Court Filings

The Court of Appeals reversed a default judgment against CE Acquisition, LLC (CEA) in a construction payment dispute and remanded for a new trial. On-Site Construction obtained a default judgment after CEA and a co-defendant failed to answer suit seeking payment and lien foreclosure. CEA moved for a new trial, supported by affidavits saying it never received the petition and asserting meritorious defenses and an offer to pay plaintiff’s fees. The court found CEA met the three Craddock factors (mistake, meritorious defense, no undue prejudice) and held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the new-trial motion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Mark David Kaufman from a final decision of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County involving Case No. 062016DR013212AXXXCE. Both parties appeared pro se. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry; it notes concurrence by all three judges and that the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by H. James Herborn, III, from a Broward County circuit court decision in a civil case against Adam Kanter. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion announcing its decision to affirm the lower court's judgment. All three judges concurred. The opinion is brief and contains no extended reasoning; it simply affirms and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by tenant Travis Wells from a Seminole County Court decision involving Sanford Portfolio 460 DE, LLC (d/b/a Stoneridge Pointe Apartments). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam disposition, affirmed the lower court's judgment and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No written opinion or reasoning beyond the affirmation was provided; the decision was issued April 30, 2026, and the panel concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely authorized motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Aaron Rogers from a Volusia County circuit court judgment in case number 2018-030061-FMCI. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam order on April 30, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. No opinion or written reasons accompanied the disposition in the published entry, and the appellee did not file an appearance. The judgment stands affirmed, subject to any timely, authorized post-decision motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Robin Cornelison from a decision of the Circuit Court of Escambia County against Enterprise Leasing Company South Central, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Car Sales. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026 and affirmed the lower court's decision. No opinion text or reasoning beyond the single-word disposition was included in the published entry; the court simply announced 'AFFIRMED' and the three judges concurred.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Yosbani Jose Hernandez and appellee law firm Shutts & Bowen LLP. The appeal (No. 4D2025-1642) came from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without published opinion, adopting the lower court's disposition and leaving the case concluded unless a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between appellant Richard Block and appellee Midwest One Bank. The appeal, taken from an order in Palm Beach County Circuit Court (case no. 502024CA008105XXXAMB), was argued pro se by Block; Midwest One Bank was represented by counsel. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating simply: Affirmed. No separate written opinion, legal analysis, or change in the lower court's judgment was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's nonfinal orders in a consolidated appeal brought by LP Glass Technologies, Inc. against Barron Development Corporation. The appellate panel, in a brief per curiam decision, concluded that the lower court's rulings should stand and did not provide extended reasoning in the published entry. The opinion affirms the challenged orders and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed two consolidated nonfinal circuit court orders in a civil dispute between LP Glass Technologies, Inc. (appellant) and Barron Development Corporation (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no substantive reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the appellate disposition as affirmed, with concurrence by all three judges. The decision is not final pending any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal detail was provided in the opinion itself.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a case in which Kevin Bain, representing himself, appealed a decision involving Aaron Bryan. The appeal arose from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating "Affirmed" without published reasoning. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No further factual or legal detail is provided in the opinion.

The District Court of Appeal for Florida's Fourth District affirmed a nonfinal county court order in an appeal filed by George Lambro in a case against Eduardo Lautieri. The opinion is short: the panel issued a per curiam affirmance without published reasoning. The decision was entered on April 30, 2026, and the judgment is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. Lambro appeared pro se; appellee was represented by counsel.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, in a dispute between Carlos De La Paz Bernitt (appellant, proceeding pro se from Ecuador) and U.S. Bank National Association as trustee (appellee). The panel issued a short per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed' and noting the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No substantive reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bidbumpers, LLC and Christian C. Carmona from a Broward County Court decision involving Lobel Financial Corp. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or change to the trial court's disposition was published; the mandate is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal circuit-court order in a civil dispute between A&J Capital Inc. (appellant) and HC CBA, LLC (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 30, 2026, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's nonfinal order, leaving any further relief dependent on timely post-opinion motions. The opinion is not final until resolution of any timely motion for rehearing.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Wayne Bridges’s application for discretionary review of a DeKalb County Magistrate Court dispossessory judgment because the court lacked jurisdiction. Georgia law requires that appeals from magistrate court dispossessory judgments be filed within seven days; Bridges filed his application 33 days after the magistrate court’s March 6, 2026 judgment. Because the statutory appeal period expired, the Court declined to transfer the matter to the state or superior court and dismissed the application as untimely.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Madelene Kinsler’s direct appeal from a superior court judgment favoring BW Links Owner, LLC in a dispossessory proceeding because Kinsler did not follow the mandatory discretionary-appeal procedure for superior-court reviews of magistrate-court orders. The court explained that under Georgia law an application for discretionary appeal is required and that compliance is jurisdictional, so the Court of Appeals lacked authority to consider the merits and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Keola Pasteure’s appeal of a trial-court summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company because the notice of appeal was filed more than eight months after the July 2025 order. Under Georgia law, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order. Because Pasteure did not file within that statutory period, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the defendants' direct appeal in a dispossessory (eviction) matter for lack of jurisdiction. Realistry Acquisitions obtained de novo judgment and a writ of possession in superior court after the magistrate court dismissed the case. The defendants filed post-judgment motions that were denied, then filed a notice of appeal 15 days after entry of the superior court judgment. The Court of Appeals found the appeal defective because the defendants should have used discretionary-appeal procedures for de novo superior-court review and because the notice of appeal was untimely under the seven-day deadline for dispossessory appeals.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Elizabeth Jordan’s pro se appeal from a September 11, 2025 trial-court order concerning contempt and attorney-fee rulings because Jordan was still represented by counsel when she filed her notice of appeal. The court explained that a litigant cannot both proceed pro se and be represented by an attorney, and that a counsel withdrawal must be ordered by the trial court before a pro se filing can be effective. Because Jordan’s pro se notice of appeal was therefore a nullity, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the appellant's motion to withdraw the appeal in case A26A0693, Ralph Van Pelt, Jr. v. Community and Southern Bank (successor to First National Bank of Georgia). The court released jurisdiction back to the trial court upon issuance of the order. The decision is administrative and dispositional: the appeal was terminated at the appellant's request and control over the case returned to the lower court.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Sonya Chandler Anderson's appeal for failure to prosecute. The appellant did not comply with the Court's notice of docketing or Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) requiring an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days of docketing, nor with a subsequent order to file those documents by April 27, 2026. Because the required filings were not received, the court deemed the appeal abandoned and ordered it dismissed under applicable Court of Appeals rules.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Sandra Capouch’s appeal from a trial court order that granted defendants’ motion to open default and motion to dismiss. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Capouch filed her notice of appeal 34 days after the trial court’s October 29, 2025 order, but Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days. The court relied on the filing deadline statute and precedent holding timely filing is an absolute jurisdictional requirement, and it accepted the clerk’s endorsement as the operative filing date.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the appellant Hardy Foods, LLC's motion to withdraw its appeal in the case against Mackenzie Morgan. The court released jurisdiction back to the trial court effective upon receipt of the order, meaning the appellate matter is terminated and further proceedings will occur in the trial court. The decision is procedural: the court accepted the voluntary withdrawal and took no action on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the City of Sandy Springs' motion to withdraw its appeal in the case against the City of Atlanta. By allowing withdrawal, the Court released jurisdiction back to the trial court effective upon receipt of this order. The document is a short procedural court order effectuating the appellant's request rather than a merits decision.

The First District Court of Appeals dismissed Charles Greenlee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Greenlee, a pro se incarcerated litigant, had sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) from a March 3, 2025 trial-court dismissal of his claims against Walmart, arguing his amended complaint should have been deemed filed earlier under the prison-mailbox rule. The appeals court held the March 3 dismissal was not a final order because it left claims against municipal defendants pending and did not include a Civ.R. 54(B)/54(B)/no-just-reason-for-delay certification; therefore the trial court’s April 24 denial of his motion was not appealable.

The Appellate Division reviewed consolidated appeals by Allstate and GEICO from interlocutory orders that allowed plaintiffs to pursue common-law bad faith and statutory Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) claims while their underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage disputes remained unresolved. Allstate's appeal was dismissed as moot after the UIM coverage dispute was resolved. As to GEICO, the court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying GEICO's request to sever and stay discovery on plaintiff Cirelli's bad faith and IFCA claims until the UIM coverage dispute was resolved, because proceeding with expansive bad-faith discovery prematurely would be inefficient and potentially prejudicial. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.

The Appellate Division reviewed a nonjury trial judgment in a contract and related action arising from the 2016 sale of a gas station business. The court modified the trial judgment to declare that plaintiff Yong Xu does not own an interest in defendant 401 Foster Gasoline, Inc., and awarded Xu $60,625.63 on his conversion claim against co-defendant Xiao Yan Wang for withdrawing funds from a joint bank account. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The court relied on the asset purchase agreement's clear written terms and the parol evidence rule to reject oral-contract and fraud claims, but found evidence supported Xu's conversion claim against Wang as to funds taken beyond her one-half share of the joint account.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the Supreme Court and granted defendant Joan Crema-Samalya's pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint against her. The plaintiff sued Crema-Samalya after property restoration work allegedly performed by Five Boro Fire Restoration was found deficient, asserting claims for violation of General Business Law § 349 and fraud. The appellate court held the complaint failed to plead any materially misleading consumer-oriented conduct under GBL § 349 and did not plead fraud with the required particularity, so dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) was appropriate.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and to dismiss the defendants' comparative negligence defenses in a rear-end collision case. The plaintiff had asserted his vehicle was stopped for about 10 seconds at a red light when the defendants' vehicle struck him from behind. The court found that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a presumption of negligence by the rear driver, and the defendants failed to present admissible evidence of a non-negligent explanation (such as an unanticipated brake failure), so the plaintiff met his prima facie burden.