A Florida court recently ruled on a case involving Storey Mountain, LLC and Roberto Vinas, affirming a lower court's decision regarding a loan guarantee dispute. This ruling affects how creditors can collect debts from guarantors in commercial loan agreements.
The case, Storey Mountain, LLC, Etc. v. Lakes Kingdom II LLC (Docket No. 3D26-0038), was decided by the Third District Court of Appeal on October 14, 2026. The decision is significant for creditors and borrowers, as it clarifies the legal boundaries of debt collection in Florida.
Background
Storey Mountain, LLC, acting on behalf of Bank of America, N.A., was the appellant in this case. The company had previously obtained a judgment against Roberto Vinas, who acted as a guarantor for a commercial loan. The dispute arose when Storey Mountain sought to collect the debt from Vinas.
During the collection process, Storey Mountain discovered that Vinas' wife, Martha Yee, had loaned him $2.5 million. In exchange for this loan, Yee secured a lien on a condominium they co-owned on Fisher Island. Storey Mountain claimed that Yee never transferred the loan amount to Vinas and sought to collect the debt from her instead.
The case reached the Third District Court of Appeal after the trial court refused to issue a notice to appear to Yee, which would have allowed Storey Mountain to seek a judgment against her for the loan amount. Storey Mountain argued that the trial court was required to issue the notice based on Florida law, specifically section 56.29 of the Florida Statutes.
The Ruling
The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision, stating that Storey Mountain did not meet the necessary legal requirements to collect the debt from Yee. The court noted that the statute in question, section 56.29, contains the word "shall," but emphasized that this does not automatically compel the trial court to issue a notice to appear.
The court ruled, "Storey Mountain did not meet its other requirements. The record shows that this is a debt due to Yee—not Vinas. The debt of another is not the property of the judgment debtor."
The judges on the panel included Chief Judge SCALES and Judges BOKOR and GOODEN. Their ruling clarified that creditors must describe the property or debt of the judgment debtor with reasonable particularity in order for the court to issue a notice to appear.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for creditors seeking to collect debts in Florida. It highlights the necessity for creditors to clearly establish the relationship between the debtor and any third-party debts before seeking to collect from them. The court's interpretation of section 56.29 reinforces the idea that a creditor cannot simply claim a debt owed to a third party as part of their collection efforts.
The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving the collection of debts where a guarantor is involved. Creditors must now ensure they have a clear understanding of the debts and obligations of the parties involved before pursuing collection actions.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Storey Mountain intends to appeal this decision. There are no related cases pending at this time.