action having been later ratified by Nava.” (Bold emphasis added). The Id. court explained that standing is either having, or representing one who has, Kumar a stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial “sufficient resolution of that controversy.” Additionally, the Court reasoned that because Id. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) permits an action to be prosecuted in the name of someone other than, but acting for, the real party in interest, a plaintiff is either the “where real party in interest or maintaining the action on behalf of the real party in interest, its action cannot be terminated on that ground that it lacks standing.” at 1183. Id. Thus, the Court concluded, affidavits unequivocally show that Nava “Nava’s ratified and endorsed Kumar’s action in bringing suit on Nava’s behalf.” Id. at 1185. (Bold emphasis added). At the trial below, however, RCS failed to procure even a scintilla of evidence that its undisclosed principal ratified and endorsed RCS’s (and AHMSI’s) action in bringing suit on its behalf. In fact, when questioned regarding how AHMSI the note and mortgage, the AHMSI witness merely replied that “serviced” the company serviced through a servicing contract which the witness had not even read. [T. 63]. Even more astonishingly, RCS’s own counsel represented to the trial court that it was unable to either elicit testimony from RCS’s principal or introduce the servicing agreement which might permit RCS to bring the action on its principal’s behalf. [T. 66].
action having been later ratified by Nava.” Id. (Bold emphasis added). The Kumar court explained that standing is either having, or representing one who has, a “sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.” Id. Additionally, the Court reasoned that because Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) permits an action to be prosecuted in the name of someone other than, but acting for, the real party in interest, “where a plaintiff is either the real party in interest or maintaining the action on behalf of the real party in interest, its action cannot be terminated on that ground that it lacks standing.” Id. at 1183. Thus, the Court concluded, “Nava’s affidavits unequivocally show that Nava ratified and endorsed Kumar’s action in bringing suit on Nava’s behalf.” Id. at 1185. (Bold emphasis added). At the trial below, however, RCS failed to procure even a scintilla of evidence that its undisclosed principal ratified and endorsed RCS’s (and AHMSI’s) action in bringing suit on its behalf. In fact, when questioned regarding how AHMSI “serviced” the note and mortgage, the AHMSI witness merely replied that the company serviced through a servicing contract which the witness had not even read. [T. 63]. Even more astonishingly, RCS’s own counsel represented to the trial court that it was unable to either elicit testimony from RCS’s principal or introduce the servicing agreement which might permit RCS to bring the action on its principal’s behalf. [T. 66].
initial-brief.docx