARNS ARM TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-2, Petitioner, v. Paul A. WILLIAMSON, Individually and as Trustee of the Paul A. Williamson Family Trust Dated April 15, 2004, Kristi Williamson and Suntrust Bank, Respondents.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

J. K. McDonough, of Spencer Fane, LLP, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Andrew B. Greenlee, of Andrew B. Greenlee, P.A., Sanford, and Anthony N. Legendre, II, of Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC, Maitland, for Respondents.

LAMBERT, J.

U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments, II, Inc., Bear Stearns Arm Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-2 ("Bank"), seeks certiorari review of a nonfinal order that requires an individual who resides and works in Colorado to be deposed in Orange County, Florida. For the following reasons, we grant the petition and quash the order.

In 2011, Bank filed a verified complaint in Orange County to foreclose a mortgage against Paul Williamson and Kristi Williamson, among others. Five years later, Bank filed its first amended mortgage foreclosure complaint, which was verified by Nicholas Raab, an employee of Bank's loan servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. See Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co., N.A. v. Petrov , 230 So. 3d 575, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (recognizing that "[s]ervicing agents routinely verify complaints filed by noteholder-plaintiffs"). Raab lives and works in Colorado.

Kristi Williamson responded to the amended complaint by moving to dismiss or for a more definite statement. In that same motion, Williamson alternatively moved to have Raab treated as Bank's "corporate officer" and that he be required to be deposed in Orange County "by mere notice alone." Bank objected, arguing that Raab was not its designated corporate representative and, thus, could not be compelled to appear in that capacity in Florida for his deposition. Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Williamson's motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement but granted her motion to compel Raab to be deposed in Orange County.

To obtain relief by certiorari, the petitioner must establish that the challenged order "depart[s] from the essential requirements of law and thus cause[s] material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal." CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour , 109 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (alterations in original) (quoting Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage , 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987) ). Certiorari review is available to review a trial court order requiring that a deposition be taken at an erroneous location, see Triple Fish Am., Inc. v. Triple Fish Int'l, L.C. , 839 So. 2d 913, 914 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Donahoo v. Matthews , 660 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ), because requiring an individual to appear at such a location "results in harm that cannot be remedied on appeal in that once the deposition is taken, it cannot be un-taken." CVS Caremark , 109 So. 3d at 1235 (citing Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Marks , 898 So. 2d 1063, 1063 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ).

Preliminarily, we note that Raab is not a party to the underlying lawsuit. Generally, a person may only be required to attend a deposition in the county where he or she resides, is employed, or transacts business in person. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(e)(2). Raab also appears to be an employee of Bank's servicing agent, which is a separate corporate entity, and is not employed by Bank. Nevertheless, Williamson seeks to depose Raab in Florida as Bank's designated corporate representative under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6), which allows a party to depose a private corporation or association and to set forth with reasonable particularity in its notice of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Tacoronte
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 2020
    ...law by requiring Deutsche Bank, not its loan servicer, to verify the foreclosure complaint."); see also U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Williamson , 273 So. 3d 190, 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (a case under the ambit of rule 1.110(b) recognizing that loan servicers often verify complaints on behalf of......
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 11-6 Depositions
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2020 Title Chapter 11 Discovery
    • Invalid date
    ...of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Arm Tr., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-2 v. Williamson, 273 So. 3d 190, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (". . . Bank, and not Williamson, has the authority to designate one or more of its officers, directors, managing......
  • Chapter 11-6 Depositions
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Florida Foreclosure Law 2022 Chapter 11 Discovery
    • Invalid date
    ...of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Arm Tr., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-2 v. Williamson, 273 So. 3d 190, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (". . . Bank, and not Williamson, has the authority to designate one or more of its officers, directors, managing......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT