A Florida court has affirmed a ruling in a case involving Danny Antonio Pastrana, a beneficiary of a revocable living trust, against Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC. The decision, issued by the Fifth District Court of Appeal on October 6, 2026, confirms the lower court's judgment in favor of the mortgage company. This ruling is significant as it addresses issues related to trust beneficiaries and mortgage services.
The case, identified by docket number 5D2025-1172, centers around Pastrana's appeal against Carrington Mortgage Services. The outcome of this case impacts Pastrana and potentially other beneficiaries of trusts who may find themselves in similar disputes with mortgage companies. The court's decision underscores the importance of understanding the legal rights of beneficiaries in relation to mortgage agreements.
Background
Danny Antonio Pastrana is the appellant in this case, representing himself without legal counsel, known as pro se. He is the beneficiary of the Pastrana, Danny Antonio Revocable Living Trust. The exact nature of the dispute is not detailed in the court filing, but it involves Pastrana's claims against Carrington Mortgage Services, a company that provides mortgage services.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, is the appellee in this case and was represented by attorney Eric M. Levine from Atlas Solomon LLP. The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court for Lake County, where Judge Brian Jerome Welke presided over the proceedings. The details leading to the appeal are not fully disclosed in the court opinion, but it is clear that Pastrana sought to challenge the lower court's decision favoring Carrington.
The Ruling
The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled to affirm the lower court's decision. The opinion was issued per curiam, meaning it was made by the court collectively rather than by a single judge. The judges involved in the ruling were Makar, Edwards, and MacIver, who all concurred with the decision.
The court's ruling is described as “AFFIRMED,” indicating that the appellate court found no error in the lower court's judgment. The opinion did not provide specific details about the reasoning behind the affirmation, but it emphasized that the decision is not final until any timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 are resolved.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for Pastrana and other beneficiaries of trusts. It reinforces the authority of mortgage companies in disputes with trust beneficiaries and highlights the challenges that individuals may face when representing themselves in court. The decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving trust beneficiaries and mortgage services in Florida.
The affirmation of the lower court's ruling may discourage other beneficiaries from pursuing similar claims without legal representation. It emphasizes the need for individuals in such situations to seek legal advice to navigate complex legal matters effectively. The outcome of this case reflects the broader issues of trust law and the rights of beneficiaries in relation to mortgage agreements.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Pastrana plans to appeal this decision further. The court's ruling may be subject to review if any motions are filed in accordance with Florida's appellate rules. There are no related cases mentioned in the opinion.