The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
At the end of the hearing on the motions to dismiss, the trial judge announced that she was granting the motions. But before a written order of dismissal was entered, Mr. White filed what he called an "affidavit" describing various statements third parties had allegedly made to him about viewing the episode. However, Mr. White did not swear to the truth of his statements, as required for an affidavit by section 92.525, Florida Statutes. The filing also contained only inadmissible hearsay. Thus, even had it been filed before the motion to dismiss hearing, this document did not constitute sworn proof to refute Red Marble and its three corporate officers' sworn affidavits that they did not participate in publication of the program in Florida.Guzi on November 21, 2022, filed a Motion to reschedule the hearing, ECF No. 355, claiming he was ill and unable to attend the November 14, 2022 hearing. For the reasons discussed fn. 2, infra, such a rehearing is unnecessary. Accordingly, that Motion is denied. Further, Guzi has filed a Motion to Strike the affidavit of Plaintiff's Counsel, ECF No. 353, on the basis that Plaintiff's counsel failed to include language regarding perjury. As the affidavit clearly states, the declaration was given under oath, which is an acceptable form of verification. See Fla Stat. § 92.525(1). Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is likewise denied.Plaintiff's counsel submitted what he designated as an “Affidavit” (even though it is a declaration). [ECF No. 97]. In the declaration (which he said he signed under “Florida Statute 92.525”, even though we are in a federal court and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 is the applicable federal statute for an unsworn declaration subject to penalty of perjury), he admitted to not complying with the Local Rule and attributed the misrepresentation about the conferral to a “careless and lazy mistake.” He said, “the fact and circumstances are not great and is not an excuse for my actions.” He apologized and said the incorrect certificate of conferral was “not made to mislead, but was down [sic] out of laziness on my part.”What we had described in Placide as two independent reasons for the affidavit's legal insufficiency, the state here has attempted to 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.A filing officer at the Department then reviews this form as part of a candidate's qualifying paperwork to determine whether each submitted item is "complete on its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to s. 92.525(1)(a)." § 99.061(7)(c), Fla. Stat. This review is strictly "ministerial": "The filing officer may not determine whether the contents of the qualifying papers are accurate." Id.Section 99.061, Florida Statutes, governs the "Method of qualifying" for elective office in Florida and sets a deadline by which various items must be filed with the Department of State for a person to qualify. A single Department form incorporates two of the items required to be filed by congressional candidates, the Candidate Oath for Federal Office (see § 99.021(a), Fla. Stat.) and the Statement of Party (see § 99.021(b), Fla. Stat.). See Form DS-DE 300A (Rev. 08/2021), available at https://files.floridados.gov/media/704464/ dsde300a-fed-oath-pty-aff-august-2021-1.pdf. By law the Candidate Oath "must be verified under oath or affirmation pursuant to s. 92.525( 1)(a)." § 99.061(7)(a)2, Fla. Stat. Regarding verification mechanics, § 92.525( 1)(a) provides that such oaths be verified by an officer authorized under § 92.50 to administer them. Section 92.50 allows an out-of-state notary public to administer the oath so long as they are so authorized under their own state's laws. These parameters focus on the authority of the out-of-state officer to administer oaths and not the physical mechanics of how oaths must be taken (which presumably may vary from state to… Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing request and that the facts stated in it are true.The statute's subsections provide alternative methods for verifying a document; but whichever method is utilized, the subsection's requirements must be fully complied with. Here, Dr. Freer's letter included a stamp and signature that indicated it was executed before a notary public. But at most that would constitute a partial fulfillment of section 92.525(1)(a) because it does not appear that Dr. Freer took an oath or made an affirmation regarding his letter. Nor did he include anything that could be construed as a "written declaration" that would satisfy section 92.525(2). And nowhere in the letter did Dr. Freer "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." See § 95.525(4)(c).Russell sues Kristian Harper, a notary public. He alleges that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Harper “filed and illegally authorize[d] charges” against him “from a false affidavit under [Fla. Stat. §] 92.525 from [T]ampa police officers B. Wester, Sgt. R. Paik.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) He alleges that Harper “was not a judge of magistrate to have the authority to authorize a warrant of issuance” against him. (Id.)The statute begins by making itself applicable whenever there is a legal requirement "that a document be verified by a person." § 92.525(1), Fla. Stat. It is true that section 627.4137 requires a disclosure statement to be "under oath," not "verified." Section 92.525, however, ends with what "verified by a person" means: a requirement "that the document [ ] be signed or executed by a person and that the person [ ] 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), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). Reading these two provisions together (i.e. , subsection one and paragraph four-c), we can see that section 92.525 applies whenever a law, rule, or order otherwise requires the truthfulness of information to be confirmed in writing "under oath." The requirement in section 627.4137 that certain insurance information be provided in "a statement, under oath, of a [specified person]" easily fits within this parameter.. . . and the signature of the candidate, which must be verified under oath or affirmation pursuant to s. 92.525 . . .
. . . be notarized and instead require the parties to execute a “written declaration” pursuant to section 92.525 . . .
. . . . § 92.525, Fla. . . .
. . . final summary judgment, and in support of the motion, filed a sworn declaration pursuant to section 92.525 . . .
. . . Additionally, each affiant included the following attestation tracking the language of section 92.525 . . . Additionally, section 92.525 provides as follows: (1) If authorized or required by law, by rule of an . . . The affidavits at issue here each contained an attestation tracking the language of section 92.525(2) . . . Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has held that “the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) . . . 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525 . . .
. . . and the signature of the candidate, which must be verified under oath or affirmation pursuant to s. 92.525 . . . its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to s. 92.525 . . . its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to s. 92.525 . . .
. . . We understand that a person who knowingly makes a false declaration pursuant to s. 92.525(2) or 382.026 . . .
. . . See §§ 92.50 and 92.525, Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . sworn before a notary public and did not qualify as an unnotarized, .written declaration under section 92.525 . . .
. . . F.S. 92.525.” The Davidians moved to quash the summons and to quash service of process. . . .
. . . This statement would be insufficient to constitute a signed, written declaration under section 92.525 . . . Among other things, a written declaration must state that it is made “[u]nder penalties of- perjury.” § 92.525 . . .
. . . paternity that is witnessed by two individuals and signed under penalty of perjury as specified by s. 92.525 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read . . . Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes, under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read . . .
. . . hereby state under penalty of perjury the foregoing is based upon true facts, [sic] oath pursuant to 92.525 . . .
. . . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) and section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2011), govern verification . . . Section 92.525 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, . . .
. . . paternity that is witnessed by two individuals and signed under penalty of perjury as specified by s. 92.525 . . . paternity that is witnessed by two individuals and signed under penalty of perjury as specified by s. 92.525 . . .
. . . The trial court determined that BAC did not properly verify its complaint in accordance with section 92.525 . . . the best of my knowledge and belief’ did not sufficiently verify the complaint pursuant to section 92.525 . . . provides for a verification based on knowledge and belief, the generally applicable declaration in section 92.525 . . .
. . . Pelt, 84 So.3d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding trial court erred in relying on section 92.525(2), Fla . . .
. . . The court stated that pursuant to section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2010), the amended complaint must . . . Section 92.525, upon which the trial court relied, provides that when a document must be verified, the . . . I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true[.]” § 92.525 . . . Section 92.525(2) provides an exception “when a verification on information or belief is permitted by . . . Section 92.525(4)(b) defines “document” to include any “pleading[ ] or paper.” See also Muss v. . . .
. . . , which is witnessed by two individuals and signed under penalty of perjury as specified by section 92.525 . . .
. . . Section 92.525(1), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that any document that must be verified by a person . . . In this case, Hyden used the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) to verify his motion to dismiss and . . . The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the oath set forth in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to . . . Since Shearer, several courts have determined that the oath in section 92.525(2) is sufficient to meet . . . We note that this court has suggested that, under Shearer, the oath in section 92.525(2) is available . . .
. . . The district court noted that section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2007), provides, in relevant part: (1 . . . See id. at 1185 (quoting § 92.525(4)(b)). . . . Id. § 92.525(4)(c) (emphasis supplied). . . . See id. § 92.525(4)(b). . . . Under section 92.525, an affidavit need not be formally signed to comply with the Florida Statutes. . . .
. . . The three defendants filed Declarations pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2009). . . .
. . . The complaint was under oath pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes. . . .
. . . paternity, which is witnessed by two individuals and signed under penalty of perjury as specified by s. 92.525 . . .
. . . court may, upon request of a party providing a sworn statement or written declaration as provided by s. 92.525 . . .
. . . Defense Control: Declarations are sanctioned by the federal statute and by Florida statute section 92.525 . . .
. . . supported by affidavit,” this requirement may also be satisfied by oath or affirmation under section 92.525 . . . affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths § 92.525 . . . limitation, any form, application, claim, notice, tax return, inventory, affidavit, pleading, or paper.” § 92.525 . . . Because section 92.525 provides that any document, which expressly includes an affidavit, requiring verification . . .
. . . However, section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the proper manner for verifying a pleading . . . affidavit requires an oath, Swartz, 816 So.2d at 622, and a verified response does not, see section 92.525 . . .
. . . Declarations are sanctioned by the federal statute and by Florida statute section 92.525(2), requiring . . .
. . . This is an oath authorized by section 92.525 of the Florida Statutes. See § 92.525(1), (2), Fla. . . . declared to be based on facts represented as being true, is an unnotarized oath authorized by section 92.525 . . . concluding that for purposes of defendant’s 3.850 motion, “[i]n addition to a notarized oath ... section 92.525 . . .
. . . Pursuant to Section 92.525, Florida Statutes, I state under the penalties of perjury that I have read . . .
. . . Section 92.525, Florida Stat utes provides that a document may be verified in two different ways: (1) . . . The full text of the form for the latter method of verification is set out in section 92.525(2). . . .
. . . The amended motion to disqualify clearly contains a written declaration pursuant to section 92.525, Florida . . . Section 92.525 provides an appropriate method to verify a document, i.e., to sign the document stating . . . See § 92.525(3)(c). . . .
. . . . § 92.525. . While these messages were offensive and inflammatory. . . .
. . . Shearer, 628 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1993) and section 92.525, Florida Statutes, which sets forth the form to . . .
. . . Section 92.525(3), Florida Statutes, states in relevant part: “A person who knowingly makes a false declaration . . . is guilty of the crime of perjury by false written declaration, a felony of the third degree.... ” § 92.525 . . .
. . . . § 92.525, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .
. . . In my view, section 92.525 says nothing about how a statutory requirement of an affidavit may be met. . . . Section 92.525, on the other hand, deals with the verification of documents. . . . Section 92.525(4)(c) explains what is meant by “the requirement that a document be verified.” . . . if, by the terms of 92.525 itself, the declaration in 92.525(2) already always satisfies the affidavit . . . There can be no doubt that section 92.525 is a statute of general application. . . . Section 92.525 states in pertinent part as follows: (1) When it is ... required by law ..., or by rule . . . This is because section 92.525(4)(c) defines the “requirement” of “verification]” as including three . . . Accord Goines (applying section 92.525 to section 948.06); see also Shearer (Rule 8.987 form of oath . . . Because a section 92.525 declaration is made under penalty of perjury, its use in this manner does not . . . Moreover, the clear import of Shearer is that section, 92.525 applies to rules of criminal procedure . . . arrest affidavit to secure a warrant for violation of probation is valid if it is verified under section 92.525 . . . must be sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths and that verification under section 92.525 . . . We held in Jackson that section 92.525 does not apply to an affidavit to secure an arrest warrant. . . . .” § 92.525(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . . § 92.525(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2003); Mieles v. . . .
. . . See section 92.525(2), which authorizes verification in certain instances. . See U.S. . . .
. . . sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths, nor was it verified as set forth in section 92.525 . . .
. . . The Petitioner’s un-notarized oath loosely follows the model declaration set forth in section 92.525, . . .
. . . “affidavit” is a statement made under oath before an authorized official such as a notary, section 92.525 . . . the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect. § 92.525 . . . 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see Shearer (rule 3.987 form of oath requiring notary satisfied by section 92.525 . . . Padilla, 629 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (finding that section 92.525 “verified” document satisfied . . .
. . . Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2001), which explains the requirements for verification of documents . . . Section 92.525(1) states that verification “may” be accomplished in the statutory manner. . . . Rather, section 92.525(4)(c) explains that “[t]he requirement that a document be verified means that . . . complete,” was sufficient to meet verification requirements and subject signer to perjury under section 92.525 . . .
. . . While unquestionably section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2008), allows an unsworn oath to be used for . . .
. . . The circuit court overlooked the fact that section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2001), allows an unnotar-ized . . .
. . . We recognize that the charging document was “verified” pursuant to 92.525, Florida Statutes. . . . Fla. 95-40 (1995)(document verified under section 92.525 is not affidavit within meaning of section 322.2615 . . . Johnston, 553 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and § 92.525(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . . was under "oath” because it contained the "under penalty of perjury" statement set forth in section 92.525 . . . A charging document can be under "oath” within the meaning of section 92.525, and still not qualify as . . .
. . . Vernell, 721 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.1998) (citing section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995)). . . .
. . . Section 92.525 provides that verification may be accomplished by either an oath taken before an officer . . .
. . . deposes and says: This first paragraph qualifies this as a verified document under oath under section 92.525 . . .
. . . The State overlooked the fact that section 92.525, Florida Statutes (2001), allows an unnotarized oath . . .
. . . See § 92.525(2), Fla. Stat. (2001); Muss v. Lennar Fla. . . .
. . . unnotarized oath that Pinder used in his motion was not in the form set forth in Florida Statutes § 92.525 . . .
. . . See also § 92.525(2), Fla. Stat. (1999); Zipperer v. Singletary, 693 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). . . .
. . . filed false statements in the petition filed on September 25, 1996 in violation of Florida Statute § 92.525 . . .
. . . Under section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), a signed declaration using the language contained in rule . . .
. . . conduct that was the basis of both the offense of perjury by false information in violation of section 92.525 . . .
. . . support and bolster these allegations, the appellant executed an unnotarized oath pursuant to section 92.525 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), such a statement constitutes “verification” of any . . .
. . . The court concluded that the declaration using the language set forth in section 92.525, Florida Statutes . . . Section 92.525 provides that, in order for a document to be verified, it must be signed or executed by . . .
. . . Section 92.525(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) states that “[t]he requirement that a document be verified . . . Further, section 92.525(2) authorizes verification solely on information and belief only where “permitted . . . 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 . . . We have considered Appellant’s contention that we need not be concerned with section 92.525 in light . . .
. . . Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that documents may be verified by either (1) giving . . .
. . . Section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1993), sets forth the legal requirements for verification of documents . . . administer oaths, such as a notary, or by the signing of the written declaration prescribed in section 92.525 . . . Section 92.525(4)(c) further provides: The requirement that a document be verified means that the document . . . Vega’s signed declaration, using the language set forth in section 92.525, substantially complies with . . .
. . . . § 92.525, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . . .
. . . See § 92.525, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .
. . . In addition to a notarized oath such as the one in rule 3.987, however, section 92.525, Florida Statutes . . . The district court analyzed the oaths set out in section 92.525 and rule 3.987 in light of our decisions . . . It concluded that the unnotarized oath from subsection 92.525(2) could be used in a rule 3.850 motion . . . As pointed out by the district court, the oath from subsection 92.525(2) addresses this concern. . . . Therefore, we agree with the district court that the oath from subsection 92.525(2) is an acceptable . . .
. . . Section 92.525 states, in part, as follows: (1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of . . . Thus, section 92.525 contemplates that an affidavit may include such language and may be recognized as . . .
. . . The oath used by Shearer in this appeal in connection with his 3.850 motion is headed, “OATH F.S. 92.525 . . . The oath used by the appellant was taken from section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (1991), which states . . . Section 92.525 provides, in pertinent part, that when it is required by rule or order of court that a . . . Instead, subsection 92.525(3) provides that a person who knowingly makes a false written declaration . . . Because the Gorham decision was issued two months after section 92.525 became effective, and there is . . . amend our prior opinion by adding the following thereto: IS THE WRITTEN DECLARATION FOUND IN SECTION 92.525 . . .