Court Filings

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in a civil dispute between appellants Adem H. Adem and Upper Jets Maintenance, LLC and appellee N898PA, LLC. The appeal arose from a case litigated in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating “Affirmed,” indicating the court found no reversible error in the trial court’s proceedings or judgment. The opinion was unanimous and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida, affirmed a county court judgment in a dispute between Well Done Mitigation as assignee of Danielle Harvard and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The appeal (No. 4D2025-0802) arose from Broward County Circuit Court, and the panel, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No further published reasoning appears in the short opinion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between Valerie Williams (appellant) and Horace Williams (appellee). The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court matter (case no. 062023CA015644AXXXCE). The appellate panel, writing per curiam, concluded the trial court's ruling should stand and issued a short dispositive opinion simply stating "Affirmed." The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal interlocutory order from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County in a dispute between condominium associations and multiple defendants, including homebuilder Lennar Homes, LLC and individual appellees. The appellate panel issued a single-line per curiam decision: Affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published slip and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Olga Quijano and Jose Luis De Vivo from a Broward Circuit Court judgment involving HSBC Bank National Association. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion that affirmed the lower court's decision. No detailed reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry; the opinion simply states the judgment is affirmed and notes parties may file a timely motion for rehearing. All three judges concurred.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in a dispute between My Harrison Corp. (appellant) and Home Tower Condominium, Inc. (appellee). The appeal arose from a Broward County Circuit Court case (No. 062024CA016458AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion, with Judges Levine, Conner, and Shepherd concurring, and entered judgment affirming the trial court. The opinion is short and does not state the underlying factual or legal reasoning in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a dispute between G.T. Construction and Development, Inc. (appellant) and Century Tile and Marble, Inc. (appellee). The panel issued a per curiam opinion, with Judges Levine, Conner, and Shepherd concurring, and noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No substantive reasoning, facts, or legal analysis appears in the published entry beyond the affirmance.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Allamanda Gardens Condominium Inc. and Sheldon R. Rosenthal in an appeal brought by Alexandria Investment, LLC. The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court case (No. 062022CA004954AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without elaborating on the reasoning in the published entry. The decision is subject to any timely motion for rehearing before it becomes final.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Wells Fargo USA Holdings, Inc. in an appeal brought by 5307 CWELT-2008. The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court case (062016CA004032AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating “Affirmed,” with no published opinion or extended reasoning included in the decision summary. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Second District Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of certiorari from plaintiffs Carolyn Hoskins and Lolita Johns challenging a trial court order that dismissed without prejudice their direct-liability medical-malpractice claim against Women's Care of Florida for failure to satisfy presuit notice under chapter 766. The appellate court concluded the petitioners failed to show the required irreparable harm from the without-prejudice dismissal. Because certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and jurisdictional prerequisites were not met, the court dismissed the petition without addressing the trial court's legal ruling on presuit notice.

The Second District Court of Appeal dismissed Neelam Uppal’s petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a Pinellas County circuit court decision. The petition named multiple respondents including a condominium association, management companies, mortgage entities, and individual defendants. The court issued a short per curiam order simply stating “Dismissed” without extended reasoning, and three judges concurred. The filing indicates counsel appearances for some respondents and no appearance for others; the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The district court reviewed an appeal by Louis Serball from a Pasco County circuit court decision. After considering the record, the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the simple affirmation, and the appellee did not file an appearance in the appeal. The mandate affirms the trial court's ruling, leaving the circuit court's judgment intact.

The Fourth District reversed a trial court judgment that pierced the corporate veil to hold South Dade Dealership liable for a default judgment against CarX Depot. Line 5 had obtained a default judgment against CarX for unpaid finance-and-insurance (F&I) funds and sought to collect from South Dade as an alleged alter ego or mere continuation. The appellate court found the evidence insufficient to show South Dade dominated CarX or that CarX’s separate corporate existence ceased, and it concluded there was no relay-style continuation into SDT Cars. The case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment for South Dade.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s final judgment and its denial of Robert Vidal’s motion for new trial in a case brought by Barclays Bank Delaware. The appellate court held Vidal failed to preserve the claimed errors, did not provide an adequate record for appellate review, and did not show reversible error. The court relied on precedent requiring an adequate trial record to evaluate factual and legal claims on appeal and therefore found no basis to disturb the lower court’s rulings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a default final judgment entered in a small claims case because the defendant, a self-represented litigant, had notified the trial court before a pretrial conference that she could not attend due to a death in her family. The trial court entered default when she did not appear and later denied her motion to continue. The appellate court found that the denial was an abuse of discretion because the reason was unforeseeable, not suggestive of delay, and the default deprived the defendant of an opportunity to be heard. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a final judgment for the property owner against Berman Construction arising from a fire that destroyed a home during renovation. The trial court had denied the contractor’s requested interrogatory asking whether the contractor was excused from performance under a contract risk-of-loss clause allocating certain perils to the owner. The appeals court held the denial was an abuse of discretion because the affirmative defense tied to section 15.9 was unresolved and the jury should have been able to decide whether the fire was caused by an owner-borne peril, such as arson or other events beyond the contractor’s reasonable control.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the plaintiff's motion to certify that its decision conflicts with other Florida district court opinions. The court expressly certified conflict with three identified decisions from other districts involving Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company and related insurers. The opinion simply identifies the conflicting cases and certifies the question of conflict for resolution by the Florida Supreme Court, noting the matter is not final until disposition of any timely rehearing. No substantive merits ruling is made in this order.

The Third District reversed a trial-court judgment awarding a referring attorney a full contractual referral fee after the client discharged her. The court held that a client may discharge a referring attorney just as any attorney may be discharged, and that the referring attorney is not automatically entitled to the contractual percentage after discharge. Because the referring attorney was discharged, she is limited to a modified quantum meruit recovery for services actually performed prior to discharge and within the scope of the agreement. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine reasonable recovery under those principles.

The Third District reversed a trial-court judgment awarding a referring attorney a full contractual referral fee after the client discharged her before final settlement. The court held a client may discharge a referring attorney just as any other lawyer, and that the referring attorney is not automatically entitled to the agreed contractual percentage once discharged. Instead, where a client discharges counsel without cause the attorney may recover only the reasonable value of services performed before discharge, capped by the contract (modified quantum meruit). The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate an appropriate quantum meruit award limited to pre-discharge, in-scope work.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil dispute between appellant Marylou Elaine Muscillo and appellee Gilles P. Cournoyer. The opinion, issued April 22, 2026, is per curiam and brief, stating only the disposition without published reasoning. The appellate court declined to reverse or remand the lower court's decision, leaving the trial court's ruling in place subject to any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal explanation appears in the opinion.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in a civil appeal brought by Joseph Johel Pineda and others against Ricky Enrique De Cespedes. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, and concluded the lower court's order should stand. The opinion is brief, notes the appeal number and counsel, and states the judgment as "Affirmed." No further reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published docket entry.

The Third District reversed a trial court judgment awarding a referring attorney a full contractual referral fee after the client discharged her. The dispute arose from a wrongful-death case where the client had signed an agreement dividing fees between lead counsel (Podhurst) and referring counsel (Frexes). The appellate court held that a client may discharge a referring attorney and that discharge limits the referring attorney to recovery under a modified quantum meruit for work performed before discharge. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate reasonable compensation limited to services rendered before the January 28, 2019 discharge and within the contract’s scope.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final injunction for protection against domestic violence entered by the circuit court. The appellant, proceeding pro se, claimed his lawyer had documents not presented at the hearing, but he failed to provide a trial transcript or statement of the proceedings. Because the appellate record lacked the testimony and evidence necessary to evaluate factual and legal claims, the court relied on binding precedent that an inadequate record requires affirmance and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a short per curiam decision affirming a nonfinal ruling from the Circuit Court for Brevard County in case number 2019-CA-052645. The appeal was brought by William Ivan (individually and as trustee) against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder (and nominal parties). The appellate court, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No reasoning or detailed findings are included in the document beyond the affirmance and the judges' concurrence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case brought by Si’leshia Green as parent and natural guardian of a minor against the Flagler County School Board. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Flagler County (case 18-2023-CA-99). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The panel of Judges Lambert, Edwards, and Harris concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court ruling in a dispute between policyholder Norma Tamburini and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The opinion is per curiam and contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” indicating the appellate court upheld the circuit court’s judgment. No published reasoning or opinion text appears in the document beyond the affirmation and the panel concurrence, so the court relied on the record and the circuit court’s decision without issuing additional analysis in this entry.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Britne White and appellee Fidus Roofing & Construction, LLC. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, with the panel unanimously concurring and affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended reasoning in the document provided.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil case between borrower Peter A. Liggatt (appellant) and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (appellee). The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision, noting the appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion or reasoning was published in the document; the court simply entered judgment affirming the lower tribunal's decision and the three judges concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Edward and Roberta Kemp from a Lee County circuit court decision involving Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, simply stating the judgment was affirmed. No written opinion with reasoning was provided in the document; the court's summary disposition affirms the lower court's ruling without published explanation. The panel of Judges Stargel, Gannam, and Pratt concurred.

The Third District affirmed the trial court’s grant of D.R. Horton’s motion for relief from a default final judgment. Amerant Bank obtained a clerk’s default and default final judgment after D.R. Horton failed to respond to an amended complaint; D.R. Horton later moved under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), citing calendaring and clerical errors and in-house counsel’s unexpected maternity leave. The trial court found excusable neglect, a meritorious defense (supported by a draft answer), and prompt diligence after discovering the judgment, and therefore vacated the default final judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.