text:
    Cristiano MARINARI, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. ALAUSA, LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0648
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 24, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 09-79833

Dismissed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Michael GLOVASKI, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Cheryl PUNK, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0765
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-15601

Dismissed.


text:
    Soheila AJABSHIR, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. NARANJA LAKES CONDOMINIUM NO. FIVE, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1840
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 25, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-3755

Dismissed.


text:
    Leo (Lee) AMATO, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D 17-1868
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 23, 2017
   L.T, NO.: 15-4806

Dismissed.


text:
    Raul C. ARRASTIA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PREMIER COLLISION, INC., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D16-2062
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 31, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 12-28113

Dismissed.


text:
    KLEAN POWER ELECTRIC INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D16-2342
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 01, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 09-36382

Dismissed.


text:
    1017 LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Sophia KUSHNER, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D16-2924
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-10150

Dismissed.


text:
    Bradley NICHOLSON and Linda Nicholson, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Adam L. SINGER and Ernesto J. Mendoza, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0796
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 31, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 11-32833

Dismissed.


text:
    MDZIG, LLC, and Sara Arbel, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. WHIP-IT INVENTIONS, INC., etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1171
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-3127

Dismissed,


text:
    LBMP HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BIARRITZ GH, LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1813
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 30, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-9357

Dismissed.


text:
    Adolfo PEREZ, Jr., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1914
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 24, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 09-30724 -

Dismissed.


text:
    James MURPHY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1948
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 31, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 05-1160

Dismissed.


text:
    Carrie LANDESS, M.D., P.A., etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0041
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16^996

Dismissed.


text:
    CASTLE BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. ASPEN SHACKLETON II LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0320
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 01, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-15155

Dismissed.


text:
    Michael J. JOHNSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Deborah A. JOHNSON, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0602
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 23, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-22645

Dismissed.


text:
    BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. INDUSTRIAL BANK, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1601
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 30, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-1982

Dismissed.


text:
    LENOX 14730, LLC, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D16-2770
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-6399

Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Judith STEIN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Alan ELLIS, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0426
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 11, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-14795

Dismissed.


text:
    Olga Elena ESCOBAR, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0769
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-16570

Dismissed.


text:
    Dora ESCOBEDO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0770
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO,: 13-29185

Dismissed.


text:
    Lawrence HUTT and Gilmycel Hutt, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0775
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-20986

Dismissed.


text:
    David KRAUS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0777
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-3394

Dismissed.


text:
    Gudrun TRIFUNOVICH and Peter Trifunovich, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0778
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-37463

Dismissed.


text:
    Frank ZIMMERMAN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0781
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-29196

Dismissed.


text:
    David KRAUS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0782
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-2932

Dismissed.


text:
    Aglaia VLANTES, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0784
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-20985

Dismissed.


text:
    Cosme SALAS and Yvette Salas, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0786
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-24507

Dismissed.


text:
    Blanca SCHULZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0836.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 11, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 12-41027

Dismissed.


text:
    Kandy RODRIGUEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Frank LOPEZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0950
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 16, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-22538

Denied.


text:
    Carlos PEREZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas ADAMS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1265
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 11, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-14611

Dismissed.


text:
    Meyer KRIGSFELD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Perla KRIGSFELD, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1539
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 10, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-7304

Denied.

Remanded.


text:
    Antonious WILDER aka Larry Dawkins, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1620
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 95-6765

Dismissed.


text:
    Robert FEINSCHREIBER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PESCANOVA, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0719
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-4293

Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Titus L. HENLEY, Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1410
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-24884

Denied.


text:
    Rodney Savel MUMFORD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1490
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 04, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 99-43330

Dismissed.


text:
    Beverly JENKINS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. LP HOMESTEAD, LLC, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1586
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 03, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-24160

Forma pauperis is granted.

Granted.

Denied.


text:
    Cedric BROWNLEE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1649
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 09-10800, 09-10802

Dismiss.


text:
    Shannon M. ABBEY, Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. Kevin M. ABBEY, Appellee(s)/respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1665
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 17-16

Denied.


text:
    Melanie ROJAS, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., v. Lucy F. Roque, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1708
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 16, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-20407

Dismissed.


text:
    Oliver THOMAS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1712
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 02, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 04-22272 ■

Dismissed.


text:
    Michael WARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1713
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 03, 2017
   L.T. NO.: OS-1287

Denied.


text:
    O’Donahue MAIRS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1720
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 02, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 08-30847, 09-9868

Denied.


text:
    Charles Lee SMITH, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1732
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T, NO.: 84-20172

Denied.


text:
    Ronnie FRALEY, Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1756
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 91-2275

Denied.


text:
    Randall WILSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1770
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 09, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 96-11699 96-5315

Dismiss.


text:
    Felix I. GASPARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1808
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 09, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 10-53090

Denied.


text:
    Cedric BROWNLEE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0176
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 09-10800, 09-10802

Deny.


text:
    George I. ELSO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Alyssa ELSO, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0236
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 11, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 12-43649

Dismissed.


text:
    Alix ACCIME, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Ludmilla DOMOND, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0453
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 11, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 11-3408

Dismissed.


text:
    DAVID KRAUS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0779
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-3397

Dismissed.


text:
    Geraldine VERGARA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SHELBORNE OCEAN BEACH HOTEL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0783
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-30561

Dismissed.


text:
    Salvador VELOSO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Scott VAN RIXELL, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1593
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-22608

Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony PARKS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PENNYMAC CORP., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0406
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 13-10561

Dismissed.


text:
    Gilbert ANDRADE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1322
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 15-12062

Dismissed.


text:
    Victor RODRIGUEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.; 3D17-1403
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 08, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 16-7596

Dismissed.


text:
    Kevin BRANTLEY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1744
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 09, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 12-21188 .

Denied.


text:
    Felipe D. BORGES, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0467
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 11, 2017
   L.T. NO.: 14-18536

Dismissed.


text:
    Ivan TATE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D15-2087
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [ July 6, 2017 ]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dan L. Vaughn,' Judge; L.T. Case No. 562012CF002085'.

Affirmed.


text:
    Mark WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2460
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 12, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court: for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case' No. 15007312 CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Elie RAPHAEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2915
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 19, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14 13281CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Mark ROMAN, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2005-AR6 and Lacho & Franz, LLC, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-120
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 19, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm ■ Beach County; Richard Oftedal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2013CA010589XXXXMB.

Affirmed.


text:
    Diane M. DEGEORGE and Michael K. DeGeorge, Appellants, v. ALWAYS TRAVEL WITH US, INC., d/b/a Vacation Village Voyages, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4354
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 26, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16-001601.

Affirmed.


text:
    James A. HERB, Appellant, v. Donald J. TRUMP, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-555
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jaimie R. Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017MH000276XXXXSB.

Affirmed.


text:
    ROOF DEPOT USA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v. Anne M. CHARLES, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-556
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 26, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara Anne McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE15-000816.

Affirmed.


text:
    Ernest B. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2085
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2002CF005674A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Gerry PARISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2550
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-18372CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Vernon WADSWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2587
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 312012CF001528A and 312012CF001551A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Angel MASSAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2731
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562004CF002467B.

Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2732
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 26, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Anne Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 90-18200CF10A;

Affirmed.


text:
    Gerald TELFORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2746
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 26, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L, Backman, Judge;. L.T. Case No. 05-004072 CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Elias ROSADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2748
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-13245 CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Zachary PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2864
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 26, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Lawrence M. Miman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432005CF001793A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory BLUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2258
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 2, 2017
   Appeal of order denying rule' 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T, Case No, 12-16811CF10A,

Affirmed.


text:
    Travis JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2292
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit. Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-1554CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Watson MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2527
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Laurie E. Buchanan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472006CF000469A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Raphael ACKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2660
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502007CF010377A.

Affirmed.


text:
    John Anthony WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2729
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562012CF002417A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy SARANIE, Appellant, v. PROF-2013 LEGAL TRUST, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Legal Title Trustee, et al., Appellees.
    No. 4D16-3715
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 2, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Kathleen D. Ireland, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 10040340 (11).

Affirmed.


text:
    Damion N. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2671
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502011CF002358A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Braxton MEDLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-0073
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the . Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2011CF011577AXX.

Affirmed.


text:
    Courtnay MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF Mary MONTGOMERY, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1369
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm ■ Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016GA000001XXXXNB.

Affirmed.


text:
    Luis Alberto MONTOYA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2112
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 311991CF000010A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Demetrius CAREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2931
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Usan, Judge; L;T. Case No. 06-1080CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph LAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D16-1936, 4D16-2722, 4D16-3113 and 4D16-3114
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 56-2014-CF-002342A, 56-2014-CF-0Ó2873A, 56-2015-CF-001082A, 43-2014-CF-001254A, and 43-2014-CF-001338A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Robert FLOUNOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3844
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jack S. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 60-2014-CF-001174-AXXX-MB,

Affirmed.


text:
    R.M., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4381
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 9, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Stacy M. Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16000866 DLA.

Affirmed.


text:
    Ercely Wayne COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-782
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T, Case No. 90-5417 CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Hicham ISSA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D17-1023 4D17-1024
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 9, 2017
   Consolidated, appeals of - orders denying rule 3.850 motions from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Bro-ward County; Michael A. Usan, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 13-006553CF10A and 14-016923CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Michael HENRY, Appellant, v. Cheyenne M. HENRY, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1789
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; 2016DR006077. O ⅞ o SO t" ⅛

Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmy BENIQUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2227
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9 2017]
   . Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Anne Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15 12667CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Michael SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2862
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502006CF003566A.

Affirmed.


text:
    D.M., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3370
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kathleen J. Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2014-CJ-003349A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Mark D. MCWILLIAMS a/k/a Mark McWilliams, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK, as Successor to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Holders of Sami II 2006-ARI, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-ARI, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3498
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barry J. Stone, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 08-32838 (08).

Affirmed.


text:
    Doug GUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3532
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-003986CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Thomas D. STEELE and Marina Steele, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3920
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 16, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; F. Shields McManus, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-1372 CA.

Affirmed.


text:
    Miguel INTERIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3929
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562013CF002472A.

Affirmed.


text:
    CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Appellant, v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-3953
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Administrative Hearing, SFWMD # 2016-057DAO-ERP.

Affirmed.


text:
    HOBBS ARCHITECTURAL FOUNTAINS, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. STELLAR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a Critical Build, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3973
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 16, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE14010796 (25).

Affirmed.


text:
    Lawrence REESE and Deborah Rosier, Appellants, v. BROWARD COLLEGE, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4000
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John B. Bowman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-14-014176 and CACE-14-014422.

Affirmed.


text:
    Charlotte Renee LOVELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4113
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Dina A. Keever-Agrama, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15CF003933AMB.

Affirmed.


text:
    TWO D’S KOSHER STYLE RESTAURANT, INC., Appellant, v. ENERGY RESOURCE SERVICES, INC., Lewis Flakowitz, et al., Appellees.
    No. 4D16-4156
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard L. Oftedal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CA002356XXXXMB.

Affirmed.


text:
    BUBBAS EAST COAST RODS & CUSTOMS OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Michael LARKINS and Greg Larkins, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-606
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gregory ,M. Keyser and Edward A. Garrison, Judges; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-CA-000566-XXXX-MB.

Affirmed.


text:
    Don J. BRADY, Appellant, v. Beverly Ann BARTA, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-718
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the-Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kathleen Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-DR-009328 XXXXNB (FJ).

Affirmed..


text:
    Rodolfo JUAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-746
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472013CF000515C.

Affirmed.


text:
    FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE, CO., d/b/a Frontline Homeowners Insurance, Appellant, v. William B. STEELE, as Power of Attorney FOR Andrea STEELE, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-793
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 16, 2017
   Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Paul B. Ka-narek, Judge; L.T, Cáse No. 312016CA000914XXXXXX,

Affirmed.


text:
    J.L., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-1216
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kirk C. Volker, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013DP300566.

Affirmed.


text:
    Willie L. WYNN, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1724
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 312016CF000147A and 312016CF000627A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Nelson TAMAYO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1743
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14010543CF10A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Edward Allen Lamarr PICKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2221
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 16, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017CF000015A.

Affirmed.


text:
    Andre D. MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2872
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
   Appeal of order denying rule 3.853 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CF-013273-AXXX-WB.

Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth D. KLEIN, Appellant, v. Alyssabeth KLEIN, Russell B. Klein, Travis Klein and Sydria Schaffer, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-4238
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jams Brustares Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CP 001098XXXXMB.

Affirmed.


text:
    Vegory DULIX and Erdine Dulix, Appellants, v. PEMBROKE FALLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-651
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16-001714 (05).

Affirmed.


text:
    Gladys OLMOS and Jaime Olmos, Appellants, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1090
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
   Appeal of a ■ non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE12024781.

Affirmed.


text:
    Markevious Keon ROACH, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3760
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Administrative Hearing, DEP. # 06550017578AO and CSE # 2000895261.

Affirmed.


text:
    Lynn Louise TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Kenneth Warren TAYLOR, M.D., Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3831
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-027730 (14).

Affirmed.


text:
    Marie JEAN-BART, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Bank of America, NA, Eugene Barlatier, Jocelene Joseph, Genesis at the Landings Home Owners Association, Inc. and Landings Master Association, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 4D16-3422
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE150014394.

Affirmed.


text:
    D.L.S., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2412
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 29, 2017]
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Stacey Schulman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2012-1585 CJ DP.

Affirmed.


text:
    J.M.Q., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1014
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed August 29, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bre-vard County, Lawrence V. Johnston, III, Senior Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Timothy CONLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1753
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 3, 2017
    Rehearing Denied November 13, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ronald D. CURRY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2110
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 10, 2017
    Rehearing Denied November 15, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob LeBlanc, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jeffery J. MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1794
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 10, 2017
    Rehearing Denied November 13, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, James R. Clayton, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Felix QUINTANA, Appellant, v. Johnathan DEZSO, individually and o/b/o J.D., Jr., a Child, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3496
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 17, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, John D. Galluzzo, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin Keith KERSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2775
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 17, 2017
    Rehearing Denied November 15, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Manuel I. TELLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2446
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 17, 2017
    Rehearing Denied November 15, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bre-vard County, Kelly J. McKibben, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daryl FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2897
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Kim Shepard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Brandon D. MCBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2519
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Willard Pope, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    William R. COPELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2280
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, Dennis Craig, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Maurice HELMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2265
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Lisa T. Munyon, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    George NORWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2203
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Viles DELICES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2186
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. Marques, . Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jason Thomas DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2173
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Morgan Laur Reinman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Dana Michael LITTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2048
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, James R. Clayton, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Edward MYERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1994
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, Howard M. Maltz, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Everett Ricky DICKS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1930
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kraig SCHOONOVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1906
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.853 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Branden M. HUTCHISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1862
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Morgan Laur Reinman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    James B. DENISSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1784
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, William G. Law, Jr, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Tony ALDRICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1771
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Debra S. Nelson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Margaret Lee MCNEEL, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1711
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. Marques, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ismael SOTO, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-1662
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1518
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, James H. Earp, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Juan R. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-1510
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John E. Jordan, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Israel ADORNO-OCASIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1419
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John Marshall Kest, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rodney Eric TIPPENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1196
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. .Marques, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eric D. HEARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christy D. SEIFERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3162
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volu-sia County, James R. Clayton, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Filiberto PASTRANA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2840
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, R. James Stroker, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Osmani PAULA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2201
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Heather L. Higbee, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christian MATIAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2708
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Jon B. Morgan, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Maurice GORDILS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2398
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Keith A. Carsten, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jeffrey CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2018
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Donna L. McIntosh, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arthur W. FOLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1581
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Christi L. Underwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Duane JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1416
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Jeffrey Mahl, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    John H. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1341
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.853 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Mark A. Nacke, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    T.R., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1266
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Gail A. Adams, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Amanda LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2216
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Jon B. Morgan, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenneth Roy STEWART, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-23
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Hale R. Stancil, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kevin L. ENGELKENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.801 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, James R. Clayton, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Karen CRAIG, Appellant, v. Richard PETRUCHA, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-1018
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volu-sia County, Margaret W. Hudson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Shawn C. ESTEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2624
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Robert W. Hodges, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kendall COREY, Dustin Blyden, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3252
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Robert W. Hodges, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Reginald KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3097
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Alan S. Apte, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Stephen D. BRAEM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2544
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, James R. Clayton, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Richard WOODSMALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2386
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from- the Circuit Court for Brevard County, David Dugan, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Vashawn MCCLENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2138
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Don F. Briggs, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rodriguez V. WEATHERS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-2031
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joe SMITHWICK, IV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1867
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Morgan Laur Reinman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Patrick A. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1695
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Jonathan D. Ohlman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rodric Dwayne FAGIOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2754
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volu-sia County, Raul A. Zambrano, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant, v. Brian G. LANE and Jenny S. Trout, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-103
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, Howard M. Maltz, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Gregory GAFFNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2810
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    J.A., Father of B.G.A., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2435
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 13, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volu-sia County, Mary G. Jolley, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    Karen M. MACCHIONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1678
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed December 26, 2017
   3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    A.A., Mother of S.B., A Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3974
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed February 6, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Melissa Souto, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


text:
    G.P., Father of O.P., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 17-1068
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed June 20, 2017
   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Patricia L. Strowbridge, Judge.

AFFIRMED.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    David MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3771
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [September 6, 2017]
    Carey. Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Rogers v. State, 223 So.3d 281, 2017 WL 2858921 (Fla. 4th DCA July 5, 2017); Rooks v. State, 224 So.3d 272, 2017 WL 2960766 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017); Currie v. State, 219 So.3d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.


text:
    Charlie BLOUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-543
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [September 6, 2017]
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Affirmed. See Rogers v. State, 223 So.3d 281, 2017 WL 2858921 (Fla. 4th DCA July 5, 2017); see also Rooks v. State, 224 So.3d 272, 2017 WL 2960766 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017); Currie v. State, 219 So.3d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Gross, Taylor and Kuntz, JJ., concur.


author: Levine, J.

text:
    Roger E. CARUTHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1567
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 1, 2017]

      Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Levine, J.

Appellant appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, challenging the admission of a video recording and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. We find no error in admitting the video recording into evidence. However, we find that, based on the charging document and evidence adduced at trial, improper exhibition of a firearm was a permissive lesser included offense of attempted first-degree murder. We further find that the trial court committed per se reversible error in refusing to give the instruction, as it was one step removed from the convicted offense.

A woman had a verbal altercation with appellant at a convenience store. During the altercation, appellant pulled out a gun, hit the gun on the counter, and said he had a bullet for the woman and her fiancé. The woman left the store and went across the street to the park. Appellant followed her, repeatedly yelling that he was going to kill her and her family, some of whom were also at the park. He later fired shots at the woman and her aunt as they tried to drive away. Appellant was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder.

During trial, the court refused defense counsel’s request for an instruction on improper exhibition of a firearm as a lesser included offense. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses of attempted second-degree murder, aggravated assault with a firearm, and simple assault. The jury convicted appellant of two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm.

We review the trial court’s decision not to give the requested jury instruction de novo because the “facts are undisputed and the legal determination to be made on appeal is whether an offense is a permissive lesser included offense to the crime charged.” Piggott v. State, 140 So.3d 666, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

The Florida Standard Jury Instructions identify necessarily lesser-included offenses (category one) and permissive lesser-included offenses (category two). See Moore v. State, 932 So.2d 524, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “Although the schedule is presumptively correct and complete, trial courts are charged with the responsibility to determine and properly instruct the jury on the prevailing law.” Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 595, 599-600 (Fla. 2007) (citations, alteration, and quotation marks omitted).

“A permissive lesser included offense exists when ‘the two offenses appear to be separate [on the face of the statutes],, but the facts alleged in the accusatory pleadings are such that the lesser [included] offense cannot help but be perpetrated once the greater offense has been.’ ” Sanders v. State, 944 So.2d 203, 206 (Fla. 2006) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). See also Amado v. State, 585 So.2d 282, 282 (Fla. 1991) (“Permissive lesser included offenses are those offenses that may or may not be .lesser included offenses depending on the pleadings and the evidence presented.”). Upon request, the judge must instruct the jury on permissive lesser included offenses of the crime charged which are supported by the information and evidence. Wimberly v. State, 697 So.2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

.The schedule of lesser included offenses for first-degree murder lists aggravated assault and simple .assault as permissive lesser included offenses. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 6.2. Additionally, the schedule of lesser included offenses for aggravated assault lists both improper exhibition of a firearm and assault as necessarily included offenses. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 8.2.

As the state correctly concedes, improper exhibition of a firearm is a lesser included offense in this case. The elements of improper exhibition of a firearm are: (1) having or carrying.a firearm; (2) exhibiting the firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, and (3) doing so in the presence of one or more persons. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 10.5; see also § 790.10, Fla. Stat. (2013). As to one victim, the information alleged that appellant “did brandish and discharge a firearm in the direction of [the victim] while verbally threatening [the victim] and others.” As to the other victim, the information alleged that appellant “did run toward [the victim] and others while discharging a firearm and verbally threatening to kill them.” Additionally, the evidence at trial supported each of the elements of improper exhibition of a firearm.

The failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser-included offense, one step removed from the offense of conviction, constitutes per se reversible error. Daugherty v. State, 211 So.3d 29 (Fla. 2017); McCloud v. State, 209 So.3d 534 (Fla. 2017). This is because the jury must be given “a fair opportunity to exercise its inherent ‘pardon’ power by returning a verdict of guilty as to the next lower crime.” State v. Abreau, 363 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1978). Where, however, “the trial court fails to properly instruct on a crime two or more degrees removed from the crime for which the defendant is-convicted, the- error is not per se reversible, but instead is subject to a harmless error analysis.” Pena v. State, 901 So.2d 781, 787 (Fla. 2005).

The state argues that the error was harmless.because the jury was instructed on the lesser included offense of assault. Although both assault and improper exhibition of a firearm are listed as necessarily included lesser offenses of aggravated assault, they are not comparable lesser offenses because they are different degrees. Assault is a'second-degree misdemeanor whereas improper exhibition of a firearm is a first-degree1 misdemeanor. See §§ 784.011, 790.10, Fla. Stat. Thus, only improper exhibition of a firearm was-one step removed from the convicted offense of aggravated assault with a firearm, a third-degree felony. See § 784.021, Fla. Stat. Assault was two steps removed.

Because assault and improper exhibition of a firearm are not comparable lesser included offenses, the state’s reliance on McCloud v. State, 209 So.3d 534 (Fla. 2017), is misplaced. In that case, error in instructing on a lesser included offense one step removed from conviction was harmless where the jury was properly instructed on other lesser included offenses also one step removed from conviction.

Appellant also challenges the admission of the video depicting the altercation in the convenience store. Because the state may seek to introduce the video during trial, we consider this issue and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video. The video was “inextricably intertwined” with the incident at the park and relevant to show appellant’s state of mind.

In sum, because the trial court failed to instruct on an offense one step removed, the error is per se reversible. See Ammons v. State, 623 So.2d 807, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). As such, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Gerber, C.J., and May, J., concur.


text:
    PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Appellants, v. Jacqueline Mechelle BLACKWOOD, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Elna Cooper, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-897
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 10, 2018]

      Mark A. Belasic and Dennis L. Murphy of Jones Day, Cleveland, Ohio; Jason T. Burnette of Jones Day, Atlanta, Georgia; and Benjamin M. Flowers of Jones Day, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
    Patricia Melville of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami; and Geoffrey J. Michael of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for appellant Philip Morris USA, Inc.
    Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Scott P. Schlesinger and Jonathan R. Gdanski of Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

In this Engle progeny case, Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J;. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“the defendants”) appeal a final judgment in favor of Mary Cooper (“the plaintiff”) and orders denying their various post-trial motions, and the appellee, the personal representative of the plaintiffs estate, cross-appeals the final judgment. The defendants raise two issues on which we affirm without further comment.

However, we agree with the plaintiff’s argument on cross-appeal that she should be permitted to seek punitive damages on her non-intentional tort counts. In the proceedings below, the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to seek punitive damages on her non-intentional tort claims based on Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So.3d 456, 459-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So.3d 604, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which held that En-gle progeny plaintiffs are bound by the procedural posture of Engle and thus are not entitled to seek punitive damages on those counts. After the trial court’s determination, however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed those decisions and determined that Engle plaintiffs “are permitted to seek punitive damages on their claims for negligence and strict liability.” Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 1227 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hallgren, 124 So.3d 350, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)).

Consequently, we reverse and remand. On remand, the plaintiff is entitled to seek leave from the trial court to add claims for punitive damages on her negligence and strict liability counts. Should the proceedings progress to trial, the jury should address both entitlement and amount with respect to the new claims.

Reversed and remanded,

Ciklin, Klingensmith, JJ., and Belanger, Robert E., Associate Judge, concur.

      . Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).


author: Forst, J.

text:
    Richard W. JONES and Louise A. Kiernan, Appellants, v. FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2579
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 17, 2018]

      D. John Rhodeback and J. Garry Rooney of. Rooney & Rooney, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellants.
    Warren Kwavnick and Kelly Lenahan of Cooney Trybus' Kwavnick Peets, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   Forst, J.

Appellants Richard Jones and Louise Kiernan (“Homeowners”) appeal a final judgment in favor of appellee Federated National Insurance Company determining that Insurance Company did not breach the insurance contract by failing to pay for Homeowners’ damaged roof. On appeal, Homeowners argue that the court committed various errors in its jury instructions, including applying the wrong coverage doctrine as well as improperly shifting the burden of proof. We agree that the court erred in these two respects, and reverse and remand for a new trial.

Background

Homeowners filed an insurance claim for their damaged roof, maintaining that the damage was attributable to a hailstorm one-and-a-half years prior to the claim. Insurance Company denied the claim based on specified insurance policy exclusions. Subsequently, Homeowners filed a complaint for breach of contract seeking the cost to replace their roof. Attached to the complaint was an “all-risk” insurance contract in which Insurance Company expressly agreed to cover all direct physical lqsses to the insured home except those explicitly excluded by the contract.

Insurance Company agreed that the insurance contract was in effect at the time of the alleged hailstorm. However, it pleaded that any damage to the roof qualified as one of the following events excluded from coverage under the insurance policy: “wear and tear, marring, deterioration”; “faulty, inadequate or defective design”; “neglect”; “existing damage”; or “weather conditions.”

At trial, both parties presented conflicting evidence regarding the .cause of the damage. Homeowners presented evidence that the hailstorm caused damage to the roof. Insurance Company. presented evidence that the hailstorm caused no meaningful damage, and that all, the damage had already existed prior to the hailstorm as wear and tear, attributable in part to leaks from solar panels in a portion of the roof. In rebuttal, Homeowners presented evidence that the leaking solar panels could not have been the only cause of damage, pointing to the presence of hundreds of divots spread across the roof and various other leaks that were located away from the solar panels.

, At the close of evidence, Insurance Company moved for a directed verdict, arguing that “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” and leaking solar panels were the principal cause of damage to the roof. Homeowners responded that there was another cause, the hailstorm, and that, regardless, the matter was for the. jury to decide. The trial court agreed that the matter was a jury question, and denied the motion.

At the charge conference, Homeowners took issue with the jury instruction that required them to prove that the hailstorm was the “most substantial or responsible cause” of damage to the roof. Homeowners explained that the tidal court would be wrong to apply the “efficient proximate cause doctrine” as advanced by American Home Assurance Co. v. Sebo, 14.1 So.3d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Sebo I). They argued that the contract at hand was an all-risk one, expressly guarding against all losses , except those caused by specifically excluded events. Thus, Homeowners contended the court should apply the “concurrent cause doctrine” pursuant to Wallach v. Rosenberg, 527 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Faced with the district court split, and cognizant that the Florida Supreme Court had recently accepted certiorari to review Sebo I, the trial court opted to apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine: “And I think I agree with the policies that are set out in [Sebo I], that the correct rule to follow is that where there are multiple, possible causes, it is the efficient proximate cause, the one-- that is most likely the actual cause ... of the damage ... that controls ,....” Thus, the trial court denied Homeowners’ request to amend the proposed jury instruction, explaining “because the complaint alleges that the damage was caused by hail[, tjhat’s what the whole case is about.”

The - jury ultimately determined that Homeowners could,not satisfy their burden of proof, as set forth in the jury instruction discussed above and below. Thus, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Insurance Company, awarding Homeowners no damages.

Analysis

A. Application of the Concurrent Cause Doctrine

We review de novo whether the trial court applied the correct coverage doctrine in its jury ..instructions. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So.3d 694, 696 (Fla. 2016) (Sebo II).

Homeowners first argue that the trial court applied the wrong coverage doctrine in the following jury instruction:

Did the Plaintiffs, Richard Jones and Louise Kiernan, prove by the greater weight of the evidence that they sustained a direct physical loss to their roof as a result of the hailstorm on April 20, 2012 which was the most substantial or responsible cause of the damage to the roof?

Homeowners contend that by requiring the jury to determine if the hailstorm was “the most substantial or responsible cause of the damage to the roof,” the trial court inappropriately applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine. This doctrine “provides that where there is a concurrence of different, perils, the efficient cause—the one that set the other in motion—is the cause to which the loss is attributable.” Sebo II, 208 So.3d at 697 (citing Sabella v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 59 Cal.2d 21, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889, 896 (1963)). The concurrent cause doctrine, on the other hand, “provides that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Id. at 698.

The question presented in Sebo II was whether the Supreme Court would apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine (pursuant to Sebo I) or the concurrent .cause doctrine (as discussed in Wallach) when multiple perils converged to cause a loss to the insured property, and at least one of those perils was excluded under the contract, and one of those perils was covered by the contract. Sebo II, 208 So.3d at 697. In that case, evidence was presented that rainstorms, hurricanes, and leakage caused by major design and construction defects combined to damage the. homeowner’s residence. Id. at 696. Under the all-risk insurance contract, only the leakage from thé design and construction defects was 'excluded. Id.at 700. Ultimately, having determined “there is no reasonable way to distinguish the proximate cause of [the] property loss,” id., the .Court applied the concurrent' cause doctrine, stating, “[w]here weather perils combine with human negligence to cause a loss, it seems logical and reasonable to find the loss covered by an all-risk policy even if one of the causes is excluded from coverage.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Wallach, 527 So.2d at 1388).

Applying Sebo II to the instant case, we conclude that the trial court erred with re.spect to the jury instruction, which applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine without, the jury first determining whether an efficient proximate cause could be determined. The jury instruction was crafted in such a way that the jury never decided whether there was an efficient cause. Proper jury instructions would have required the jury to first determine whether one efficient proximate cause could be identified and, if the answer was negative, a follow-up instruction would have applied the concurrent cause doctrine. Applying this causal doctrine, the jury would" then decide if at least one of the concurrent causes was covered (i.e., not excluded from coverage) under the insurance policy.

Insurance Company argues in the alternative that the concurrent cause doctrine was inapplicable given that there were various anti-concurrent .cause provisions in the insurance contract. “An anti-concurrent cause provision is a provision in a first-party insurance policy that provides that when a covered cause and noncovered cause combine to cause a loss, all losses directly and indirectly caused by those events are excluded from coverage.” Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So.3d 486, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Admittedly, the Florida Supreme Court in Sebo II contemplated that it would have applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine had there been anti-concurrent cause provisions in the insurance contract. Sebo II, 208 So.3d at 700. However, as Insurance Company concedes, in the instant case only three out of the five exclusions in the insurance contract contained anti-concurrent cause provisions: “neglect,” “existing damage,” and “weather conditions.” The other two, “faulty, inadequate or defective design” and “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” did not. Thus, since some of the exclusions did not contain anti-concurrent cause provisions, the trial court erred by uniformly applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine in its jury instruction. The jury could very well have decided that the hailstorm damage occurred in conjunction with, rather than was set in motion by, “faulty, inadequate or defective design,” or “wear and tear, marring, deterioration,” which would merit application of the concurrent cause doctrine.

B. Allocation of the Burden of Proof in the Jury Instruction

We review de novo whether the trial court applied the correct burden of proof in its jury instructions. See Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409, 413 (Fla. 2013) (reviewing de novo a question of law in a jury instruction).

Homeowners argue that the trial court erred by requiring them to first prove that the hailstorm was the efficient cause of damage to the roof. We agree with Homeowners’ argument.

There is no dispute that the insurance policy at hand is, as in Sebo II, an all-risk policy. The policy here initially states that “[w]e insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property.” Coverage A specifically covers “[t]he dwelling on the ‘residence premises’ shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling.” After explaining that Insurance Company would cover all direct physical losses to the dwelling, the contract lists the specific types of exclusions to that coverage. See Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Branch, 234 So.2d 396, 397-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (holding that a similarly worded agreement was an all-risk policy).

Because the policy is an all-risk one, we find error in the allocation of proof in the jury instruction, as the trial court placed the initial burden of proof on Homeowners to demonstrate that the hailstorm was “the most substantial or responsible cause of the damage to the roof.” Under an all-risk insurance policy, “the rule is that once the insured establishes a loss apparently within the terms of the policy, the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause which is excepted.” Branch, 234 So.2d at 398. Our allocation of this preliminary burden of proof is consistent with the general notion that an all-risk insurance policy guards against all risks except those explicitly excluded by the policy. See W. Best, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 655 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“Since in the instant case it was undisputed that the loss of the ring apparently fell within the terms of the all-risk policy, ap-pellee bore the burden as insurer to establish that the circumstances of the loss fell within an exclusionary provision.”).

In Mejia v. Citizens Property Insurance Carp., 161 So.3d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), a case nearly analogous to the instant one, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court for requiring a homeowner to first prove that a specific cause, a sinkhole, damaged his home. Id. at 578. The court explained: “an insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy’s terms.” Id.-, see also Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So.3d 671, 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (allocating the burden of proof in a manner consistent with Mejia); Wallach, 527 So.2d at 1387 (affirming a jury instruction requiring the insurance company to prove that the cause of the loss was an excluded one under the insurance contract); Hudson v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 450 So.2d 565, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (similar).

Since there was a genuine dispute regarding the cause of the damage to the roof, “the trial court’s allocation of the burden of proof on the issue of [the insurance company’s] liability became of critical importance.” Hudson, 450 So.2d at 568. It was not Homeowners’ responsibility, in the context of an all-risk insurance contract, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-excluded peril was “the most substantial or responsible cause of the damage to the roof.” Instead, the proper allocation of the shifting burden of proof in a case of this type, involving an all-risk insurance contract where more than one potential cause of damage was raised by the parties, is as follows:

1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of , the insurer.
2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.
3. If the insurer meets the burden of proof under either 2.(a) or 2.(b), it must then establish that this sole or efficient proximate cause was excluded from coverage by the terms of the insurance policy. If the insurer does so, then judgment shall be entered in its favor. If the insurer establishes that there was a sole or efficient proximate cause, but fails to prove that this cause was excluded by the all-risk insurance policy, then judgment shall be entered in favor of the insured.
4. If the insurer fails to establish either a sole or efficient proximate cause, and there are no applicable anti-concurrent cause provisions, then the concurrent cause doctrine must be utilized. Applying the concurrent cause doctrine, the insurer has the initial burden of production to present evidence that an excluded risk was a contributing cause of the damage. If it fails to satisfy this burden of production, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insured.
5. If the insurer does .produce evidence that an excluded risk was a concurrent cause of the loss, then the burden of production shifts to the insured to present evidence that an allegedly covered risk was a concurrent cause of the loss at issue. If the insured fails to satisfy this burden of production, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer..
6. If the insured produces evidence of a covered concurrent cause, the insurer bears the burden of proof to ■ establish that the insured’s purported concurrent cause was either (a) not a concurrent cause (i.e., it had no (or a de minimis) causal role in the loss), or (b) excluded from coverage by the insurance policy, If the insurer fails to satisfy this burden of proof, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insured.

Conclusion

Because the jury instruction given below was erroneous, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Salkey v. Citizens Prop, Ins. Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly S751, 2017 WL 2709776 (Fla. June 23, 2017) (reversing the DCA in light of Sebo II and remanding fop application of the concurrent cause doctrine).

Reversed and'remanded.

Damoorgian and Conner, JJ., concur.

      . See B & S Assocs., Inc. v. Indem. Cas. & Prop., Ltd., 641 So.2d 436, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (finding that because the cause of the damage was unknown, and the instant contract was an all-risk insurance policy, the damage was covered under the default terms of the contract).


author: PER CURIAM. MAKAR, J.,

text:
    Larry COLLINS, Appellant, v. James SIMMONS, Appellee.
    No. 1D15-2907.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 9, 2016.
    Elizabeth K. Russo, Miami; Banker Lopez Gassier, P.A., Tallahassee; Reynolds Parrino Spano & Shadwick, P.A., St. Pe-tersburg, for Appellant.
    James E. Fasig and Mark W. Nonni of Barrett, Fasig & Brooks, and ■ Fred E. Pearson, Tallahassee, for. Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur, and MAKAR, J., Specially concurs with Opinion.

MAKAR, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur in result based ,on the two-issue rule. See Whitman v. Castlewood Int'l Corp., 383 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla.1980) (“[W]here there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.”).


author: ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. VILLANTI, Chief Judge,

text:
    Linda L. SHAFFER, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, as Indenture Trustee FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST 2006-1, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2006-1, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D14-4205
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed April 19, 2017
    Rehearing Denied January 25, 2018
    Jacqulyn Mack of The Mack Law Firm, Englewood, for Appellant.
    Kimberly S. Mello and Jonathan S. Tan-nen of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, and Patrick G. Broderick of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Ap-pellee.
   ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

Linda L. Shaffer appeals from a final judgment of foreclosure, arguing, among other things, that Deutsche Bank National Trust,' as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-1, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2006-1 (the Bank),, lacked standing to foreclose. Because- we agree that the Bank failed to prove that it had standing at the inception of the suit, we reverse.

In September 2009, the Bank filed a complaint against Shaffer for mortgage foreclosure and to reestablish a lost note. Along with the complaint, the Bank filed a copy of the May 2009 assignment of the mortgage. to the Bank from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for the original lender, American Home Mortgage Acceptance Inc. (AH-MAI). Before trial, however, the Bank filed with the court the original note and voluntarily dismissed the lost-note count. The note, which was dated September 21, 2005, identified AHMAI as the payee and bore an undated indorsement in blank.

At trial, Shannon Fretwell, a loan analyst for Ocwen, the note servicer, testified regarding Ocwen’s boarding process and the documents that Ocwen had received from the previous servicer. One of those documents was a limited power of attorney (LPOA), effective July 2009, between the Bank and prior servicer American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (AHMSI). The LPOA authorized AHMSI to act on behalf of the Bank in connection with, among other things, American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-1, which, according to an exhibit attached to the LPOA, was dated March 29,2006.

Based on her review of the LPOA, Fret-well testified that the loan had been transferred into the trust on March 29, 2006. She subsequently explained that, by “loan,” she meant “note,” and by “transferred,” she meant that the note had been made “a party of the trust,” i.e., the trust had “owned” it. We note, however, that nothing in the LPOA—or in any other document admitted at trial—establishes what American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-1 comprised, and Fret-well did not indicate the basis for her testimony that the note itself had been transferred into the trust. We also note, however, that Shaffer did not cross-examine her on that point despite having the opportunity to do so.

Regardless, even accepting Fret-well’s testimony that the note itself was transferred into the trust on March 29, 2006, there is no evidence establishing what interest in the note AHMAI transferred to the Bank as trustee. There is no evidence establishing when the blank in-dorsement had been placed on the note, and the Bank did not properly introduce a copy of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) establishing the duties, rights, and obligations of the parties to the trust.

“[E]vidence that the note was transferred into the trust prior- to the foreclosure action is insufficient by itself to confer standing because there-[is] no evidence that the indorsee had the intent to transfer any interest to the trustee.” Balch v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 171 So.3d 207, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see also Jarvis v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 169 So.3d 194, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“[Evidence that the note was physically transferred into a trust prior to Deutsche Bank filing its foreclosure complaint does not, by itself, establish standing.”). Absent any evidence establishing the interest that AHMAI conveyed to the Bank when transferring the note into the trust, we conclude that the Bank failed to establish standing, and we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an involuntary dismissal.

Reversed and remanded.

SILBERMAN, J., Concurs.

YILLANTI, C. J., Concurs specially with opinion.

VILLANTI, Chief Judge,

Concurring specially.

I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the final judgment of foreclosure. I write separately to note that while I agree that Deutsche Bank’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish its standing to foreclose, I do not agree with all the reasons identified by the majority. I also write to express my concerns with several aspects of current foreclosure practice and to suggest ways to alleviate them.

The record in this case shows that Deutsche Bank filed its unverified foreclosure complaint on September 29, 2009. Attached to the complaint were a copy of the Shaffer mortgage in favor of American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. (AH-MAI), and a copy of a May 1, 2009, assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche Bank from MERS. No copy of the' promissory note was attached to the complaint. Several months later, on February 5, 2010, Deutsche Bank filed the original promissory note, which was in favor of AHMAI and which was endorsed in blank. Importantly, the endorsement in blank was undated.

Apparently recognizing that the undated blank endorsement on the note was insufficient to establish its standing to foreclose, Deutsche Bank offered at trial the testimony of Shannon Fretwell, a loan analyst for Ocwen Financial Corporation, which was the current servicer of the Shaffer mortgage. Through Fretwell, Deutsche Bank offered evidence that Ocwen was the successor by merger to the original loan servi-cer, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (AHMSI). Also through .Fretwell, Deutsche Bank introduced a copy of a limited power of attorney (LPOA) that authorized AHMSI to act on behalf of Deutsche Bank in, among other matters, foreclosure litigation relating to notes and mortgages held by Deutsche Bank in its capacity as trustee of a number of asset and investment trusts. Fretwell testified that the LPOA established that the Shaffer loan became part of the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-1, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2006-1 (the trust) on March 29, 2006; however, she admitted that her testimony was based solely on her review of the LPOA and not any independent knowledge that she had of the note or the transaction. . .

Unfortunately for Deutsche Bank, a review of the LPOA does not support Fret-well’s testimony.’ The LPOA, which is dated July 21, 2009, includes the trust on behalf of which Deutsche Bank purports to be acting as trustee in the foreclosure proceeding against Shaffer. However, nothing in the LPOA identifies any of the notes or mortgages that make up any of the trusts to which the LPOA applies. And while we will generally defer to a witness’s trial testimony on factual matters, we need not do so when that testimony is nothing more than the witness’s interpretation of a document that is equally available to this court. Cf. Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (noting that the appellate court is on equal footing with a trial court when interpreting a written document); Fla. Power Corp. v. Lynn, 594 So.2d 789, 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (noting that the interpretation of a written docüment is a question of law, on which an appellate cburt need dot defer to the trial 'court). Hence, neither the LPOA nor Fretwell’s testimony establish when or if Deutsche Bank took ownership of the Shaffer note, and so neither can establish that Deutsche Bank had standing when the foreclosure complaint was filed.

In addition, no other document introduced at trial shows that the Shaffer note and mortgage are included in the Deutsche Brink trust. The record shows that prior to trial, Deutsche Bank filed a request for judicial notice, attached to which was a partial copy of a Pooling and Service Agreement (PSA) relating to the applicable trust. However, this PSA—-a document personal to one of the parties—was not subject to judicial notice under any of the provisions of either section 90.201 or section 90.202, Florida Statutes (2014). Moreover, the unauthenticated PSA was simply attached to a notice of filing, making it inadmissible at trial without further testimony. See, e.g., BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that an unauthenticated document attached as an exhibit to a motion did not constitute admissible evidence);. Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay, 59 So.3d 295, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (noting that an unauthenticated document attached to a memorandum of law does not constitute competent evidence); Tunnell v. Hicks, 574 So.2d 264, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (noting that an unauthenticated letter attached as an exhibit to a motion was not admissible and not properly before the court). Because the PSA was not subject to judicial notice and because Deutsche Bank took no steps to authenticate it or introduce it into evidence at trial, the PSA was not properly before the court arid cannot constitute evidence of Deutsche Bank’s standing,

In sum, Deutsche Bank offered no evidence to establish that it owned the note' on the date it filed the foreclosure complaint in this case, and it therefore failed to prove that it had standing. Shaffer’s motion for involuntary dismissal should have been granted without further ado. For this reason, I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse the final judgmént in this case.

I also take this opportunity to make two recommendations based on my observations from the flood of foreclosure litigation that this court has reviewed in the past few years. First, I believe it would behoove trial courts working in this area to create a checklist of sorts to ensure that they are making a proper ruling on the issue of standing. Information concerning standing that could be gathered from the court file prior to trial could be listed, with blanks for missing dates or information. As the trial progresses, the trial court could use the form to determine whether admissible evidence had been offered to fill in ány blanks and whéther the plaintiff had, in fact, established standing. This would avoid repetitious reversals based on simple failures of proof that are easily addressable with proper documents or connecting testimony.

Second, I believe it would behoove the legislature to consider amending the foreclosure statutes to require .foreclosure defendants who wish to raise any defense other than payment to pay the amounts required by the note and mortgage into the court registry. It appears that many foreclosure judgments are entered based on dubious proof by the banks due to an understandable lack of sympathy for defendants who are years behind on payments and who are raising what appear to be spurious delaying defense tactics. Requiring foreclosure defendants to make their payments into- the court registry would alleviate the temptation to excuse strict compliance with the laws of evidence. This method has been successfully utilized in tenant eviction cases in which tenants are free to raise defenses to an eviction, but may not do so while at the same time refusing to pay rent. See, e.g., § 83.232(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Using chapter 83 as a template, the legislature could address the foreclosure backlog and ensure that foreclosure cases would be expedited without sacrificing due process.

      . Because we conclude that reversal is warranted on this ground, we decline to address Shaffer’s other challenges to the judgment.

      . The LPOA indicated that the trusts covered by its terms could include mortgages, deeds of trust, retail installment contracts, or promissory notes.

      . Before trial, the Bank requested that the trial court take judicial notice of a partial copy of a PSA relating to the applicable trust. However, this PSA—a document personal to one of the parties—was not subject to judicial notice under either section 90.201 or section 90.202, Florida Statutes (2014). Moreover, the unauthenticated PSA was simply attached to a notice of filing and was, therefore, inadmissible at trial without further testimony. See, e.g„ BAC Funding Consortium Inc. IS-AOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that an unauthenticated document attached as an exhibit to a motion did not constitute admissible evidence); Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay, 59 So.3d 295, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (noting that an unauthenticated document attached to a memorandum of law does not constitute competent evidence); Tunnell v. Hicks, 574 So.2d 264, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (noting that an unauthenticated letter attached as an exhibit to a motion was not admissible and not properly before the court). Because the PSA was not subject to judicial notice and because the Bank took no steps to authenticate it or introduce it into evidence at trial, the PSA was not properly before the court and cannot constitute evidence of the Bank’s standing.

      . The majority cites to several cases that per- ‘ tain to whether there was evidence that "the indorsee had the intent to transfer any interest to the trustee.” Given that Deutsche Bank offered no admissible evidence' that the Shaffer note’ and mortgage were ever transferred into the trust, I find these cases irrelevant to the issue of standing before this court.