Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Rule 3.850(c) requires that such motions be under oath, and the required oath is the one set out in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. [1] Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 1985). In addition to a notarized oath such as the one in rule 3.987, however, section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1991), provides that a signed declaration can substitute for a notarized oath if it contains the following language: "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true." Section 92.525(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] Instead of the notarized *1103 oath set out in rule 3.987, Shearer ended his rule 3.850 motion with the heading "OATH F.S. 92.525," followed by "Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts stated in it are true" and his signature. The circuit court summarily denied the motion, as did the district court. To reach the merits, however, the district court had to decide if the oath Shearer used was legally sufficient. The district court analyzed the oaths set out in section 92.525 and rule 3.987 in light of our decisions in Scott and Gorham. It concluded that the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) could be used in a rule 3.850 motion....

...The defendant must be able to affirmatively say that his allegation is true and correct. Scott, 464 So.2d at 1172. Therefore, to protect against perjury, we held that the rule 3.987 oath must be used in postconviction motions. As pointed out by the district court, the oath from subsection 92.525(2) addresses this concern....

...supposition, or speculation. A postconviction movant who falsely signs this oath could be convicted of perjury just as one who falsely signs the oath currently set out in rule 3.987. Therefore, we agree with the district court that the oath from subsection 92.525(2) is an acceptable alternative oath and amend rule 3.987 as follows....

...a. Stat. (2010) (“If an adjudicatory proceeding was not held, a notarized voluntary acknowledgment of paternity or voluntary acknowledgment of *59 paternity, which is witnessed by two individuals and signed under penalty of perjury as specified by section 92.525(2), creates a rebuttable presumption, as defined by section 90.304-.......

...Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent. EN BANC SAWAYA, J. The issue we address in this case is whether an arrest affidavit to secure a warrant for violation of probation is valid if it is verified under section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2003), but not sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths....

...State, 881 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we held that an affidavit to secure a warrant for violation of probation pursuant to section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (2002), must be sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths and that verification under section 92.525 is not appropriate....

...We consider this case en banc to provide additional reasoning for our decision in Jackson and to clarify that our holding in that case does not prohibit application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to warrants obtained with affidavits verified under section 92.525....

...Factual And Procedural Background After pleading guilty, Brian Crain was placed on probation as part of his sentence. When he failed to comply with certain conditions of his probation, an affidavit alleging the violations was filed. The affidavit was verified pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2003), but not sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths....

...[2] Therefore, if the arrest warrant in the instant case is valid, Crain must be held accountable for his violations because it is not disputed that the warrant was issued prior to the expiration of the probationary period. We held in Jackson that section 92.525 does not apply to an affidavit to secure an arrest warrant. That statute applies "[w]hen it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person...." § 92.525(1), Fla....

...Verification means that the individual executes the required document with an oath or affirmation that the information contained therein is true—it does not require that the document be sworn to before an individual authorized to administer oaths. § 92.525(4)(c), Fla....

...Rule 3.120 conforms to the Fourth Amendment requirement that probable cause be supported by "oath or affirmation" and to the procedural requirements discussed in Gerstein v. Pugh . See art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. (Emphasis added) (footnote omitted). [3] To allow verification under section 92.525 without an oath administered by an individual authorized to administer oaths would essentially vitiate the provisions of Rule 3.120....

...equirement that the affidavit be sworn to before an individual authorized to administer oaths must be strictly complied with. We are aware of the decision in State v. Shearer, 628 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1993), wherein the court held that verification under section 92.525 was sufficient to comply with the oath requirement under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850....

...In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the record before this court that would remotely suggest police misconduct or that the police in any way acted in bad faith in securing the warrant for Crain's arrest. Here, the police erroneously relied on the provisions of section 92.525 to validate the verification contained in the affidavit....

...Conclusion The arrest affidavit in the instant case was defective because it was not properly sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths. Nevertheless, the good faith exception clearly applies and the trial judge should not have dismissed the warrant. While we agree with the decision in Jackson that section 92.525 should not apply to affidavits executed to secure an arrest warrant pursuant to section 948.06, the remedy of dismissal applied in Jackson is inappropriate in instances where the good faith exception applies....

...An "affidavit," as that word is commonly understood, is a declaration of facts under oath that is executed before an officer authorized to administer oaths. Black's Law Dictionary 54 (5th ed.1979). The question is what satisfies that requirement? Judge Torpy, in his concurring opinion, contends that section 92.525 allows any requirement of an "affidavit" in Florida Statutes to be satisfied by verifying the document in the manner set forth in section 92.525(2)....

...I do not dispute that the legislature has the power to alter the meaning of the word "affidavit" by statute if it chooses, or even to alter beyond recognition how an affidavit may be executed. As far as I can tell, however, it has not so chosen. In my view, section 92.525 says nothing about how a statutory requirement of an affidavit may be met....

...official seal of such officer or person taking or administering the same; however, when taken or administered before any judge, clerk, or deputy clerk of a court of record, the seal of such court may be affixed as the seal of such officer or person. Section 92.525, on the other hand, deals with the verification of documents. Section 92.525 tells us plainly what it covers: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner: (a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or (b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2). Section 92.525 describes only what to do when a statute, rule or order requires or authorizes a document to be verified. The statute does not say how a statutory requirement for an affidavit may be satisfied. The essential premise of Judge Torpy's concurring opinion is that whenever an affidavit is required, section 92.525 allows the substitution of a verification. This is a misreading of the statute. Section 92.525(4)(c) explains what is meant by "the requirement that a document be verified." It has to be signed or executed and it must state under oath that the facts recited are true....

...irement of an officer authorized to administer oaths. The legislature's concept of a "verified document" does not include the requirement of execution before an authorized person. This is a pretty good clue that when the legislature is explaining in section 92.525 the ways to verify a document, it is not talking about affidavits....

...How this statutory provision has morphed into the interpretation that any statutory or rule requirement for an affidavit can be satisfied by either an oath or a declaration under penalty of perjury simply eludes me. It is not what the statute says. This alternative interpretation of section 92.525 is apparently based in part on the notion that if the word "affidavit" is substituted for "document" or "any writing", the statute becomes absurd as there could never be a statutory or rule requirement for a "verified affidavit." But,...

...ida Statutes (2004), the statute dealing with forfeitures. Oddly, there are other statutes, such as section 409.256(2)(a)(5), Florida Statutes, (Paternity) that allow alternatively either (1) an affidavit or (2) "a written declaration as provided in section 92.525(2)." Why would the legislature need to authorize a section 92.525(2) declaration as an alternative to an affidavit if, by the terms of 92.525 itself, the declaration in 92.525(2) already always satisfies the affidavit requirement? The answer, I suggest, is because 92.525 does not satisfy the "affidavit" requirement; it only specifies how a "verification" requirement can be met. If section 92.525 allows a verification to be substituted for the requirement that an affidavit be executed before an officer authorized to administer oaths, it may be the most indirect, casual and recondite means of effectuating such a significant change in Florida law the Florida legislature has ever employed. There can be no doubt that section 92.525 is a statute of general application....

...The court found that because it was verified, there was no merit to her argument. This is a correct statement of the law. A verified document is made "under oath" but because it is not executed before a person authorized to administer oaths, it is not an affidavit. The Goines court went on to say that: Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), such a statement constitutes "verification" of any document "authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court" to be "verified," including "affidavits." Id....

...7, which specified that the motion had to be sworn to before a notary public or other official authorized to administer an oath. Shearer has nothing to do with "affidavits." The point of Shearer was whether the verification procedure set out in rule 92.525 adequately satisfied the court's goal in requiring a sworn 3.850 motion, which was to expose the convicted individual to a prosecution for perjury if statements made in the motion were false. Shearer is confusing because the execution requirements under the two rules were not symmetrical. One merely required an oath; the other specified a notary. I concede that the court did say that section 92.525, Florida Statutes authorizes the penalty of perjury declaration in the verification statute to substitute for a "notarized oath." In fact, however, section 92.525 only authorizes the substitution of a penalty of perjury declaration where there is a requirement of an "oath," not a "notarized oath." This is true because the element of execution before a notary is not included in the statutory definition of a verification and because a notarized oath must satisfy the requirements of section 92.50, not 92.525. What was important to the Shearer court, however, was not the notarized versus not-notarized distinction, but whether the penalty of perjury declaration contained in section 92.525 solved the concerns they expressed in Gorham v....

...r purpose, they amended the Rule 3.987 form. Finally, in Judge Torpy's concurring opinion, there is extensive discussion of federal fourth amendment jurisprudence applying 28 U.S.C., section 1746. Judge Torpy says the federal statute is "similar" to section 92.525, but they, in fact, are dissimilar in one critical respect, and it is *1028 that difference that illustrates my point....

...t path from the majority. See Gearhart v. State, 885 So.2d 415, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (probation is creature of statute). Although by most legal definitions, an affidavit is a statement made under oath before a notary or other authorized official, section 92.525(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), "provides that a signed declaration can substitute for a notarized oath." Shearer, 628 So.2d at 1102. Section 92.525 states in pertinent part as follows: (1) When it is ......

...(c) The requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect. § 92.525, Fla....

...accomplished either by execution before a notary or by signing the statutorily specified declaration. Because section 948.06 requires an "affidavit," which is a "verified document," the alternative verification procedure authorized by section *1030 92.525(1)(b), is a permitted substitute for execution before a notary. A central premise of my conclusion is that affidavits are, by definition, "verified documents." This is because section 92.525(4)(c) defines the "requirement" of "verifi[cation]" as including three elements: that the document be signed; that the signatory attest to the truth of the facts; and that the signatory give an oath or affirmation, each of which is als...

...al declaration before a notary or, in some jurisdictions, without the need for a notary). [6] Here, the requisite declaration was included in the "affidavit;" therefore, the lack of notarization had no affect on its validity. Accord Goines (applying section 92.525 to section 948.06); see also Shearer (Rule 3.987 form of oath requiring notary satisfied by section 92.525 verification); State Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Padilla, 629 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (section 92.525 "verified" document satisfied affidavit requirement of section 322.2615(2), Florida Statutes)....

...irmation" requirement of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.2004). In Bueno-Vargas, the court addressed the sufficiency of a non-notarized, faxed verification — given pursuant to a federal statute similar to section 92.525 — under the Fourth Amendment's *1031 Oath or Affirmation Clause....

...See United States v. Turner, 558 F.2d 46 (2d *1032 Cir.1977) (common law ritual of personal appearance before judge not mandated by constitution; oral, telephonic application for warrant, although less solemn, is constitutionally permissible). Because a section 92.525 declaration is made under penalty of perjury, its use in this manner does not violate the Fourth Amendment....

...ms to the Fourth Amendment requirement that probable cause be supported by `oath or affirmation.'" Kephart v. Regier, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S182, 183, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2005 WL 673681 (Fla. Mar. 24, 2005). Moreover, the clear import of Shearer is that section 92.525 applies to rules of criminal procedure that specify a particular type of oath....

...Although, as the majority notes, the district courts have not extended Shearer to rules of criminal procedure that do not relate to postconviction relief, none have declined an invitation to apply its unambiguous holding in other contexts. In this case, where the application of section 92.525 to rule 3.120 is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment and Florida Constitution, I see no basis upon which to distinguish Shearer....

...issuance.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1980). [5] In defense of the trial judge, Jackson, by permitting the amendment after remand, was confusing. [6] In her concurring opinion, Judge Griffin necessarily acknowledges that section 92.525 is intended to apply to some affidavits, because the statutory definition of "document" includes affidavits. She argues, however, that only something called a "verified affidavit" is intended to fall within the ambit of section 92.525, and she cites an isolated reference wherein the legislature has used this phrase in another statute. Perhaps the use of the word "verified" as a modifier to the word "affidavit," due to its redundancy, is simply the product of imprecise writing by a legislative scrivener. Nevertheless, the fact remains that section 92.525, when given its plain meaning from the unambiguous, broadlyworded text, leads inescapably to the conclusion that the statute is intended to provide an alternative to the notarized form of oath....

...ied in a particular way. The financial disclosure form requires a notary acknowledgment, but that is not the only method of attestation the Commission on Ethics might have chosen to satisfy the "sworn statement" requirement in Article II, section 8. Section 92.525, Florida Statutes *66 provides that a document may be verified in two different ways: (1) by signing it before an officer such as a notary public, or (2) by including a self-verification form stating that the document is signed under the penalty of perjury. The full text of the form for the latter method of verification is set out in section 92.525(2)....

...hat he was entitled to relief in the form of a resentencing to a probationary term of three years in conformity with the oral pronouncement of sentence. To support and bolster these allegations, the appellant executed an unnotarized oath pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), in which he acknowledged that "[u]nder penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that the facts stated in it are true." We emphasize that the execution of this oath was not a me...

...ave read the foregoing verified written medical expert opinion pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes, and that the facts stated are true to the best of [my] knowledge." The court concluded that the declaration using the language set forth in section 92.525, Florida Statutes, substantially complied with the verification requirement. Section 92.525 provides that, in order for a document to be verified, it must be signed or executed by a person and that person must state under oath or affirm that the facts set forth in the document are true "or words to that import or effect." Whi...

...clerk, or deputy clerk of any court of record *668 within this state, including federal courts, or before any United States commissioner or any notary public within this state." Id. We recognize that the charging document was "verified" pursuant to 92.525, Florida Statutes....

...y section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (2002). Both documents would support a prosecution for perjury, [2] but the latter must be sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths. Accord Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 95-40 (1995)(document verified under section 92.525 is not affidavit within meaning of section 322.2615(2), if not attested to before an officer authorized to administer oaths)....

...person legally authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. More succinctly, it has been defined as a statement in writing under an oath administered by a duly authorized person."). [2] See State v. Johnston, 553 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and § 92.525(3), Fla....

...The Goines court characterized the argument as one that the charging document had to be sworn to under "oath." It then held that the "affidavit" prepared by the appellant's community control officer and used to support a violation was under "oath" because it contained the "under penalty of perjury" statement set forth in section 92.525, Florida Statutes. A charging document can be under "oath" within the meaning of section 92.525, and still not qualify as an "affidavit" under section 948.06(1).

...[55] Hussain, who accompanied Khan to the notary, testified that the notary did not administer an oath to Khan before signing the notarial certificate. [DE 66, p. 113]. It appears an oath should have been administered by the notary under these circumstances. See Fla. Stat. § 92.525....

...gularly conducted business, d) and that the attached computer data record is a true and correct copy of the original record contained in the official records of the Florida Department of Corrections maintained pursuant to Section 945.25. Pursuant to Section 92.525, Florida Statutes, I state under the penalties of perjury that I have read the foregoing certification and the facts stated in it are true....

...was signed by J.S.L.'s president who represented "[u]nder penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing declaration including the attached Exhibit "A", [sic] containing 5 pages, and that the facts stated in these pages are true." This is an oath authorized by section 92.525 of the Florida Statutes. See § 92.525(1), (2), Fla....

...m was true," constitutes an oath); Theoc v. State, 832 So.2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (confirming that a statement made "under penalties of perjury" and declared to be based on facts represented as being true, is an unnotarized oath authorized by section 92.525); see also Fla....

...ury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that the facts sated in it are true"); State v. Shearer, 628 So.2d 1102, 1102-1103 (Fla. 1993) (concluding that for purposes of defendant's 3.850 motion, "[i]n addition to a notarized oath ... section 92.525 ......

...We also reject Vernell's claim that the form filed by Rosenberg fails to meet the requirements of rule 3-7.3(c). We do not read the rule to require that a complaint contain an oath administered by an official or that the signature be notarized. Under section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), a signed *708 declaration using the language contained in rule 3-7.3(c) subjects a person to the laws of perjury....

...e seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. ..." Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. (emphasis added). [5] Such qualification is sufficient only when verification on information or belief is permitted by law. See § 92.525(2), Fla....

...At the end of his rule 3.850 motion, Armey executed the same "unnotarized oath" set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987, stating, "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that [all] the facts stated in it are true." The circuit court overlooked the fact that section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2001), allows an unnotarized oath, in the form used by the defendant in this case....

...n do not mention notarization, the requirement being "verification." Royle v. Florida Hospital-East Orlando, 679 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 689 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1997); Mieles v. South Miami Hosp., 659 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Section 92.525 provides that verification may be accomplished by either an oath taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary, or by the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection two....

...ng officer's written statement to which he swore, "The above statement is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief." There is no evidence to dispute that the affiant was fully and properly sworn before an authorized attesting officer. Section 92.525 states, in part, as follows: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following...

...ied means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state, under oath, or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words to that import or effect. (Emphasis added.) Thus, section 92.525 contemplates that an affidavit may include such language and may be recognized as properly verified on information or belief and be sufficient to subject affiant to the penalties of perjury....

...State, 950 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In his motion for rehearing of the order of denial, appellant actually attached a jurat swearing to the contents of the motion. The state argues that this is insufficient because it was not attached to the motion. See § 92.525(2), Fla....

...The affidavit states: “I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.” This statement would be insufficient to constitute a signed, written declaration under section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2014). Among other things, a written declaration must state that it is made “[u]nder penalties of perjury.” § 92.525(2), Fla....

...We conclude that the circuit court erred in so ruling. To "swear" means to declare on oath that the facts alleged are true. State v. Upton, 392 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The amended motion to disqualify clearly contains a written declaration pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2006), in which Jimenez states: "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true." Section 92.525 provides an appropriate method to verify a document, i.e., to sign the document stating under oath that the facts or matters stated in the document are true. See § 92.525(3)(c)....

...Atlantis's Declarations Finally, DCUSA raised what is apparently a novel objection to Atlantis's use of "declarations" under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, rather than "affidavits," to frame the factual allegations relating to jurisdiction. Declarations are sanctioned by the federal statute and by Florida statute section 92.525(2), requiring a signed written statement made under penalties of perjury, while "affidavits" are governed by a separate Florida law, section 92.50, requiring a separate acknowledgment signed and sealed by a notary, judicial officer, or (if executed in a foreign country) a U.S....

...t must submit a verified written medical expert opinion to corroborate that there are reasonable grounds to initiate the medical negligence litigation. The language of the statute makes no mention of notarization, the requirement being verification. Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1993), sets forth the legal requirements for verification of documents. That statute provides that verification may be accomplished by either an oath taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary, or by the signing of the written declaration prescribed in section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides: A written declaration means the following statement: "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true," followed by t...

...hich case the words "to the best of my knowledge and belief" may be added. The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration. Section 92.525(4)(c) further provides: The requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words to that import or effect. We conclude that Dr. Vega's signed declaration, using the language set forth in section 92.525, substantially complies with the verification requirement of section 766.203, and was permissible when initially and timely filed, therefore making immaterial the subsequent late filing of the notarized copy of the doctor's opinion....

...community control was signed by appellant's supervising probation officer, and contained the following statement: "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true." Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), such a statement constitutes "verification" of any document "authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court" to be "verified," including "affidavits." Accordingly, there is no merit to appellant's first argument....

...the question of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. Moreover, although the Florida Constitution provides that probable cause is to be "supported by affidavit," [1] this requirement may also be satisfied by oath or affirmation under section 92.525, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner: (a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths... § 92.525, Fla. Stat. (2007). The term "document" is further defined as "any writing including, without limitation, any form, application, claim, notice, tax return, inventory, affidavit, pleading, or paper." § 92.525(4)(b), Fla....

...or administering the same; however, when taken or administered before any judge, clerk, or deputy clerk of a *1185 court of record, the seal of such court may be affixed as the seal of such officer or person. § 92.50(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Because section 92.525 provides that any document, which expressly includes an affidavit, requiring verification may be so verified by oath, and section 92.50(1) allows for such an oath to be taken or administered in front of any judge of any court of record...

...Wayne Raley seeks a writ of habeas corpus for a belated appeal. Unfortunately, Mr. Raley's petition is not sworn with the necessary sufficiency. His unnotarized oath simply says, "I swear that the factual allegations set out in paragraphs 1-6 are true." While unquestionably section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2003), allows an unsworn oath to be used for these purposes, an oath not acknowledging that it is made subject to the laws governing perjury is insufficient....

...Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. Select Portfolio Services (SPS), Deutsche Bank’s loan servicer, verified the foreclosure complaint as attorney in fact on July 6, 2011. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) and section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2011), govern verification....

...When verification of a document is required, the document filed shall include an oath, affirmation, or the following statement: “Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” Section 92.525 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in t...

...In this case, the complaint alleged facts to establish that appellant is currently detained by the Department of Corrections. The second element of a prima facie case—sworn allegations that the prisoner is detained without lawful authority— is satisfied in the complaint as well. The complaint was under oath pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes....

...fficer. . . ." Id. at 668. For the reason stated herein, I conclude otherwise and believe we should recede from Jackson. Although by common law definition, an "affidavit" is a statement made under oath before an authorized official such as a notary, section 92.525(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), "provides that a signed declaration *510 can substitute for a notarized oath." Shearer, 628 So.2d at 1102....

...(c) The requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect. § 92.525(1), (4), Fla....

...Because the requisite declaration was included in the "affidavit" filed here, the lack of notarization did not render it defective. Goines v. State, 691 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); [1] see Shearer (rule 3.987 form of oath requiring notary satisfied by section 92.525 verification); State v. Padilla, 629 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (finding that section 92.525 "verified" document satisfied affidavit requirement of section 322.2615(2), Florida Statutes)....

...d his plea. *3 Preliminarily, we address the State’s argument that Hyden’s motion to dismiss and affidavit were facially insufficient. The law on the oath requirement for a motion to dismiss and accompanying affidavit under Kelly is not settled. Section 92.525(1), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that any document that must be verified by a person may be verified in one of two ways....

...erification requirement “means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect.” § 92.525(4)(c). In this case, Hyden used the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) to verify his motion to dismiss and affidavit. The question is whether this oath is sufficient, without a notarization, to satisfy the oath requirement mentioned but not elaborated upon in Kelly . The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to satisfy the oath requirement in postconviction motions....

...th. The court also amended its form for postconviction motions to reflect that this unnotarized oath may be used. See id. at 1103-04 (amending Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987). Since Shearer , several courts have determined that the oath in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to meet the oath requirement for other documents....

...3d DCA 2008) (statement of account by a contractor); Green v. State, 941 So.2d 1250, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (petition for belated appeal); Goines v. State, 691 So.2d 593, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affidavit of violation of probation). However, there are decisions refusing to find the oath in section 92.525(2) sufficient to meet the same or similar oath requirements....

...may be taken or administered by or before any judge, clerk, or deputy clerk of any court of record within this state, including federal courts, or before any United States commissioner or any notary public within this state.” . We note that this court has suggested that, under Shearer , the oath in section 92.525(2) is available to "a prisoner untrained in the law.” Keene v....

...relationship with his child. If an unmarried biological father were to follow the instructions in the statutorily-specified notice of section 63.062(3), he would file a verified response. Chapter 63 does not define “verified response.” However, section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the proper manner for verifying a pleading, where it is required: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be v...

...Under this definition, a statement may be verified without an oath, so long as the *1111 declarant provides an acknowledgment that the statement is subject to the penalties of perjury. See id. Because an affidavit requires an oath, Swartz, 816 So.2d at 622, and a verified response does not, see section 92.525, a verified response is not necessarily an affidavit....

...op a relationship with his child. If an unmarried biological father were to follow the instructions in the statutorily-specified notice of section 63.062(3), he would file a verified response. Chapter 63 does not define "verified response." However, section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the proper manner for verifying a pleading, where it is required: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be v...

...Under this definition, a statement may be verified without an oath, so long as the *1111 declarant provides an acknowledgment that the statement is subject to the penalties of perjury. See id. Because an affidavit requires an oath, Swartz, 316 So.2d at 622, and a verified response does not, see section 92.525, a verified response is not necessarily an affidavit....

...is an employee of.....(name of corporation that is a party to this action)......_________________. This individual has authority to represent the corporation at any stage of the trial court proceedings, including mediation. The undersigned giving the authority is an officer of the corporation. Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Corporate Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true....

...he motion to amend as to the proposed amended complaint, but the court allowed Trucap forty-five days to file an amended complaint that would include what the court believed to be the required verification language. The court stated that pursuant to section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2010), the amended complaint must contain a verification that states, “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing complaint and the facts stated in it are true.” In its petition for w...

...t of my knowledge and belief.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b). The plain language of rule 1.110(b) clearly requires residential mortgage foreclosure complaints to include verification language and allows the verification language set forth in that rule. Section 92.525, upon which the trial court relied, provides that when a document must be verified, the verification may be accomplished by the following written, signed declaration: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true[.]” § 92.525(1), (2). Section 92.525(2) provides an exception “when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words ‘to the best of my knowledge and belief may be added.” Section 92.525(4)(b) defines “document” to include any “pleading[ ] or paper.” See also Muss v....

...A complaint is a pleading, see Garcia v. Stewart, 906 So.2d 1117, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), as well as a document. Thus, because rule 1.110(b) specifically provides for a verification based on knowledge and belief, the generally applicable declaration in section 92.525(2) that the facts “are true,” without limitation, does not control....

...ew sentence in the rule.” But, as discussed above, a complaint is a pleading, and a pleading is a document. Instead of applying the second new sentence of the rule, the trial court relied upon Muss to determine that the declaration provided for in section 92.525(2) that the facts “are true,” without qualification, controlled....

...I expect to get or receive something of value at a later date (Like a tax refund, payments from lawsuits, accrued vacation leave, a bonus, or inheritance) .......................................................... Yes $____ No * *(Elect and complete either the notarized oath or the written declaration below pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes) NOTARIZED OATH I, ______ (full legal name), being first duly sworn, state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in the foregoing affidavit are true....

...evidence on this basis. See id. at 1185. The Third District also concluded that under Florida statutory law, the affidavit requirement of article I, section 12, can be satisfied by oath or affirmation. See id. at 1184. The district court noted that section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2007), provides, in relevant part: (1) When it is authorized or required by law ......

...that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner: (a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths.... Id. The district court then stated that, under section 92.525, the definition of the term “document” includes affidavits. See id. at 1185 (quoting § 92.525(4)(b))....

...ice), review denied, 412 So.2d 468 (Fla.1982). Further, even if we were to conclude that the failure of Detective Hernandez to sign the affidavit under these circumstances constituted something more serious than a technical violation, application of section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2007), should preclude invalidation of the warrant for failure to comply with section 933.06. Section 92.525 provides: When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner: *1028 (a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or (b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2). § 92.525(1), Fla....

...This statutory section also explains that “[t]he requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect.” Id. § 92.525(4)(c) (emphasis supplied). This subsection expressly references affidavits as documents that are subject to this provision. See id. § 92.525(4)(b). Under section 92.525, an affidavit need not be formally signed to comply with the Florida Statutes....

...e” (emphasis supplied)). As previously discussed, Detective Hernandez swore under oath to the truth of the entire affidavit before the actual judge who issued the search warrant and initialed each page, thereby validating the affidavit pursuant to section 92.525(1)(a)....

...The proffer ultimately rested on the Levais’ written affirmation: “I hereby verify that to the best of my knowledge each of the foregoing facts are true and correct.”1 1 We do not reach or decide the issue of whether the Levais’ proffer was sufficient to support the motion to amend. Under section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes, a declaration may, in some instances, be verified “to the best of my knowledge and belief.” But we note that when this framing wholly insulates a declarant from the truth of the matter asserted, they have done...

...The proffer ultimately rested on the Levais’ written affirmation: “I hereby verify that to the best of my knowledge each of the foregoing facts are true and correct.”1 1 We do not reach or decide the issue of whether the Levais’ proffer was sufficient to support the motion to amend. Under section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes, a declaration may, in some instances, be verified “to the best of my knowledge and belief.” But we note that when this framing wholly insulates a declarant from the truth of the matter asserted, they have done...

...e State filed a response arguing that the motion should be denied because it failed to comply with the oath requirement of Rule 3.850. The trial court accepted this argument and denied the motion without prejudice. The State overlooked the fact that section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2001), allows an unnotarized oath, in the form used by the defendant in this case....

...can think of, having the public bear the cost of reporting the hearing. Our change of name statute, section 68.07, Florida Statutes, requires that a petition for change of name be verified. The petition in the present case is not properly verified. Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that documents may be verified by either (1) giving an oath before an authorized officer; or (2) by signing a written declaration which attests that under penalties of perjury, the facts stated in it are true....

...Miranda appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. He contends that the affidavit alleging the vio *998 lation of probation was fundamentally defective because it was not sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths, nor was it verified as set forth in section 92.525(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...oaths.” On appeal, the defendant argues that the motion’s supporting affidavit, despite not having been sworn by the affiant before an individual authorized to administer oaths, was facially sufficient, because the affidavit contained a signed written declaration complying with section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2020). We agree with the defendant’s argument, based on section 92.525(2)’s plain language and precedent from our Supreme Court....

...Here, the motion’s attached affidavit, after describing the alleged newly discovered evidence of an uncommunicated plea offer, concluded with the following verification followed by the affiant’s signature: I declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to S. 92.525(2) F.S....

...(2020) that I have read the foregoing affidavit and the statements 1 thru 5 are true and correct. Even though this verification was not completed under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized to administer oaths, the verification was legally sufficient under sections 92.525(1)(c), (2), and (4)(c), Florida Statutes (2020). Section 92.525 pertinently provides: (1) If authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the...

...fied means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect. § 92.525, Fla. Stat. (2020) (emphases added). Breaking down the plain language of sections 92.525(2) and (4)(c) into three elements, a signed written declaration being offered as a legally sufficient verification must show that the affiant has: (1) made the declaration “under penalties of perjury”; (2) “read the foregoing [doc...

...� Here, the affiant’s verification satisfies all three elements, as shown by the following numerical notations which we have inserted to correspond with our numerical listing above: (1) I declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to S. 92.525(2) F.S....

...d correct. Our decision follows our Supreme Court’s precedent in State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993). In Shearer, the court was asked the following certified question of great public importance: “Is the written declaration found in section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1991), an acceptable alternative oath which may be used in a rule 3.850 motion in place of the notary signature requirement of rule 3.987?” Id. at 1102. The court answered in the affirmative, reasoning: 3  [The oath from subsection 92.525(2)] starts with the words, “Under penalties of perjury.” Information in the motion must be based on personal knowledge, not on mere belief, supposition, or speculation....

...State, 202 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In Wilson, the defendant’s rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleged he had obtained newly discovered evidence from six new witnesses. Id. at 136. The defendant attached each witness’s affidavit, which included section 92.525(2)’s required attestation....

...defendant from these witnesses remain legally insufficient.” Id. On appeal, the Second District reversed. The Second District pertinently reasoned: The affidavits at issue here each contained an attestation tracking the language of section 92.525(2), and we conclude that such is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 3.850(c)[]. We initially note that the rule only requires an affidavit; it does not specify how the affidavit is to be sworn. Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has held that “the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) [can] be used in a rule 3.850 motion.” State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1993); see also Hyden v. State, 117 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to satisfy the oath requirement in postconviction motions....

...850 motion itself 4  should be found insufficient to ensure the veracity of the affidavits filed in support of the motion. We therefore conclude that based on the plain language of section 92.525 and the supreme court’s application of the statute in Shearer, the affidavits attached to [the defendant’s] amended rule 3.850 motion were not legally insufficient. Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court...

...OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.” This statement would be insufficient to constitute a signed, written declaration under section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2014). Among other things, a written declaration must state that it is made “[u]nder penalties of perjury.” § 92.525(2), Fla....

...re- characterize into a single overarching reason for the affidavit’s legal insufficiency. That is, the state attempts to re-characterize Placide as holding that regardless of whether the affidavit’s signed written declaration had complied with section 92.525(2), the affidavit also had to have complied with section 92.525(1)(a) or (b) by being verified under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized to administer oaths. However, the state’s re-characterization of Placide expressly conflicts with our supreme court’s decision in Shearer and section 92.525(1)(c)’s plain language, which unambiguously provides that a verification also may be accomplished “[b]y the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2).” Here, as explained above, the affidavit’s verification contained a signed written declaration complying with section 92.525(2)’s elements. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying with prejudice the defendant’s motion for postconviction relief....

...eing held for some evidentiary purposes. 10. The property came into possession of Defendant on or about.(date). 11.Plaintiff has the legal right to possess the property and is not subject to any legal prohibition against such possession. Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Statement of Claim and the facts stated in it are true....

...vidual has authority to represent the corporation business entity at any stage of the trial court proceedings, including mediation. The undersigned giving the authority is an officer of the corporation a principal of the business entity. Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Corporate *47 Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true....

...He described the Davidians by race, height, weight, and hair color. At the bottom of the return of service was a verification stating: “‘Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true.’ F.S. 92.525.” The Davidians moved to quash the summons and to quash service of process....

...Our examination of the petition for posteonvietion relief shows no legal insufficiency. The motion was timely filed, contains appropriate issues for review, supporting facts, memorandum of law, and an unnotarized oath at the conclusion which substantially complies with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. See also § 92.525(2), Fla....

...ntrolled the Association. 12  The Association concedes it did not attach an affidavit with its request to extend discovery, but argues that its request should be considered a “declaration” under the rule. Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2022), provides that a declaration requires a statement given under penalty of perjury....

...ving for a judgment of acquittal, admits all facts adduced in evidence, and the court draws every conclusion favorable to the state which is fairly and reasonably inferable from that evidence. Sapp v. State, 913 So.2d 1220, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 92.525(3), Florida Statutes, states in relevant part: “A person who knowingly makes a false declaration under subsection (2) is guilty of the crime of perjury by false written declaration, a felony of the third degree.... ” § 92.525(3), Fla....

following attestation tracking the language of section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2015): “I declare that I

...It is true that Venetian Salami speaks in terms of “affidavits.” 554 So. 2d at 502. However, affidavits—which are sworn before an officer authorized to administer oaths—are merely one way that Florida law authorizes a person to verify a document. See § 92.525(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). Another way is “the signing of [a] written declaration” stating, “[u]nder penalties of perjury,” that “the facts stated in [the document] are true.” See § 92.525(1)(c), (2). Mendoza’s signed declaration contained such a statement, thus verifying the document under section 92.525. We do not read Venetian Salami to remove from defendants an option for verifying documents that Florida law affords them, and that no statute or procedural rule denies to them....

...t time for the petition and the trial to be held prior to the respondent's release date. In that case, no Fourth Amendment violation would occur because a prisoner would not be held past his release date. Thus the petition need not be sworn. [4] See section 92.525(2), which authorizes verification in certain instances....

...Under Rule 9.141(c)(3)(F), a petition for belated appeal must be sworn. Though, as indicated, Green "swears" that the alleged facts in his petition "are the truth," nothing in his allegations subject him to perjury charges for an untrue statement as required by State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993) and section 92.525, Florida Statutes, which sets forth the form to be used for a written declaration for a sufficient unnotarized oath....

...All that the rule requires is that the document include “an oath, affirmation, or the following” identified language. We will not read more into the rule than its plain language dictates. See, e.g., Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 v. Pelt, 84 So.3d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding trial court erred in relying on section 92.525(2), Fla....

...Keene, stating that she is “without gainful employment, any income, or any assets,” and that she is “currently residing with family and/or friends, who do not charge [her] rent.” 3 Significantly, this document contains no formal oath and does not employ the standard language of an affidavit. See § 92.525, Fla.Stat....

...The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. They argued that the allegations in the Complaint did not bring them within the ambit of the long-arm statute and there were not sufficient “minimum contacts” to satisfy due process. The three defendants filed Declarations pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...However, to reach the merits of this case we must find that the form of oath used by the appellant at the end of his Rule 3.850 motion was legally sufficient. The oath used by Shearer in this appeal in connection with his 3.850 motion is headed, “OATH F.S. 92.525.” The words are: “Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts stated in it are true.” The appellant signed the oath, but it is not notarized....

...rrect. The Florida Supreme Court held in Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986) and Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985), that the oath required by Rule 3.850 is the form set forth in Rule 3.987. The oath used by the appellant was taken from section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (1991), which states, “Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts stated in it are true.” Section 92.525 provides, in pertinent part, that when it is required by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished by oath taken before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths, or by signing a written declaration as prescribed in subsection 92.525(2). This is the oath form used by appellant in this case. The statute has no requirement that a “written declaration” be notarized. Instead, subsection 92.525(3) provides that a person who knowingly makes a false written declaration under subsection (2) is guilty of the crime of perjury by false written declaration, a felony of the third degree. Section 92.525 was promulgated in section 12, chapter 86-201, Laws of Florida, and became effective July 1, 1986. Gor-ham was decided on September 18, 1986. Because the Gorham decision was issued two months after section 92.525 became effective, and there is no reason to believe that the supreme court was unaware of section 92.525, it could be argued that Gor-ham’s reiteration that the oath required by Rule 3.850 is the form set forth in Rule 3.987 means that the “written declaration” of section 92.525 is unacceptable in a Rule 3.850 motion....

...escape prosecution for perjury. “The defendant must be able to affirmatively say that his allegation is true and correct.” Gorham at 212 ; Scott at 1172 . Because a Rule 3.850 movant could be convicted of perjury if he or she falsely signed the section 92.525 declaration, we see no conflict between the supreme court decisions just discussed....

will be used in the normal course of business. Section 92.525, Fla. Stat. provides for verification under

...4th DCA 2015), but that case concerned an unnotarized affidavit claimed as newly discovered evidence in a postconviction relief proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The statement in Placide was not sworn before a notary public and did not qualify as an unnotarized, written declaration under section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes....

...(BAC), appeals a trial court order dismissing with prejudice its residential foreclosure complaint against homeowners Bill R. Stentz and Jaeklyn L. Stentz. The trial court determined that BAC did not properly verify its complaint in accordance with section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...best of my knowledge and belief.” However, the trial court dismissed BAC’s complaint with prejudice 2 upon finding that BAC’s usage of the terms “to the best of my knowledge and belief’ did not sufficiently verify the complaint pursuant to section 92.525....

...This court recently determined in Trucap Grantor Trust 2010-1 v. Pelt, 84 So.3d 369, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), that “because rule 1.110(b) specifically provides for a verification based on knowledge and belief, the generally applicable declaration in section 92.525(2) that the facts ‘are true,’ without limitation, does not control.” Thus, rule 1.110(b) applies, and like in Trucap, we conclude that BAC properly used the verification language contained in the rule....

...ING. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PETITION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: Signature of Petitioner Printed Name: {Do no...

...G. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PETITION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: Signature of Petitioner Printed Name: {Do no...

...UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: Signature of Petitioner Printed Name: {Do not...

...Designated E-Mail Address(es): UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS MOTION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: __________________ _______________________________________ Signature of Petitioner IF A NONLAWYER HELPED...

...Designated E-Mail Address(es): UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS MOTION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: __________________ _______________________________________ Signature of Petitioner IF A NONLAWYER HELPED...

...-48- UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PETITION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: Signature of Petitioner Printed Name: {Do n...

...G. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PETITION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: Signature of Petitioner Printed Name: {Do n...

...G. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PETITION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: Signature of Petitioner Printed Name: {Do no...

...n. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 92.525, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: ____________________ ________________________________ Signature of Petitioner I certify...

...ion of familial or custodial authority. The above-mentioned definition of “sexual batteiy” describes conduct that is neither a crime nor an offense. . § 837.012, Fla.Stat. (1993). . § 837.02, Fla.Stat. (1993). . § 903.035, Fla.Stat. (1993). . § 92.525, Fla.Stat....

...ee Cannon Sheriff, Pasco County 8700 Citizens Drive New Port Richey, Florida 34654 Dear Sheriff Cannon: You have asked for my opinion on substantially the following questions: 1. Is a document that is verified by the written declaration described in section 92.525 (1)(b) and (2), Florida Statutes, an "affidavit" within the scope of section 322.2615 (2), Florida Statutes, if the document is not attested to before an officer authorized to administer oaths? 2. What is the significance of the use of the phrase "to the best of my knowledge" as permitted under section 92.525 (2), Florida Statutes? In sum: 1. A document that contains the written declaration set forth in section 92.525 (2), Florida Statutes, and that has not been attested to before an officer authorized to administer oaths does not constitute an "affidavit" for purposes of section 322.2615 , Florida Statutes. 2. Pursuant to section 92.525 (2), Florida Statutes, a verification may be made on information or belief, if authorized by law, and will be sufficient to subject the affiant to penalties of perjury. Question One Section 92.525 , Florida Statutes, provides that: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the fol...

...The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration. Thus, when a statute, administrative rule, or order of court requires that a document be verified, the terms of section 92.525 , Florida Statutes, provide a form for that verification. Section 92.525 , Florida Statutes, does not purport to convert a document into an affidavit by inclusion of the verification language....

...d the officer's description of the person's field sobriety test, if any. (e.s.) Section 322.2615 (2), Florida Statutes, by its terms, specifically requires the submission of affidavits rather than permitting the use of verified documents pursuant to section 92.525 ....

...In order to be considered an affidavit, the terms of this statute must be satisfied. 4 Compliance with the requirements of the statute assures the self-authenticating nature of affidavits. Therefore, it is my opinion that a document with a written declaration as provided in section 92.525 , Florida Statutes, but without attestation by an officer authorized to administer oaths, does not constitute an "affidavit" required for administrative driver's license suspensions under section 322.2615 , Florida Statutes. Question Two You also ask the meaning of the phrase "to the best of my knowledge and belief" as it is used in section 92.525 , Florida Statutes. The Third District Court of Appeal, in State, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Padilla, determined that "section 92.525 contemplates that an affidavit may include such language and may be recognized as properly verified on information or belief and be sufficient to subject affiant to the penalties of perjury." 5 In that case the proof of probable cause...

...ch he swore, "The above statement is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief." The officer had been fully and properly sworn before an authorized attesting officer. Thus, the phrase "to the best of my knowledge and belief" as used in section 92.525 , Florida Statutes, may be used in documents when the law authorizes verification on information or belief....

current mailing address. Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury

...all be in writing and under oath.” The supreme court has held that “a signed declaration using the language contained in rule 3-7.3(c) subjects a person to the laws of perjury.” The Florida Bar v. Vernell, 721 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.1998) (citing section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995))....

...rly established by sworn testimony. We have held that this is not fundamental error. Smartmays v. State, 901 So.2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). See also Ruiz v. State, 908 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). AFFIRMED. SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 92.525, Fla....

...The document, however, states in the first paragraph: *1188 BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared THOMAS RICHFIELD, having personal knowledge of the below-described matters and being duly sworn, deposes and says: This first paragraph qualifies this as a verified document under oath under section 92.525(4)(c), which states that a verified document means that the person “must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect.” It was unnecessary for this sworn statement to be notarized....

...qualifying papers to determine whether all items required by paragraph (a) have been properly filed and whether each item is complete on its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to s. 92.525(1)(a)....

...ther the contents “are accurate.” See § 99.061(7)(c). Moreover, the filing officer’s responsibility for verification (referred to in section 99.061(7)(c)) specifically directs to a statute that governs only the manner of verification. See § 92.525(1)(a). D Finally, to grant mandamus relief, we must determine there is no other adequate remedy at law....

...Determining the facial completeness and proper filing of those - 20 - items includes evaluating whether “items that must be verified have been properly verified” by the candidate under oath or affirmation as required by section 92.525(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2024). § 99.061(7)(c), Fla....

...Upon consideration of the Committee’s report and the comments filed, we adopt the amendments to form 12.901(a) as proposed by the Committee. Form 12.901(a) is amended to eliminate the requirement that the form be notarized and instead require the parties to execute a “written declaration” pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2017)....

...Appellant’s counsel was later granted leave to withdraw, and the motion to dismiss was never called up for hearing or otherwise addressed by the trial court. Appellee thereafter filed a motion for final summary judgment, and in support of the motion, filed a sworn declaration pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2015), as to the factual allegations set forth in his complaint....

...which could allow for false statements to be made." Section 702.015(4), however, merely requires a certification of possession of an original promissory note to be filed "under penalty of perjury" and does not require the certification to be notarized. Cf. § 92.525, Fla....

...v. Atlantis *838 Consultants Limited Corp., 4 So.3d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), requires it. Specifically, the trial court relied upon the following language in Defense Control: Declarations are sanctioned by the federal statute and by Florida statute section 92.525(2), requiring a signed written statement made under penalties of perjury, while “affidavits” are governed by a separate Florida law, section 92.50, requiring a separate acknowledgment signed and sealed by a notary, judicial officer, or (if executed in a foreign country) a U.S....

...Caterpillar Tractor Co., 402 F.2d 357, 359 (7th Cir.1968), and Ga. Power Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 412 F.2d 462, 466 (5th Cir.1969)). Additionally, we are not convinced that the verification drafted by the EEOC was ineffective. Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2001), which explains the requirements for verification of documents in Florida, states in pertinent part: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of cou...

...is indispensable, Ms. Martinez has verified this document. She has unquestionably taken the position that the EEOC verification is binding on her for purposes of the crime of perjury. See State v. Rutherford, 863 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Section 92.525(1) states that verification “may” be accomplished in the statutory manner. It does not say that verification must be accomplished in this fashion. If it did so state, then illiterate people who could not accurately state that they had “read the foregoing” might be unable to verify documents. Rather, section 92.525(4)(c) explains that “[t]he requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the...

...Vernell, 721 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.1998) (holding signature on Bar complaint form below statement, “Under penalty of perjury, I declare the foregoing facts are true and correct and complete,” was sufficient to meet verification requirements and subject signer to perjury under section 92.525)....

perjury by false information in violation of section 92.525(3), Florida Statutes (1995) and the offense

...The Petitioner, Stacii Lewis, seeks a belated appeal of an order denying his motion for post conviction relief. We deny the petition without prejudice because it is insufficiently sworn. The Petitioner’s un-notarized oath loosely follows the model declaration set forth in section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...4th DCA 1995)(an evidentiary hearing is usually required to determine *351 whether the act or omission complained of was a reasonable tactical tactic). We affirm the denial order for a different reason. The unnotarized oath that Pinder used in his motion was not in the form set forth in Florida Statutes § 92.525 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987....

...aughter Rowan Danu Tara *1264 Quinn, natural child of Marta E. Quinn (nka) Williams. (Dkt. No. 1, Paragraph 4). 3. Plaintiffs allege that the Biermans filed false statements in the petition filed on September 25, 1996 in violation of Florida Statute § 92.525 and in doing so violated Marta Quinn's civil rights....

...In response, as authorized by the statute, Appellant filed a “verified” answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim. However, 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 and belief.” Section 92.525(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) states that “[t]he requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm 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....

...3d DCA 1993) (verification on information or belief permissible under section 322.2615(2), Florida Statutes (1991), where statute authorized affidavit stating “officer’s grounds for belief’ that person arrested had violated section 316.193), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 980 (Fla.1994). The term document includes pleadings. § 92.525(4)(b) (1993). 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 a final judgment of foreclosure as provided for in sections 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 of the filing of presumably unverified defenses by motion....