Shawn Michael Simmerer and Charlee McPherson v. Richard R. Zaziski
Docket 6D2024-1242
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 6D2024-1242
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Osceola County (Tom Young, Judge).
Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed two consolidated appeals from a circuit court order in Osceola County. The appellants, Shawn Michael Simmerer and Charlee McPherson, appearing pro se, sought reversal of the lower court's decision. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the trial court's ruling without published opinion or extended discussion. The panel (Stargel, White, and Brownlee, JJ.) concurred and the opinion notes the time for filing a motion for rehearing has not yet expired.
Issue Decided
- Whether the circuit court's order should be reversed on appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Court's Reasoning
The court issued a per curiam affirmance without a published opinion, indicating the panel found no reversible error in the circuit court's decision. Because the opinion contains no extended analysis, the affirmance rests on the appellate court's conclusion that the lower court's ruling was legally correct or not subject to reversal on the record presented. The concurrence of all three judges signals unanimous agreement with that disposition.
Parties
- Appellant
- Shawn Michael Simmerer
- Appellant
- Charlee McPherson
- Appellee
- Richard R. Zaziski
- Judge
- Tom Young
- Attorney
- Dane E. Leitner
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-28
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider motion for rehearing
Appellants should decide promptly whether to file a motion for rehearing in the district court within the time allowed under Florida appellate rules.
- 2
Consult counsel about further review
If a rehearing is denied or not filed, the appellants may consult an attorney to evaluate whether discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court is available and advisable.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling and did not provide a published opinion explaining its reasoning.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision affects the appellants, Shawn Michael Simmerer and Charlee McPherson, and the appellee, Richard R. Zaziski, as it leaves the circuit court's order in place.
- Can the appellants seek further review?
- The opinion notes the time to file a motion for rehearing has not expired; additionally, parties may consider seeking discretionary review by a higher court if statutory criteria are met.
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
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case Nos. 6D2024-1242, 6D24-0691
CONSOLIDATED
Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CA-003975
_____________________________
SHAWN MICHAEL SIMMERER and CHARLEE MCPHERSON,
Appellants,
v.
RICHARD R. ZAZISKI,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Osceola County.
Tom Young, Judge.
April 28, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL, WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.
Shawn Michael Simmerer and Charlee McPherson, Orlando, pro se.
Dane E. Leitner, of GrayRobinson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED