foreclosure complaint in its own name on behalf of owner and holder of note and servi-cer that merely verifies’ complaint filed in name of owner and holder of note); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Huber, 137 So.3d 562, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding error with trial court’s* determination that appellant’s servicing agent lacked standing to bring foreclosure action on appellant’s behalf when record “clearly reflected]” that appellant filed foreclosure complaint on its own behalf and that servicing agent merely verified complaint); see also US Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Marion, 122 So.3d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing dismissal on basis that servi-cer’s employee verified bank’s foreclosure complaint); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Prevratil, 120 So.3d 573, 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, noteholder-plaintiffs routinely
holding a trial court commits fundamental error by failing to follow florida rule of juvenile procedure 8150 the juvenile rule equivalent of florida rule of criminal procedure 3830 holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure holding that florida rule of civil procedure 1110 does not require that verification be based on personal knowledge holding that rule 45b does not require personal service holding that trial court has no jurisdiction after litigation is concluded except in very limited circumstances on a motion for relief from judgment under florida rule of civil procedure 1540