in a traditional lender/borrower relationship”), review denied, 659 So.2d 1086 (Fla.1995); Chotka v. Fidelco Growth Investors, 383 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1980) (bank "became more than just a lender when [it] took title to the condominium project, completed construction, and, holding [itself] out to be the developer and owner of the project, advertised and sold units to purchasers.”). 23 .Because Motorcity's fiduciary duty claim fails as a matter of Florida law, and because its negligence claim also fails under Florida law, see infra, we need not address the argument that nonverbal course of conduct evidence (such as the audit here) is D’Oench-barred, just like oral evidence, because it does not appear in the bank’s records. See Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1231, 111 S.Ct. 2852,
holding that the lender was subject to the dtpa because the borrowers purpose in obtaining the loan was the purchase of a house holding that doench prevents borrowers from arguing that a condition in a loan agreement has been waived by the banks nonverbal conduct at the loan closing holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that fraudulent loan transaction exposed financial institutions to risk of loss even though loan was secured