ILEANA ARNAIZ, ETC.
v.
LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Arnaiz challenged a foreclosure summary judgment, arguing that the lender's predecessor lacked standing because an officer lacked authority to execute an allonge endorsing the note. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the lender validly assigned both the mortgage and note, and the allonge was authorized and valid.
RMS had standing to bring the foreclosure action. The court found that in September 2016 when the case was filed, RMS was the valid holder of both the mortgage and the note through the lender's authorized assignment, and the lender's allonge endorsing the note to RMS was authorized and valid.
[1] A plaintiff in a foreclosure case must possess the note at the inception of the case to establish standing, unless the plaintiff is the original payee.
[2] A plaintiff in a foreclosure case, who is not the original payee, must provide either an assignment of the note in their favor or a note bearing an endorsement in blank o…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To have standing, a plaintiff who is not the promissory note's original payee must have possession of the note at the inception of the foreclosure case. The plaintiff also must provide the trial court with either an assignment in favor of the plaintiff or a note that bears either an endorsement in blank or a special endorsement in favor of the plaintiff.”
Establishes the legal standard for standing in foreclosure cases when the plaintiff is not the original payee.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 2016, Reverse Mortgage Solutions (RMS), the predecessor of Longbridge Financial, LLC, filed a foreclosure action against Arnaiz on a reve…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing In Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 25, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D25-0639 Lower Tribunal No. 16-20220-CA-01 Ileana Arnaiz, etc., Appellant, VS. Longbridge Financial, LLC Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge. Law Offices of E.I. Friedman, P.A., and Eyal I. Friedman, for appellant. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, and Robert R. Edwards and David Rosenberg (Boca Raton), for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ileana Arnaiz challenges the trial court's March 11, 2025 final summary judgment of foreclosure. She asserts, as she did below, that appellee Longbridge Financial, LLC's predecessor in interest, Reverse Mortgage Solutions (“RMS”) – the initial foreclosing plaintiff in this case lacked standing at the inception to bring the foreclosure action. Specifically, Arnaiz argues that RMS lacked standing because the designated officer who executed an allonge endorsing the note to RMS was without authority to do so, either in 2009, when the lender assigned the mortgage and note to RMS or in 2013, when the allonge was attached to the note. Our de novo review of the summary judgment record,¹ though, reveals that, in September 2016, when this case was filed by RMS, RMS was the holder of both the mortgage and the note through the lender's assignment of them to RMS; and that the lender's allonge endorsing the note to RMS was authorized and valid. The trial court, therefore, did not err by rejecting Arnaiz's argument that RMS lacked standing and by entering the challenged final summary judgment. See Roif v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 283 So. 3d 383, 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Citibank, N.A., v. Olsak, 208 So. 3d 227, 229
(Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“To have standing, a plaintiff who is not the promissory note's original payee must have possession of the note at the inception of the foreclosure case. The plaintiff also must provide the trial court with either an assignment in favor of the plaintiff or a note that bears either an endorsement in blank or a special endorsement in favor of the plaintiff."). Affirmed. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Citibank, N.A. v. Martin and Jitka Olsak, 208 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Fernandez v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 424 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)