MARIA OZUNA AND CANDIDO POLANCO,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, ETC.,

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Diz, 253 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[W]here a copy of a note is attached to a complaint and the plaintiff later files with the court the original note in the same condition as the copy attached to the complaint, the combination of such evidence is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had actual possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed and, therefore, had standing to bring the foreclosure action . . . .” (citing Ortiz v. PNC Bank, N.A., 188 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016))); HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[B]ecause a plaintiff asserting standing based on its status as a holder of the note does not have to prove ownership, a plaintiff does not normally have to establish a ‘chain of indorsements’ or a ‘chain of title.’” (citation omitted)); Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 So. 3d 1198, 1202–03 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“A plaintiff need not prove the exact date of a necessary endorsement to show standing at the inception of the foreclosure action— testimony that the endorsement was effectuated before the filing of the complaint will suffice.”).