No Limit Mortgage Solutions — Sixth District affirmed without a written opinion

Case
No Limit Mortgage Solutions, Inc. and Corporacion Hospitalaria del Zulia, LLC, as Assignee for No Limit Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Dora Ameneiro Martinez a/k/a Dora Ameneiro, Ernesto Martinez, Bradford Emmer Trustee, Equitymax, Inc. Pension Plan, Equitymax, Inc. 401(k) Plan, OBX 2021-NQM1 Trust Co. Wilmington Savings Fund Society FBS, and State of Florida
Court
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Brownlee; Gannam; Kamoutsas
Date Decided
November 3, 2026
Docket No.
6D2025-0099
Topics
Mortgage Litigation; Appeals; Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

No Limit Mortgage Solutions, Inc. and Corporacion Hospitalaria del Zulia, LLC, as its assignee, appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Polk County. Circuit Judge Ellen S. Masters presided in the lower tribunal.

The appellees included Dora Ameneiro Martinez, Ernesto Martinez, Bradford Emmer Trustee, two Equitymax retirement plans, OBX 2021-NQM1 Trust Co. Wilmington Savings Fund Society FBS, and the State of Florida. The appellate opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the circuit court’s ruling, the arguments on appeal, or the requested relief.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision. Judges Brownlee, Gannam, and Kamoutsas concurred in the per curiam disposition.

The court provided no factual discussion, legal analysis, or explanation for the affirmance. The opinion also states that it is not final until the period for filing a rehearing motion expires and any timely motion is resolved.

Key Takeaways

  • The Sixth District affirmed the Polk County Circuit Court’s decision.
  • The per curiam opinion gives no reasons for the affirmance and identifies no legal rule applied to the dispute.
  • The disposition remains subject to the stated rehearing period and resolution of any timely rehearing motion.

Why It Matters

The decision leaves the lower court’s ruling undisturbed, but the opinion’s lack of facts or reasoning prevents readers from determining the appellate court’s rationale from this document alone.

Attorneys evaluating the dispute must consult the lower-court record and appellate filings for the underlying issues, while accounting for the opinion’s express notice that it was not yet final when issued.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top