Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 22, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-0090 Lower Tribunal No. 18-CA-1408-K ________________ Manuel Garcia, et al., Appellants, vs. The Bank of New York Mellon, etc., Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark Wilson, Judge. Garcia Law Firm, Trial Attorneys and Manuel E. Garcia, for appellants. Diaz Anselmo & Associates, P.A., and Adam A. Diaz, for appellee. Before MILLER, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Quintana v. Rodriguez Fam. Inv. P’ship, LLLP, 402 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“On appeal from an order granting final summary judgment, the standard of review is de novo.” (quoting Safe Harbor Equity Distressed Debt Fund 3, L.P. v. 9775 Dixie LLC, 388 So. 3d 1093, 1096 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024))); Balch v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 171 So. 3d 207, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo.” (quoting Lloyd v. Bank of New York Mellon, 160 So. 3d 513, 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))); Shim v. Buechel-Pappas Tr., 402 So. 3d 386, 390 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (“To defeat summary judgment, the non-movant must come forward and produce or identify some evidence in the record showing there is a factual dispute between the parties that is both ‘genuine’ and ‘material.’” (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986))); Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (noting summary judgment may be granted “[i]f the evidence [presented by the nonmovant] is merely colorable or is not significantly probative” (quoting in re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020))); Ortiz v. PNC Bank, N.A., 188 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding party may prove standing as holder of note based on blank endorsement by filing copy of note with the complaint and then filing “with the court the original note in the same condition as the copy attached to the complaint”); Kronen v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as 2 Tr. for WAMU Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006 AR3, 267 So. 3d 447, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (stating that there may be differences between an original note and copy of original if there is sufficient explanation for those differences); Jelic v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 150 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding bank did not fail to provide appellant with notice of acceleration where appellant “had no reason not to believe the notice was sent and [Bank] submitted an affidavit stating that notice was sent, along with an attached copy of the letter and records showing the letter was mailed”). 3