What did the appeals court decide?

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and denied the appellant's request to change that decision.

Who is affected by this decision?

The parties to the appeal—David Laurine (appellant) and the listed appellees including Victoria A. Shupe and the Estate of Robert Laurine—are directly affected.

Does the opinion explain the court's reasoning?

No; the opinion is a short per curiam decision that states only the affirmation and notes concurrence, without detailed reasoning.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Potentially, the appellant could seek review by the Florida Supreme Court, but that would depend on whether a timely petition for review raises a conflict or significant question of law.

Laurine v. Shupe, Laurine-Zimmer

Docket 2D2025-0910

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 2D2025-0910

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County.

Summary

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family members and the estate/trust of Robert Laurine. The appellate court reviewed the record and the parties' arguments and concluded there was no reversible error warranting reversal or modification of the lower court's judgment. The opinion is per curiam, short, and does not elaborate reasoning beyond affirming the trial court's ruling, with all three judges concurring.

Issue Decided

Whether the trial court's judgment contained reversible error as raised by appellant David Laurine.

Court's Reasoning

The opinion is per curiam and does not set out detailed reasoning in the published text; the court reviewed the record and arguments and found no reversible error. Because the appellate panel concluded the trial court's decision should stand, it affirmed the lower court's judgment. No further explanation or legal analysis was provided in this short opinion.

Parties

Appellant: David Laurine
Appellee: Victoria A. Shupe, individually, as Trustee of the Laurine Revocable Trust dated November 14, 2011, and as parent and natural guardian for N.S.S.
Appellee: Jackson R. Shupe
Appellee: Estate of Robert Laurine
Appellee: Annette Laurine-Zimmer
Appellee: Christine Laurine-Bauer
Judge: Sherwood S. Coleman
Judge: Lucas, C.J.
Judge: LaRose, J.
Judge: Morris, J.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-24

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If the appellant wishes to continue, speak with appellate counsel promptly to assess grounds and deadlines for seeking review by the Florida Supreme Court.
2
Obtain mandate and conclude enforcement
Appellees should obtain the appellate mandate and take steps to enforce or implement the affirmed trial-court judgment as appropriate.
3
Review record for preserved issues
Appellant should have counsel review the trial and appellate record to confirm whether any preserved legal issues or procedural errors might justify further review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and denied the appellant's request to change that decision.
Who is affected by this decision?: The parties to the appeal—David Laurine (appellant) and the listed appellees including Victoria A. Shupe and the Estate of Robert Laurine—are directly affected.
Does the opinion explain the court's reasoning?: No; the opinion is a short per curiam decision that states only the affirmation and notes concurrence, without detailed reasoning.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Potentially, the appellant could seek review by the Florida Supreme Court, but that would depend on whether a timely petition for review raises a conflict or significant question of law.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT



                            DAVID LAURINE,

                               Appellant,

                                   v.

                   VICTORIA A. SHUPE, individually,
            as Trustee of the Laurine Revocable Trust dated
               November 14, 2011; VICTORIA A. SHUPE,
             as the parent and natural guardian for N.S.S,
                a minor; ANNETTE LAURINE-ZIMMER;
                  CHRISTINE LAURINE-BAUER; and
                    ESTATE OF ROBERT LAURINE,

                               Appellees.


                           No. 2D2025-0910



                             April 24, 2026

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Sherwood S. Coleman,
Judge.

Ryan G. Nagle of Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for
Appellant.

John A. Schifino of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tampa, for
Appellees Victoria A. Shupe, individually and as Trustee of the Laurine
Revocable Trust dated November 14, 2011, Victoria A. Shupe, as the
parent and natural guardian for N.S.S., a minor, Jackson R. Shupe, and
the Estate of Robert Laurine.
No Appearance for Appellees Annette Laurine-Zimmer and Christine
Laurine-Bauer.

PER CURIAM.

      Affirmed.

LUCAS, C.J., and LaROSE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.



Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.




                                      2