of the original note because the endorsement on the note in evidence did not match the endorsements on the copy of the note attached to the complaint. As argued by OneWest, the Cummings presented no testimony or evidence to contradict Mr. Den-son’s testimony that the note in evidence was the original note acquired by OneWest in May 2010. Likewise, the Cummings’ argument regarding the validity of the assignment of mortgage from MERS to In-dyMac is not relevant to OneWest’s standing to foreclose. Because the evidence showed that OneWest possessed the original note endorsed in blank at the time it filed the complaint, its standing is established from its status as the note holder regardless of any recorded assignments. See Stone v. BankUnited, 115 So.3d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129,
holding that there is no impermissible modification of the note because the very terms of the note allow for prepayment without a penalty holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose holding that the note and the mortgage must coexist to give the mortgage validity