Court Filings

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 affirmed the trial court's revocation of Jason Brandon Mervil's probation. The court held that the evidence supporting revocation was sufficient because the hearsay presented at the probation revocation hearing was corroborated by non-hearsay evidence and an experienced officer's opinion on identification was permissible. The panel relied on prior Florida decisions establishing that hearsay may be used at revocation hearings only when supported by non-hearsay proof and that trained officers may opine about controlled substances. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Henry Wilson’s convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary of a conveyance while armed, and resisting an officer without violence. The court held that pretrial exclusion of public statements by Governor DeSantis and the county sheriff about the right to bear arms and tough-on-crime rhetoric was not an abuse of discretion because those generalized statements were not relevant to Wilson’s subjective belief or the objective reasonableness required by Florida’s defense-of-property statute. The court did remand for the trial court to enter separate written sentences for each count to conform to its oral pronouncements.

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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in a criminal prosecution of Luis Enrique Juarbe. The appellate panel concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other-act evidence under Florida's child-molestation evidence statute and related precedent, and that the trial court's handling of evidentiary and mistrial issues was within its broad discretion. The court relied on statutory language and controlling case law addressing admissibility, relevance, similarity, remoteness, and the doctrine of opening the door to support its decision to affirm.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant George Walton’s criminal conviction. The court reviewed whether the evidence was legally sufficient and applied the established standard: viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, asking whether a rational factfinder could have found the crime’s elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing Florida precedent, the panel concluded the State presented competent, substantial evidence to support the verdict and denied Walton’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

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 Fifth District reversed the circuit court’s summary denial of ground four of Christopher Owens’s Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and remanded for further proceedings. Owens had alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor comments during voir dire that arguably commented on his constitutional right to remain silent. The panel found the record attached below still lacked sufficient context to evaluate prejudice under Strickland and therefore did not conclusively refute Owens’s claim, so the court ordered either an evidentiary hearing or additional records be attached to the denial 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 Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a criminal postconviction appeal brought by Ira Lee Pickett. The appeal was filed under the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure governing appeals in criminal cases from nonfinal orders or specified postconviction rulings. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, summarily rejecting Pickett's challenge and leaving the lower court's ruling intact. No extended opinion, reasoning, or separate opinions were published with the affirmation.

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 reviewed an appeal by Zakariya Daud Clarke from the denial of a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (postconviction relief) in the Circuit Court for Clay County. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is brief and does not include detailed reasoning in the published entry; the appellate panel unanimously concurred and issued the decision on April 21, 2026.

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 reviewed Gary W. Lucas, Jr.'s appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The panel issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, and concluded the appeal lacked merit, affirming the judgment below. No published opinion or extended reasoning accompanied the single-line disposition; the court simply announced AFFIRMED and recorded concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post‑opinion motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Carl Joseph Johnson's appeal from Seminole County circuit court criminal proceedings and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 21, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended explanation or reasoning, and the panel (Chief Judge Jay and Judges Eisnaugle and Boatwright) issued a unanimous affirmance. The mandate is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case of Brent Paul Venrooy v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel of judges (Lambert, Soud, Boatwright) concurred. The decision notes the case came from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County and that any timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules may still be filed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Viswanauth Somwaru's appeal from the trial court's denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule 3.850. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued a short, per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, holding that the lower court's ruling would be affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published entry; it simply affirms the circuit court's disposition and notes the panel members who concurred.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Trevorisse Thomas from the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion in Duval County. The court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No written opinion was provided and the state did not file an appearance. The panel unanimously concurred, and the decision is subject to any timely motion for rehearing or certification under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Timothy Barrett, Sr.'s appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion. The court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding the appeal should be affirmed. No reasons are provided in the published entry; the panel judgment affirms the circuit court's ruling, and judges Jay, Edwards, and Kilbane concurred. The decision is subject to timely motion for rehearing or certification under the Florida appellate rules.

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 affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Matthew Lucas Wade. The appeal arose from a conviction in Citrus County circuit court and was argued by Wade's public defenders against the State. The per curiam opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the court's conclusion to affirm. All three panel judges concurred and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment motions are resolved.