Court Filings

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for an interlocutory appeal filed in case A26I0187 (LC No. 25C11603), captioned Matthew Baratian v. Theresa Strickland. The court reviewed the application and denied it on May 6, 2026. No further explanation or reasoning is included in the order; it is a short ministerial entry certifying the denial and the clerk's certification of the minutes.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a trial court judgment for the Vinings Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) against Earl and Deidre Cotton. The HOA sued over the Cottons’ unapproved construction of an outdoor kitchen and pool pavilion that violated the subdivision’s Declaration and board-adopted design guidelines. A jury awarded the HOA monetary relief for fines and attorney fees, and the trial court later granted a permanent injunction requiring removal of the detached structure. The court held the Declaration plainly allowed the HOA to adopt enforceable design guidelines, rejected the Cottons’ procedural and evidentiary challenges, and found no abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that evidence of a plaintiff’s future medical expenses is inadmissible in a personal-injury trial against a tortfeasor if those projected expenses fall within the plaintiff’s personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, even when the PIP benefits are provided through the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (UCJF/NJPLIGA). The Court found that the No-Fault Act’s inadmissibility provision (N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12) applies to UCJF PIP benefits and bars evidence of benefits that are "collectible or paid." Because the plaintiff’s projected future medical costs did not exhaust her $250,000 PIP limit, they were "collectible" and therefore inadmissible; the Appellate Division’s modification of the judgment was affirmed.

The First District reversed a county court order that had dismissed a contractor’s suit to collect payment under an assignment of benefits (AOB) from an insurer for mold testing and remediation after Hurricane Sally. The court reviewed the AOB and a same-date invoice and concluded they satisfied Florida Statute § 627.7152’s written and itemized-per-unit estimate requirements. Because the documents, viewed together, described the services and costs sufficiently and there was no evidence of multiple dwelling units, the AOB was valid and the contractor may proceed with its claim on remand.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Shirley Mears Davis's original petition for a writ of prohibition. The court held that the petition could not proceed because a criminal defendant generally may not proceed pro se while represented by counsel, citing Logan v. State. The dismissal was per curiam, with concurrence from the three judges, and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely motion under the appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Michael Ruiz’s petition for a writ of certiorari against the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate because the petition was filed after the deadline. The court relied on its prior decision in Adams v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission to support dismissal for untimeliness. The opinion is per curiam and unanimous, and it notes the judgment is not final until any timely motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal dismissed Timothy A. Parker's appeal as moot. Parker sought relief (jail credit against a sentence) but completed the sentence while the appeal was pending, so there is no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve. The panel cited Toomer v. State, which holds that an appeal seeking jail credit may be dismissed as moot when the sentence is fully served during the appeal. The dismissal was per curiam and the opinion was not final until any timely motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Tyi DeJesus Nettles. The court denied the petition to the extent it alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and dismissed the petition in all other respects. The court cited Baker v. State (2004) in its disposition and noted the opinion is nonfinal pending any timely motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. No further explanation of facts or merits appears in the short opinion.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed a final summary judgment of foreclosure that also reestablished a lost note, reformed a loan modification to add the wife’s signature, and awarded attorney’s fees. The court held that there was a genuine factual dispute over whether the wife intended to sign the modification, so reformation by summary judgment was improper. The court also found that attorney’s fees required an evidentiary hearing and reversed that award. All other challenges were either unpreserved or meritless, so the remainder of the trial court’s order was affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The First District Court of Appeal reversed a workers’ compensation dismissal and set aside an amended final compensation order that had deemed Brian Leighton’s petition for benefits untimely under Florida law. The court held that, under its recent decision in Estes, the one-year tolling provision in section 440.19(2) suspends (stops) the two-year limitations clock that begins under section 440.19(1) until one year after the last furnished remedial care. Because Claimant’s last authorized medical visit was August 2, 2022, the limitations clock did not begin to run until August 2023, making the March 1, 2024 petition timely.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil appeal brought by Selamawit Tewolde and Tesgai Fissha against Professional Security Consultants, Brandon Shopping Center Partners, Ltd., and Westfield Property Management, LLC. The panel issued a brief per curiam decision on May 6, 2026, concluding the appellants’ challenge lacked merit and therefore the lower court's ruling stands. No extended opinion or new legal rule was announced; the court unanimously affirmed without published opinion and the decision may be revised before official publication.

The State appealed a county court decision in Sarasota County involving defendant Bryan Leonard Redding, Jr. The District Court of Appeal reviewed the matter and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no extended reasoning in the published text, and simply affirms the county court's decision. All three panel judges concurred. No further elaboration or factual background is provided in the opinion as presented.

The State appealed an order suppressing evidence obtained after a traffic stop of Christopher Brady, who was facing a violation-of-probation proceeding. The Second District concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court suppressed evidence but did not dismiss the affidavit charging the violation of probation, and orders suppressing evidence in a probation-revocation context are nonfinal and not appealable under the rules cited. The court dismissed the appeal, explaining that suppression in a violation-of-probation proceeding is not a suppression "before trial" subject to interlocutory State appeal and that judicial labor remains because the affidavit was not dismissed.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment in a criminal appeal. The appellate panel, consisting of three judges, reviewed the appeal from the Sarasota County Circuit Court and concluded that the trial court's decision should be upheld. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition "Affirmed." The decision is subject to revision prior to official publication.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Kenneth James Kendrick from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County and, after considering the record, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion was delivered per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida on May 6, 2026, and no written opinion explaining the reasoning was published with the order. The appellate panel consisting of Judges Villanti, Khouzam, and Labrit concurred. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Jason Friend from a Pasco County circuit court decision brought by Shawnee Friend individually and on behalf of C.F. The Second District issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment. The court provided no published reasoning in this short entry and the panel concurred, leaving the trial court's ruling in place without change.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed an appeal by Deshaunte Jabar Delancy from a Sarasota County circuit court criminal matter. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning is included in the document; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as reviewed under the applicable rule for appeals from final judgments in criminal cases.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Jermaine Roshell Conaway from a Manatee County circuit court decision and summarily affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is per curiam, issued May 6, 2026, and the panel (Silberman, Villanti, and Atkinson, JJ.) concurred. No written opinion or extended reasoning appears in the provided text beyond the single-word disposition "Affirmed." The judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as decided below.

The State appealed a county court order that granted Ariel Paul’s motions to suppress evidence in a DUI case after the prosecution failed to produce three subpoenaed officers for a suppression hearing. At the first hearing one officer testified and the court continued the matter, instructing the remaining officers to appear; the State did not contact those officers and they did not appear at the continued hearing. The trial court denied the State’s request for further continuance and granted suppression. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion because the State failed to show due diligence in securing the witnesses.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a probate court order revoking a 2010 will executed by Isabel Camacho. The probate court had concluded the will failed as a self-proving instrument because the notary affidavit did not comply with Florida notary statutes, so the will’s proponent (the decedent’s son Pedro Camacho) bore the burden to prove formal execution at trial. The proponent presented only the drafting attorney whose faded memory the trial court found unreliable. Because the proponent failed to meet his burden, the appellate court affirmed the revocation.

The Third District Court of Appeal dismissed J.L.'s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion in limine to exclude certain records. The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner did not show irreparable harm that could not be remedied on appeal from a final judgment. The court relied on precedent holding that rulings on motions in limine that exclude or admit evidence ordinarily can be corrected on direct appeal, so interlocutory certiorari review is inappropriate absent a showing of irreparable harm.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's termination of the guardianship of the property for ward Milton Wallace under Florida Probate Rule 5.680. Appellant Hardy Wallace argued co-guardians Mark Wallace and Angel Insua misrepresented the estate had no assets and that the guardianship was prematurely ended. The appellate court concluded Hardy failed to provide the trial hearing transcript, preventing review of factual findings, and applied the presumption that the trial court's factual determinations were correct. Because guardianship decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the court affirmed.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary denial of Enrique Jesus Someillan’s postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Someillan filed the motion more than 30 years after his judgment and sentence became final and failed to plead any of the limited exceptions to Florida’s two-year filing deadline. The court noted the State demonstrated prejudice from the delay: the trial lawyer is deceased, investigative files were destroyed, and key witnesses are unavailable, and Someillan already benefited from his plea terms. Because the motion was untimely and barred, the denial was affirmed.

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed Eduardo Alfredo Medrano-Chavez’s convictions and sentences for sexual activity with a child by a person in familial or custodial authority and lewd and lascivious molestation, and remanded for a new trial. The court held the trial judge abused discretion by allowing a detective to testify that, based on his experience, the alleged victim’s demeanor in an out-of-court interview seemed “genuine,” which impermissibly bolstered her credibility. Because the victim’s credibility was central and there was no physical corroboration, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that vacated a default and dismissed Wells Fargo’s complaint against Rio Poco Homeowners’ Association. The trial court had relied on materials outside the complaint to find Wells Fargo failed to comply with Florida’s presuit mediation service requirements under section 720.311, but the appellate court held dismissal was improper because Wells Fargo pleaded that all conditions precedent had been performed or waived and the complaint’s allegations of waiver were not contradicted by the complaint’s four corners. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court order that awarded the father attorney’s fees as sanctions against the mother in a paternity case. The trial court granted the mother’s counsel leave to withdraw and conditioned a continuance on the mother paying the father’s fees for attending the hearing. The appellate court held the mother was not given notice that sanctions would be considered nor an opportunity to present evidence, violating due process, and therefore the sanctions award must be reversed. Because that reversal resolves the main issue, the court did not reach the remaining arguments.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a homeowner plaintiffs’ suit challenging a neighbor’s parked RV. The appellants sued under Florida Statute section 720.305, but the court concluded their claimed injury was one to the homeowners association as a whole, not a personal injury. Because the claim was derivative in nature, the appellants were required to satisfy the pre-suit requirements of section 617.07401 for derivative actions and failed to do so. The appellate court therefore affirmed without addressing the merits of the RV dispute.

The appellate court reviewed portions of a circuit court order in a trust dispute between the parents (appellants) and the trustee (appellee) over expenditures for a disabled adult beneficiary. The court dismissed the appeal insofar as the parents sought review of compensation for their caregiving because the trial court’s order showed judicial labor on that issue had not concluded. For the remaining issues, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings: sale of a residential condominium, reimbursement for a truck purchase, the parties’ agreement to use a “Dynamic Dividend Strategy” (but not a specific implementation option), and the sale of an office condominium did not violate due process.

The appellate court reviewed a dispute over whether a Letter of Intent and Shareholders’ Agreement created an enforceable commission agreement for plaintiff Henry McDowell after he transferred most of his company to Roger Moore and Jeff Garcia and Nautical Ventures South, Inc. The court held that paragraph 13 of the Letter of Intent, which left commission terms for future negotiation, was an unenforceable agreement to agree. It affirmed directed verdicts for Moore and Garcia on contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims, reversed the denial of a directed verdict for NVS, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for NVS.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-jury foreclosure judgment entered for The Bank of New York Mellon against Carlos Pantoja. The homeowner appealed solely because the lender failed to file its trial exhibits with the clerk after a hybrid (Zoom/in-person) trial, although the judge admitted and reviewed the exhibits during trial and the homeowner never objected then. The court held that the mere failure to file admitted exhibits is a clerical defect, not an independent basis for reversal, and explained that post-trial motions or motions to correct the record are the correct remedies to preserve review.