Court Filings

The Fifth District reversed and remanded a Seminole County dissolution case because the trial court summarily denied the former husband’s timely motion to vacate a magistrate’s recommended order solely for not providing all trial transcripts. The appellate court held that the rule requires submission of a record or notice of a partial record but also contemplates substantial compliance and a mandatory hearing on a timely motion to vacate. Because the court cancelled the hearing and denied the motion without assessing substantial compliance or allowing the hearing, the denial was reversible error and the case is sent back for further proceedings.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court order awarding attorney’s fees to Meagan Garmon in a post-dissolution proceeding and also reversed the denial of Jason Garmon’s rehearing request. The appeals court held that the record lacked competent, substantial evidence demonstrating Former Wife’s need for fee awards. Because the trial court’s finding of need was unsupported, the appellate court reversed the fee award, relying on Florida precedent requiring competent evidence of need before awarding attorney’s fees in family-law matters.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Christopher Shootes from a Duval County circuit court domestic relations matter. The appellate court, in a short per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) as the basis for affirmance. No written opinion or extended reasoning was provided; the panel issued a summary affirmance and noted that the decision is not final until any permitted motions for rehearing are resolved.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a dependency case involving children E.W., C.M., and C.C. with J.R.B. as the appellant and the Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office as appellees. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No additional reasoning or changes to the trial court's orders were provided in the published opinion; the panel concurred and the judgment stands as affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment in a divorce case. The court affirmed most issues raised by Husband but reversed two rulings affecting Wife: the denial of retroactive child support and the omission of family photographs and videos from equitable distribution. The court found the record contained uncontroverted evidence of the child’s needs and Husband’s ability to pay, and held that family photographs and videos created or acquired during the marriage are marital assets. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the retroactive support amount and to include and distribute the photographic materials.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a dissolution of marriage judgment after both parties appealed. The appellate court found multiple deficiencies in the trial court’s final judgment — missing asset and liability designations, insufficient factual findings (including valuation of the husband’s law practice, temporary support modification, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees) — but concluded many issues were preserved by a timely motion for rehearing. The court also held the trial court erred in treating a premarital Wells Fargo brokerage account as marital property because the record shows marital funds used to pay a secured margin loan were traceable and did not commingle the account except possibly for a de minimis amount. The matter was remanded for specific findings and correction of errors.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County in a family-law case between Michelle Lany Yoakum (appellant) and William Lee Tschumy, Jr. (appellee). The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's order. The opinion is brief and cites no reasoning or authorities; the court simply affirmed the trial court's ruling and noted the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a Lee County family-law case. Appellant Stacy James (pro se) appealed the circuit court's ruling below; the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating "AFFIRMED." No additional reasoning or discussion is provided in the opinion, and the panel's judges concurred. Both parties appeared pro se in the appeal. The mandate will issue after the rehearing period expires if no timely motion is filed.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Jessica Witvoet from a Manatee County circuit court decision in a family-related case against Steven Witvoet. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published with this order. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed, and the panel of judges concurred.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order entered by the Martin County circuit court in a family-law appeal brought by Maschelle Adrianne Pugh. The opinion is short: the panel reviewed the nonfinal order and, without published opinion or extended discussion, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion notes the disposition is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. The appellant appeared pro se; appellee was represented by counsel.

The court reviewed an appeal by C.H. challenging the actions of the Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program in a dependency matter involving children J.H. and G.B. After considering the record and arguments, the district court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The decision affirms the circuit court's handling of the dependency-related proceedings without further comment, and the panel of three judges concurred. No additional factual findings or legal analysis are included in the published entry.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for Lake County in a family-law dispute between Thomas B. Symonette (appellant) and Mary Symonette n/k/a Mary M. Bradley (appellee). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the circuit court's ruling without published opinion or extended explanation. The decision was entered on April 21, 2026, and the panel of judges concurred. The opinion notes that the decision is not final until disposition of any authorized post-judgment motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family law matter between Micaiah Lufcy (appellant) and Sarah Lufcy (n/k/a Tolfa) (appellee). The appeal arose from proceedings in the Seminole County Circuit Court, and the appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED.' No additional reasoning or factual details are included in the published entry. The panel of judges Wallis, Edwards, and Maciver concurred, and the decision was issued April 21, 2026.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed two nonfinal orders in a family-related proceeding: one denying Elizabeth Collins's motion to disqualify the respondent's trial counsel and a separate order staying the underlying action. The court treated the disqualification matter as an interlocutory appeal under the Florida Rules and affirmed the lower court's denial. The petition challenging the stay order was dismissed. The opinion is short and does not provide detailed reasoning on the merits of the disqualification ruling.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the trial court's judgment in a case where T.M., the father of two minor children, appealed the Department of Children and Families. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The appellate panel (Rowe, Ray, and Long, JJ.) unanimously concurred and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The mandate is subject to any timely motions authorized by Florida appellate rules.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by K.H. concerning a dependency matter involving the child Z.A. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office were appellees. After considering the record and arguments, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower circuit court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning and simply affirms the trial court's decision without published opinion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan relocation case because the trial court granted permanent relocation relief after a hearing that had been noticed only for temporary relief. The appellant had requested both temporary and permanent relief, but the notice for the July 17, 2024 hearing specified only temporary relief. The appellate court held that granting permanent relief without proper notice violated due process. The court affirmed the temporary relief, reversed the permanent-relief portion, and remanded for a proper final hearing on permanent relocation.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family/domestic case (circuit court for Polk County) in which Ernie Blazeff appealed from an order involving Vladimir Ohayon. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED' and citing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No additional factual findings or substantive reasoning are provided in the opinion; the panel unanimously concurred. The clerk notes the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order in a family-law matter between Maschelle Adrianne Pugh (appellant, pro se) and Eric Paul Pugh (appellee). The appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Martin County) was reviewed and the appellate panel issued a per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed.' No additional reasoning or changes to the lower court's judgment were provided in the published entry. The decision will become final after any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan modification case. Ellen-Rose Fitzgerald sought temporary and permanent relief to relocate with her children; the hearing was noticed only for temporary relief. The trial court nonetheless entered an order granting permanent relief. The appellate court held that granting relief beyond the noticed subject violated due process, affirmed the portion granting temporary relief, reversed the portion granting permanent relief, and remanded for a properly noticed final hearing on permanency.