PEDRO DAMAS, ET AL.
v.
ARCPE 1 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.
There is no independent cause of action for a lender's failure to provide a loan modification agreement, and a lender has standing as the holder of a note properly indorsed.
[1] No independent cause of action exists under Florida law for a lender's failure to provide a loan modification agreement under the Home Affordable Modification Program.
[2] A lender has standing to enforce a promissory note when it is the holder of the note, whether originally indorsed in blank or specially indorsed to the lender.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We affirm the final judgment in favor of the Bank on the basis that there is no independent cause of action for a lender's failure to provide a loan modification agreement under [the Home Affordable Modification Program]”
Citation to Riano v. Bank of Am., N.A., 338 So. 3d 953, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Pedro Damas and others appealed a judgment entered in favor of ARCPE 1 LLC in a Miami-Dade County circuit court action involving loan modification iss…
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 Home Affordable Modification Program (Hamp) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1198 Lower Tribunal No. 18-5714-CA-01 ________________
Pedro Damas, et al., Appellants,
vs.
ARCPE 1 LLC, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles Kenneth Johnson, Judge.
Law Offices of E.I. Friedman, P.A., and Eyal I. Friedman, for appellants.
The Law Office of Gary I. Gassel, P.A., and William Nussbaum III (Sarasota), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Riano v. Bank of Am., N.A., 338 So. 3d 953, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We affirm the final judgment in favor of the Bank on the basis that there is no independent cause of action for a lender’s failure to provide a loan modification agreement under [the Home Affordable Modification Program] . . . .”); HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Under the law of negotiable instruments, therefore, the Bank had standing because it was the holder of a note originally indorsed in blank and then specially indorsed to the Bank.”); Id. at 891 (“Indeed, ‘[w]here a business takes custody of another business’s records and integrates them within its own records’ the trustworthiness requirement of the records will be met in ‘most instances . . . by providing evidence of a business relationship or contractual obligation between the parties that ensures a substantial incentive for accuracy.’” (quoting Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064, 1071–72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))).