author: QUINCE, J.

text:
    PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, etc., Petitioner, v. Janie DOE 1, etc., et al., Respondents.
    No. SC13-1834
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    [January 26, 2017]

      Shannon Patricia McKenna of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, Florida, for Petitioner
    Marc A. Wites of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., Lighthouse Point, Florida, for Respondents
   QUINCE, J.

The Palm Beach County School Board seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Janie Doe 1 ex rel. Miranda v. Sinrod, 117 So.3d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other district courts of appeal on a question of law concerning the relation back doctrine. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the Fourth District’s decision below, reversing the trial court’s dismissal of Respondents’ Title IX claim, and disapprove the line of cases that establishes a bright-line rule that an amendment asserting a new cause of action cannot relate back to the filing of the original complaint.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case involves allegations of sexual abuse of four female students by their teacher. Sinrod, 117 So.3d at 787. In July 2006, Respondents—the four students and them parents—filed a complaint against the teacher and the Palm Beach County School Board alleging negligence on the part of the School Board, that the teacher sexually molested the children, and that the parents suffered emotional distress as a result. Id at 787-88. In 2011, Respondents filed their third amended complaint, alleging negligent supervision, negligent retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id at 788. Respondents also added a claim for violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal education funding. Id. at 788 & n.2 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1681; Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005)). The School Board moved to dismiss the Title IX claim—and one other claim not relevant here—arguing that it was barred by the statute of limitations because it did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Id at 788. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claim, and Respondents appealed. Id

Upon review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Title IX claim did, in fact, relate back to the original negligence claims. Id. at 790. The district court indicated that amendments raising a new cause of action generally do not relate back to the original complaint. Id. at 789. However, the court clarified that “a new cause of action—and even a new legal theory—can relate back to the original pleading so long as the new claim is not based on different facts, such that the defendant would not have ‘fair notice of the general factual situation.’ ” Id. (quoting Dailey v. Leshin, 792 So.2d 527, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). The Fourth District found that the Title IX claim arose from the same conduct and resulted in the same injury as the original negligence claims and therefore relates back to the filing of the original complaint under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c). Id. at 789-90. The School Board now appeals this determination.

ANALYSIS

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss is subject to de novo review. Mender v. Kauderer, 143 So.3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So.3d 864, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The determination of whether an amended complaint relates back to the filing of the original complaint is a question of law, also reviewed de novo. Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney, 137 So.3d 987, 991 (Fla. 2014); Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). An amended complaint raising claims for which the statute of limitations has expired can survive a motion to dismiss if the claims relate back to the timely filed initial pleading. Flores, 35 So.3d at 147. Thus, the conflict issue here is whether Respondents’ third amended complaint, which added a new claim alleging violations of Title IX, relates back to the filing of the initial complaint under rule 1.190(c). Rule 1.190 governs amended pleadings and defines the relation back doctrine as follows: “When the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c) (emphasis added).

There are two lines of district court cases interpreting the operation of the relation back doctrine in Florida. The first holds that an amended pleading does not relate back if it states a new, different, or distinct cause of action from the original pleading. Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Wolentarski, 2 So.3d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Page v. McMullan, 849 So.2d 15, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating that amendments “may not be used to avoid the statute of limitations if the amendment sets forth a new and distinct cause of action”); Arnwine v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, N.A., 818 So.2d 621, 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[E]ntirely new and separate causes of action will not relate back.”); W. Volusia Hosp. Auth. v. Jones, 668 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (explaining that relation back is not permitted where amendment states a new and distinct cause of action); Daniels v. Weiss, 385 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). For example, in Arnwine, the plaintiffs original complaint alleged causes of action against the defendant bank for reconstruction of lost instruments, conversion, accounting, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Arnwine, 818 So.2d at 625. The amended complaint alleged the same causes of action, but also included a new claim for civil conspiracy. Id. The Second District found that the trial court did not err in dismissing this new claim because “[wjhile the allegations of this count arise from the same set of operative facts alleged in the original complaint, civil conspiracy is, in fact, an entirely new cause of action” that does not relate back. Id. at 625-26.

The second line of cases instead follows the exact language of rule 1.190(c)—allow-ing relation back where the claims from the amended pleading arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as in the original, timely filed complaint. Armiger, 48 So.3d at 870; Flores, 35 So.3d at 147. In other words, as long as the initial complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the general factual scenario or factual underpinning of the claim, amendments stating new legal theories can relate back. Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So.3d 893, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Flores, 35 So.3d at 148; Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This is true even where the legal theory of recovery has changed or where the original and amended claims require the assertion of different elements.

In Armiger, the plaintiff sued a company and its janitorial service provider after he slipped and fell on the company’s property. Armiger, 48 So.3d at 866. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action as against the company because the complaint did not allege breach of a non-delegable duty or vicarious liability and there was no basis for a negligence claim against the company directly. Id. The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint accordingly, but the court denied the motion, reasoning that the statute of limitations had expired and the proposed amendment would not relate back. Id. On appeal, the Second District found that even though it stated a new cause of action, the proposed amendment would relate back because the claims alleged therein were based on the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as those in the first amended complaint. Id. at 872. The court explained that “[although the first amended complaint does not plainly state the breach of a [nondelegable] duty, the applicability of the doctrine of nondelega-ble duty under the facts alleged is apparent.” Id.; see also Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 145 So.3d 183, 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding that wrongful death claim and personal injury claim arose out of same transaction because both were based on decedent’s claim of injury due to smoking cigarettes); Mender, 143 So.3d at 1014-15 (finding relation back where “the characterization of the complaint as individual or derivative did not alter the underlying facts, circumstances, or parties, and gave fair notice to all parties of the general fact situation out of which the claims arose”).

Essentially, this second line of cases holds that the assertion of a new claim in an amendment is not dispositive as to whether the amendment can relate back. However, these cases recognize that a newly added claim could fail to meet the relation back test if the new claim is so factually distinct that it does not arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original. See Fabbiano, 91 So.3d at 894-95 (explaining that cases such as West Volusia Hospital Authority do not stand for the principle that “an amendment involving a new cause of action never relates back” under rule 1.190 but instead “pertain to a narrow set of circumstances wherein the proposed amendment, although emanating from the same set of operative facts, involved a factually distinct claim”).

In Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney, 137 So.3d 987 (Fla. 2014), we had before us the issue of “whether an amended complaint, naming a third-party defendant as a party defendant, relates back to the filing of the third-party complaint for statute of limitations purposes.” Id. at 989. We found that the amended complaint related back because the third-party complaint put the third-party defendant on notice of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence from which the claims against that defendant arose. Id. at 992-93. We noted that our holding did not “disturb the precedent that, generally, the relation back doctrine does not apply when an amendment seeks to bring in an entirely new party defendant to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired.” Id. at 993-94 (emphasis added). Nor did it remove all discretion from the trial court, since that court must still determine whether the claims arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence and still retains “discretion to deny the amendment if it is so late in the proceedings that the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced and other options, such as a continuance, would be unfair to either party.” Id. at 994.

We cited three factors in support of our interpretation of rule 1.190(c) that are equally applicable here. First, this interpretation is consistent with Florida’s judicial policy of freely permitting amendments to pleadings, as long as they do not prejudice the opposing party, so that cases may be resolved on the merits. Id. at 991-92. Second, “[pjermitting relation back in this context is also consistent with Florida case law holding that rule 1.190(c) is to be liberally construed and applied.” Id. at 992. Last, this interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the statute of limitations, which is “to protect defendants from unusually long delays in the filing of lawsuits and to prevent prejudice to defendants from the unexpected enforcement of stale claims”—a purpose that is not implicated where the new claims concern the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original. Id.

The School Board cites many older cases from this Court for the principle that amendments containing new causes of action do not relate back to the original pleadings. However, the modern rule for relation back doctrine, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190, was adopted in 1967. In re Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure 1967 Revision, 187 So.2d 598, 609 (Fla. 1966). Prior to 1967, there were other versions of this rule in existence. Those versions may have contained the same language as the modern rule, but the pre-1967 cases interpreting them still are not controlling.

The School Board cites United Telephone Co. v. Mayo, 345 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1977), as an example of a case from this Court that addresses the issue of relation back under the 1967 version of rule 1.190(c). There, we stated that “[wjithout expressing an opinion on the propriety of petitioner’s argument, we cannot say that the Commission acted unlawfully because it refused petitioner the opportunity to alter its theory of the case after petitioner’s initial hypothesis was unsuccessful” and “after all the evidence had been introduced.” Id. at 655 (emphasis added). We explained in a footnote that “amendments are usually granted liberally. However, the right to amend does not authorize plaintiff to state new and different causes of action.” Id. at 655 n.6 (citing pre-1967 cases).

The School Board’s citation to Mayo is misplaced because “relation back” was not the issue before us and was not relevant to the resolution of that case; the above com-merits were dicta. The opinion does not even mention rule 1.190(c). Most importantly, although the opinion was issued in 1977, this Court cited cases from before the adoption of the modern rule in 1967. Further, the issue there involved altering a party’s theory of the case after all evidence in the case had been introduced, which is not the situation here. Mayo is neither controlling nor persuasive in this case.

In accordance with rule 1.190 and our prior case law, we disapprove the first line of cases to the extent that they establish a bright-line rule that amendments asserting new claims cannot relate back under any circumstances. As established in Fabbiano, Dailey, and even Caduceus, amendments asserting new claims can relate back to the original pleading as long as they arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the claims within the original. The proper focus of the inquiry is not whether the amended pleading sets forth a new or different claim, but whether the claims within the amended pleading are part of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as in the original pleading. Accordingly, we approve the second line of cases, which recognizes that while amendments with new claims do not always relate back, they can do so if the claims are not factually distinct from those within the original complaint.

In the instant case, we approve the Fourth District’s finding that Respondents’ Title IX claim does relate back to their original pleading. The Title IX claim arose out of the same conduct as the original negligence claims—the alleged molestation of students by their teacher and the School Board’s failure to protect against that harm. In the trial court’s order on the School Board’s motion to dismiss the Title IX claim, the court found no relation back because the initial complaint “alleged that the School Board negligently breached its duty,” whereas the third amended complaint alleged that the School Board “acted with deliberate indifference” in violation of Title IX. However, such differing terms do not indicate different facts. Instead, they indicate that the facts are being described in legal terms to demonstrate specific elements of each cause of action. And claims requiring proof of different elements can still relate back. See, e.g., Fabbiano, 91 So.3d at 896 (finding that battery claim related back to negligence claim because both involved same plaintiff, same injuries, and same damages and, therefore, “arose from the same occurrence”).

Although the allegations within the Title IX claim were more specific, the factual underpinnings of the original claims were similar enough to the new claim to put the School Board on notice that it could be held responsible for any harm resulting from the alleged conduct. “Although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, and the legal theories of recovery were supplemented and modified, the substantive factual situation remained the same as that found in the original complaint .... ” Flores, 35 So.3d at 147. Therefore, we approve the Fourth District’s decision below, reversing the trial court’s dismissal of Respondents’ Title IX claim.

CONCLUSION

We hereby approve the Fourth District’s decision in Janie Doe 1 ex rel. Miranda v. Sinrod, 117 So.3d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), and disapprove cases such as Trumbull Insurance Co. v. Wolentarski, 2 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Page v. McMullan, 849 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Arnwine v. Huntington National Bank, N.A., 818 So.2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); West Volusia Hospital Authority v. Jones, 668 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); and Daniels v. Weiss, 385 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), to the extent that they establish a bright-line rule that an amendment asserting a new claim can never relate back to the filing of the original pleading.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., and PERRY, Senior Justice, concur.

CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result.

      . Pub. L. 92-318. §§ 901-07, 86 Stat. 235, 373-75 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (2012)).

      . Flores, 35 So.3d at 147 (allowing relation back even though legal theories of recovery within amended complaints were supplemented and modified).

      . See, e.g., Fabbiano, 91 So.3d at 896 (finding that battery claim related back to negligence claim because both involved same plaintiff, same injuries, and same damages and, therefore, “arose from the same occurrence").

      . See, e.g., Trumbull Ins. Co., 2 So.3d at 1055 (finding that plaintiff's PIP claim did not relate back to original negligence and uninsured/underinsured claims where original claims concerned collision of school bus with plaintiff's vehicle and PIP claim concerned insurer’s failure to pay medical providers certain contracted benefits); W. Volusia Hosp. Auth., 668 So.2d at 636 (finding father’s claim for loss of filial consortium in death of son sufficiently different from mother’s claim for loss of filial consortium such that father’s claim did not relate back). We cite these two cases as examples of the analysis conducted by the courts therein without passing judgment as to the correctness of either decision.

      . See, e.g., Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Edenfield, 45 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1950); Gables Racing Ass'n v. Persky, 131 Fla. 842, 180 So. 24 (1938); Livingston v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200, 137 So. 113 (1931); La Floridienne v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 63 Fla. 213, 58 So. 186 (1912).

      . See, e.g., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.15 (c) (1954) ("Relation Back of Amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading.”); Rule 15, Fla. Common Law Rules.

      . See generally Fabbiano, 91 So.3d at 895 (deeming reliance on 1931 case “misplaced” because decided before modem rule was adopted); Keel v. Brown, 162 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (holding that cases decided before adoption of 1954 version of rule were not controlling in 1964 case because “[b]y the adoption of the Rules, Florida assumed the more liberal attitude toward pleading, practice and procedure” and "intended that the former, technical rules would be materially changed”).

      . For example, the original complaint alleged a failure to remove the teacher from the premises after being notified of his sexual misconduct toward other students, and the amended complaint alleged that another sexual assault by the teacher was reported to the vice-principal and the principal by the father of another student years before instant report.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
    Adams v. State
    1D14-3068
    06/19/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Walton)


text:
    Dinkins v. State
    1D15-1146
    06/19/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Duval)


text:
    Eagle v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass’n
    1D14-4424
    06/30/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Alachua)


text:
    King v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation
    1D14-4762
    06/30/2015
   Dism.

Construction Industry Licensing Bd.


text:
    Orso v. State
    1D14-2584
    06/30/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Escambia)


text:
    Parmer v. State
    1D15-1385
    06/19/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Escam-bia)


text:
    Petit v. State
    1D13-5920
    06/30/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lafayette)


text:
    Purifoy v. State
    1D14-3719
    06/30/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Escam-bia)


text:
    Walker v. State
    1D14-3177
    06/30/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Duval)


text:
    Williams v. State
    1D15-1295
    06/19/2015
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bradford)


text:
    A.C. v. State
    2D15-1710
    04/27/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    A.S. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-127
    02/29/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Acosta v. State
    2D16-5
    03/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Acquisitions Trust, LLC v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n
    2D14-5985
    04/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Adkins v. Adkins
    2D16-86
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Ahanotu v. Ahanotu
    2D16-133
    04/14/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Allen v. State
    2D15-4913
    02/24/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Almodovar-Chaparro v. Almodovar
    2D16-903
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Almutasim v. Reemployment Assistance Appeal Com’n
    2D15-4511
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Alvarez v. State
    2D15-4821
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Ammed Surgical Equipment, LLC v. Professional Medical Billing Spec., LLC
    2D14-4968
    03/17/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Anderson v. Anderson
    2D16-1211
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Andreakos v. Buchorn
    2D16-382
    02/29/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Armstrong v. Bank of America, N.A.
    2D15-1533
    05/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    Atmore v. State
    2D15-5633
    04/04/2016
   Dism.


text:
    B.H. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-296
    04/21/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Baker v. State
    2D14-5640
    06/01/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Bork v. Bork
    2D14-5167
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Bayside Commercial Realty, Inc. v. EKE-HPRV, LLC
    2D15-2809
    04/13/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Beamon v. State
    2D16-220
    02/26/2016
   Pet. dism.


text:
    Bender v. Bender
    2D15-4181
    02/25/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Bennett v. State
    2D16-170
    02/24/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Bennett v. State
    2D15-3982
    02/24/2016
   Belated App. dism.


text:
    Bernard v. State
    2D16-466
    02/24/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Best v. Judd
    2D16-828
    03/14/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Bey v. Hillsborough Circuit Court
    2D16-221
    02/25/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Big E. Trailers, Inc. v. Solomon Law Group, P.A.
    2D16-988
    04/28/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Billings v. Selene Finance LP
    2D16-1412
    04/15/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Bilynsky v. State
    2D15-3514
    03/11/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Biscardi v. McNally
    2D16-377
    03/03/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Biscardi v. McNally
    2D16-299
    03/03/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Biscardi v. McNally
    2D16-634
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Black v. State
    2D15-2385
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Bohm v. Bohm
    2D15-3919
    04/12/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Bonafide Properties, LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n
    2D15-807
    05/06/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Borum v. State
    2D16-351
    02/24/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Bowie v. State
    2D15-4507
    03/21/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Bowser v. State
    2D14-3844
    04/20/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hillsborough)


text:
    Brewster v. State
    2D16-470
    02/25/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Brooks v. State
    2D15-5048
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Bruce v. Pradhan
    2D15-1664
    05/06/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinellas)


text:
    Bryant v. State
    2D14-2161
    04/13/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Burdine v. State
    2D15-4937
    04/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Burkett v. State
    2D15-5111
    02/24/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Burns v. State
    2D16-548
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Busch v. Wise
    2D16-721
    02/25/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    C.B. v. J.F.
    2D15-5619
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    C.L.B. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D15-5423
    04/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    C.W. v. Department of Children and Families
    2D16-487
    03/24/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Cabrera v. State
    2D15-5041
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Carrillo v. Homeowners Choice Property and Cas. Ins.
    2D15-4943
    03/17/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Carroll v. Rinehart
    2D15-102
    05/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Carson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    2D16-515
    02/17/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Carswell v. State
    2D15-4221
    04/15/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Carter v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
    2D15-1609
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Castor v. State
    2D15-3873
    01/11/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Castor v. State
    2D14-2126
    05/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Causey v. State
    2D16-773
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Chatfield v. State
    2D16-492
    02/24/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Chauncey v. PHH Mortg. Corp.
    2D16-109
    03/28/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Cielo v. State
    2D16-364
    04/04/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Circle M Ranch, Inc. v. Crop Production Service, Inc.
    2D12-2863
    03/14/2016
   Vacated


text:
    City of Naples v. International Charter Services, Inc.
    2D14-4832
    05/06/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    Clark v. State
    2D15-4915
    01/28/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Colantuono v. Dawn
    2D15-1209
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Coleman v. State
    2D16-142
    02/24/2016
   Belated App. den.


text:
    Collins Asset Group, L L C v. G M A C Mortg.
    2D15-5377
    04/07/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Collins Asset Group, LLC v. GMAC Mortg.
    2D15-5396
    03/14/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Cooper v. State
    2D15-5303
    05/18/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Currie v. State
    2D15-5324
    02/05/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    CDC Capital Investments, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.
    2D16-1042
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    D.B. v. State
    2D15-2022
    05/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    D.M. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D15-5582
    04/21/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Danzey v. Jones
    2D16-573
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Darrell Peebles, Inc. v. Division of Workers' Compensation
    2D15-5530
    02/29/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Davis v. State
    2D15-4162
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Dawkins v. State
    2D16-315, 2D16-738
    03/03/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    De Vito v. Hage
    2D16-544
    04/19/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Deal v. State
    2D15-5572
    02/24/2016
   Belated App.gr.


text:
    Decker v. Trust
    2D15-368
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Demarsh v. State
    2D16-282
    02/24/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Dept. of Revenue ex rel. H.N.F v. A.A.D.
    2D15-2423
    04/15/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Desir v. State
    2D15-4789
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Dhanik v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n
    2D14-1526
    04/29/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pasco)


text:
    Drake v. Donofrio
    2D16-497
    03/14/2016
   Den.


text:
    Drovdlic v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust
    2D15-918
    03/16/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Dukes v. State
    2D16-1208
    04/12/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Dukes v. State
    2D16-1152
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Dye v. State
    2D15-3526
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    E.C. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-237
    04/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Eales v. Bank of America, N.A.
    2D15-5391
    02/04/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Edwards v. State
    2D14-1899
    05/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Sarasota)


text:
    Ellis v. State
    2D16-75
    02/24/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Equitas Disability Advocates, LLC v. Boggs
    2D15-5756
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Fechter v. State
    2D15-671
    03/16/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Felder v. Felder
    2D16-858
    04/13/2016
   App.dism,


text:
    Fernandez v. State
    2D15-2307
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Ferreira v. State
    2D15-2891
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    Fichter v. State
    2D15-3394
    03/17/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Flores v. State
    2D15-5081
    04/20/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Ford v. State
    2D15-3857
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Fowler v. State
    2D15-5691
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Francois v. State
    2D15-3615
    02/24/2016
   Belated App. den.


text:
    Frost v. State
    2D15-4498
    02/24/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Gator Boring & Trenching, Inc. v. Westra Const. Corp.
    2D16-1404
    04/28/2016
   Den.


text:
    Gaynor v. State
    2D15-3979
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den,


text:
    Gensinger v. State
    2D16-52
    02/24/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Getz v. Marshall
    2D16-453
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Gillis v. State
    2D16-1353
    04/18/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Gilson v. State
    2D15-4917
    02/24/2016
   Belated App.gr.


text:
    Glover v. State
    2D15-4232
    04/15/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Glover v. State
    2D15-5323
    05/18/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct, (Polk)


text:
    Gokana Trust v. Kozel
    2D16-1191
    04/04/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Gold v. Gold
    2D15-5533
    02/18/2016
   App.dism,


text:
    Gonzalez v. State
    2D15-4018
    04/13/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-: borough)


text:
    Green v. State
    2D16-467
    03/09/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Green v. State
    2D16-149
    02/10/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Griffin v. State
    2D16-192
    02/24/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Grove v. Grove
    2D15-4354
    03/22/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Guardian Ad Litem Program v. R.A.B.
    2D16-224
    04/12/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Guice v. World Haulers, Inc.
    2D15-3294
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Guilford v. State
    2D15-4589
    06/01/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hillsborough)


text:
    Gulf Shore Land Trust v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat. Ass’n ex rel. Deutsche ALT-A Securities Mortg. Loan Trust, Series 2005-AR2
    2D15-3112
    04/29/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Hales v. State
    2D15-5075
    01/11/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Halikas v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass'n
    2D15-707
    04/12/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Hall v. State
    2D16-844
    03/30/2016
   Hab.Coip.den.


text:
    Hall v. State
    2D16-1158, 2D16-844
    03/29/2016
   Pet. transferred


text:
    Hardie v. State
    2D15-3290
    03/23/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Harmon v. Whitehurst
    2D15-4948
    03/16/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Harris v. State
    2D15-4772
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Haygood v. State
    2D16-1151
    04/12/2016
   Hab.Corp.dism.


text:
    Helmerich v. Barbour Enterprises Ltd. Partnership I
    2D16-569
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Heritage Pacific Financial LLC v. Gelman
    2D16-293
    03/11/2016
   Den.


text:
    Hernandez v. State
    2D14-4439
    03/17/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Hill, Barth & King, LLC v. Uphold
    2D15-5670
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Hillsborough County v. Wilson
    2D15-5462
    04/22/2016
   Cert.den.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Hinson v. State
    2D15-5589, 2D12-2371
    02/10/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Hodgins v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.
    2D15-4758
    02/22/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Hoffman v. State
    2D15-5046
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Hogg v. Hogg
    2D15-3203
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Holt v. State
    2D15-4740
    01/20/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Horton v. State
    2D15-4400
    03/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Hubbard v. State
    2D15-5018
    02/24/2016
   Belated App. dism.


text:
    Hunt v. State
    2D16-418
    02/26/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Hunter v. Knight
    2D16-1375
    04/13/2016
   Hab.Corp.gr.


text:
    Hutcheson v. State
    2D15-5163
    02/24/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    I. A. H. H. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-1261
    04/06/2016
   Cert. den.


text:
    I. A. H. H. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-1312
    04/04/2016
   Dism.


text:
    In re Commitment of Graves; Graves v. State
    2D15-4807
    06/01/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hillsborough)


text:
    J.K. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D15-5110
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    J.L.B. v. State
    2D15-2567
    06/01/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    J.L.M. v. Lonton
    2D16-1167
    03/23/2016
   Hab.Corp.gr.


text:
    Jackson v. Publishers Clearing House
    2D16-802
    03/11/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Jackson v. Vendereley
    2D16-1247
    04/19/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Jimenez-Porras v. State
    2D14-4772
    02/24/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Johnson v. State
    2D15-5036
    04/20/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon
    2D16-550
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Jones v. State
    2D16-1413
    04/08/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Jones v. Whiddon
    2D16-1178
    04/04/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Jordan v. State
    2D15-4906
    02/24/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Khleif v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass'n
    2D15-5657
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Klos v. State
    2D16-354
    02/23/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Kloth v. State
    2D15-4645
    02/24/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Lamar v. State
    2D16-252
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.dism.


text:
    Lee v. State
    2D15-3008
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Highlands)


text:
    Leggans v. State
    2D15-5178
    05/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Lennar Homes, LLC v. 5400, LCC
    2D15-5755
    04/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Lindsey v. State
    2D15-5022
    03/03/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Locke v. State
    2D16-374, 2D14-5578
    03/07/2016
   Pet. transferred


text:
    Logan v. State
    2D14-5440
    06/01/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hendry)


text:
    Logsdon v. State
    2D15-3681
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Lopez v. State
    2D15-4313
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Love v. State
    2D15-5535
    02/25/2016
   Mand. transferred


text:
    Lozada v. State
    2D15-4717
    03/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Lucas v. State
    2D16-369
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Lugo v. Bank of New York Mellon
    2D16-1086
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    M.C. v. Proposed Adoption of A.H.S.
    2D15-2622
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Mains v. State
    2D14-5449
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Martinez v. State
    2D15-4513
    02/24/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Mason v. Shoop
    2D16-522
    03/24/2016
   App.gr.


text:
    McCrae v. State
    2D14-2773
    04/15/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    McDonald v. State
    2D15-4950
    05/13/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    McElroy v. State
    2D16-1268
    04/12/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    McGee v. State
    2D15-5214
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    McKinzie v. State
    2D15-5319
    05/18/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Merrill v. State
    2D15-4226
    04/19/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Miller v. Norgard
    2D15-489
    05/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Montgomery v. Department of Revenue
    2D16-527
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Moore v. State
    2D16-78
    02/24/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Murray v. State
    2D15-5034
    02/18/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Murray v. State
    2D16-785
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Myers v. State
    2D15-5680
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Myrick v. State
    2D15-5637
    02/09/2016
   Hab.Corp.den,


text:
    N.B. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D15-4771
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    N.E. v. Department of Children and Families
    2D15-4962
    02/17/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Napier v. State
    2D15-3816
    04/14/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Napier v. State
    2D15-3824
    04/14/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Napier v. State
    2D15-3822
    04/12/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Nashaddai v. State
    2D14-2332
    12/16/2015
   Pet.den.


text:
    Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Visicaro
    2D16-526
    03/22/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Neacsu v. Neacsu
    2D15-1929
    05/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Nicholas v. Bank United FSB
    2D16-1102
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Nielson v. State
    2D15-3546
    04/27/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    NCH Healthcare System, Inc. v. Phelps
    2D15-3197
    05/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    O’Hara v. O’Hara
    2D16-92
    03/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Oliver v. State
    2D16-799
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Omogi v. Sealdoc Enterprise, LLC
    2D16-883
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Palmore v. State
    2D15-5401
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Palumbo v. Estate & Revocable Trust of Santoiana
    2D15-5754
    02/24/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Parish v. State
    2D16-371
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Parker v. Adult Addiction Receiving Facility
    2D16-541
    02/17/2016
   Hab.Corp.den,


text:
    Patten v. Patten
    2D15-4982
    04/15/2016
   Cert. dism.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    Perez v. State
    2D15-5413
    05/18/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Lee)


text:
    Perez-Bellaflores v. Westfield Ins. Co.
    2D15-5709
    02/22/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Persinger v. Tocci
    2D16-407
    04/15/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Peterson v. State
    2D16-396, 2D16-563
    02/26/2016
   Pet.gr,


text:
    Petrey v. State
    2D16-521
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Platt v. State
    2D16-693
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Pope v. Bikowitz
    2D16-61
    02/29/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Pope v. Bikowitz
    2D16-274
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Powell v. Wilson
    2D15-5528
    02/12/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Pratus v. Pratus
    2D16-1028
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Prentice v. Penny Mac Corp.
    2D16-1184
    04/07/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Price v. State
    2D15-4396
    05/25/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Charlotte)


text:
    Procopio v. State
    2D15-4924
    02/24/2016
   Mand.dism,


text:
    Pyche v. Fair
    2D16-1057
    04/13/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Pyche v. Wetherington, Hamilton, Harrison & Fair, P.A.
    2D16-791
    03/24/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Q.L.R. v. State
    2D15-1452
    06/01/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hills-borough)


text:
    R.R. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-628
    04/06/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Ramirez v. State
    2D16-40
    03/03/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Rapacinska v. Knight
    2D16-654
    02/26/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Rawls v. State
    2D16-94
    02/24/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Remy v. Department of Revenue Child Support ex rel. Cobbs
    2D16-268
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Reyes v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
    2D15-3495
    02/25/2016
   App.den.


text:
    Ridley v. State
    2D16-243
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Roberson v. State
    2D16-726
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Roberts v. State
    2D15-4852
    05/20/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Robinson v. State
    2D15-4450
    04/12/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Rodriguez v. 1947 Main Street, Inc.
    2D16-1213
    04/07/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Rogers v. State
    2D16-368
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.dism.


text:
    Rogers v. State
    2D16-507
    04/04/2016
   Dism.


text:
    S.M., Jr. v. A.C.S.
    2D16-102
    02/18/2016
   Cert. den.


text:
    Safe I R A Investments, L L C v. Mc Leod Land Services, Inc.
    2D16-968
    04/13/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Sanchez v. State
    2D15-5232
    02/24/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Sanders v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.
    2D16-337
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Saunders v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
    2D16-485
    03/17/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Schieke v. Haupt
    2D16-656
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Schnitt v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
    2D16-929
    03/09/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    School Bd. of Polk County, Fla. v. Polk Educ. Ass’n, Inc.
    2D15-624
    05/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Polk)


text:
    Schubert v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
    2D16-595
    04/04/2016
   Dism.


text:
    Scott v. State
    2D14-2608
    04/13/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Manatee)


text:
    Shea v. State
    2D15-2096
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Collier)


text:
    Simpson v. State
    2D15-5510
    02/24/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Smith v. Department of Revenue
    2D16-278
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D15-4002
    02/10/2016
   Belated App. den.


text:
    Smith v. State
    2D16-772
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.dism.


text:
    Speroni v. State
    2D16-347
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    State v. Foerman
    2D15-3842
    03/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zwetsch
    2D16-632
    04/12/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hurrell
    2D16-600
    03/24/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lyde
    2D16-356
    03/03/2016
   Motion gr.


text:
    Stewart v. Milczaryzk
    2D15-5675
    02/26/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Stoudemire v. State
    2D14-5883
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Manatee)


text:
    Stoudemire v. State
    2D14-5911
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Manatee)


text:
    Sussman v. Securian Financial Group, Inc.
    2D16-1051
    04/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Swinontkowski v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-232
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Szrajer v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc.
    2D15-142
    04/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hillsborough)


text:
    T.W. v. Department of Children & Families
    2D15-4870
    04/21/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Taylor v. State
    2D16-250
    03/29/2016
   Hab.Corp.dism.


text:
    Terminello v. State
    2D15-3879
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Thomas v. Bank of New York
    2D16-379
    02/29/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Tom’s Work Uniform v. State Dept. of Revenue
    2D16-290
    03/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Torres v. State
    2D16-514
    02/24/2016
   Hab.Corp.den.


text:
    Triska v. Boggs
    2D16-1009
    04/19/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Trustbiz, LLC v. US Bank, Nat. Ass’n
    2D15-3831
    03/16/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Tucker v. State
    2D16-918
    03/11/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Wall
    2D15-5193
    04/15/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Uppal v. Wells Fargo Bank
    2D15-5367
    02/10/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Val v. State
    2D15-5455
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Veliz v. Oliveri
    2D15-4595
    02/19/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Venice NH, LLC v. McNamara
    2D15-2090
    04/14/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Vizzi v. Averza
    2D15-3044
    03/15/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Westshore Home Improvements, LLC v. PS Concepts Inc.
    2D16-164
    03/22/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Wheeler v. State
    2D16-132
    02/05/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Whidden v. Department of Children & Families
    2D16-335
    03/03/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Whitburn, LLC v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n
    2D15-1301
    05/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hillsborough)


text:
    Whitburn, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp.
    2D14-4724
    05/06/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Hillsborough)


text:
    Williams v. Department of Revenue
    2D16-117
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Williams v. Laventure
    2D16-748
    04/06/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D15-2530
    03/11/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D15-3793
    02/25/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D15-5003
    01/28/2016
   Mand.den.


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D15-5419
    05/18/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Pinel-las)


text:
    Williams v. State
    2D16-285
    04/04/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Williams v. Trujillo
    2D14-5554
    05/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct (Manatee)


text:
    Woods v. State
    2D16-398
    02/24/2016
   Belated App.gr.


text:
    Wooley v. AS Triton, LLC
    2D15-5446
    02/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    A.R. v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
    3D15-2058
    03/17/2016
   App.dism.

Health Care Admin.


text:
    All Star Boxing, Inc. v. Alvarez
    3D16-0589
    05/27/2016
   Vol.dism.


text:
    Allen v. Guevara
    3D16-1084
    05/13/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Amsalem v. Amsalem
    3D16-0748, 3D16-0747
    05/16/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Anestin v. State
    3D15-2292
    06/07/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Ayala v. State
    3D16-0834
    05/04/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    ANJ of South Florida, LLC v. JDJ of Miami, Inc.
    3D16-0741
    05/03/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Bailey v. David
    3D16-0828
    05/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Bailey v. State
    3D16-1252
    05/27/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Bank of New York Mellon v. Cortes
    3D16-0446
    06/13/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Baratta v. Costa-Martinez
    3D16-0759, 3D16-0813
    05/02/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Barnard v. State
    3D16-0913
    04/25/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Beal v. Macias
    3D16-0777
    04/25/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Bent v. State
    3D16-0115
    05/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir, Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Biarritz Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Avendano
    3D16-0308
    05/10/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Borger v. Weiss
    3D16-0280
    04/21/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Brown v. State
    3D16-1094
    05/13/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Brown v. State
    3D16-1124
    05/16/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Brown v. U.S. Bank N.A.
    3D16-0596
    05/12/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Bure v. State
    3D16-0478
    04/18/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Burnett v. State
    3D16-1004
    05/05/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Burton v. State
    3D16-0193
    04/28/2016
   App.dism,


text:
    Byron v. State
    3D16-1085
    05/13/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Camarillo v. Camarillo
    3D16-1000
    05/24/2016
   Pet.den,


text:
    Canellas v. Maldone
    3D15-2889
    05/27/2016
   App.dism.

Cir, Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Carrillo v. Carrillo
    3D16-0695
    04/01/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Carrillo v. Carrillo
    3D16-0695
    04/20/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Chamizo v. U.S. Century Bank, N.A.
    3D16-1028
    05/11/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    City Nat. Bank of Florida v. De Olazarra
    3D16-0047
    05/13/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Cresci v. Crippen
    3D16-0988
    06/03/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Dave 60 NYC, Inc. v. Law Offices of Anthony Accetta, P.A.
    3D16-0992
    05/20/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Daxan 26 (FL), LLC v. 100 Lincoln RD SB, LLC
    3D16-0414
    05/25/2016
   Certdism.


text:
    De Felice v. De Felice
    3D15-2778
    06/09/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir, Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    De Loor v. Best Meridian Ins. Co.
    3D16-0153
    05/10/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Deben v. Bank of America
    3D15-2803
    05/16/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Debose v. State
    3D15-2259
    05/27/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Demty v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n
    3D16-0839
    05/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Demty v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n
    3D16-1195
    06/15/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Do Campo and Thornton, P.A. v. CK Regalia, LLC
    3D16-0889
    05/05/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Dolz v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
    3D15-2837
    04/26/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Doyle v. State
    3D16-0693
    04/22/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    E.G. v. State
    3D16-1087
    05/12/2016
   Vol.dism.


text:
    Environ Intern. Corp. v. Grillet
    3D16-0932
    05/16/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Espinosa v. State
    3D15-2914
    04/27/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Fails v. State
    3D16-0716
    05/26/2016
   Den.


text:
    Field v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
    3D16-0578
    04/05/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Field v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
    3D16-0578
    04/22/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Francis v. City of Key West, Fla.
    3D16-0616
    04/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    FST Holdings 7 LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon
    3D15-2460
    05/31/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Ghodrati v. Gardens of Kendall South Condominium No. 5 Ass’n, Inc.
    3D16-0760
    05/10/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Gonzalez v. State
    3D16-0803
    04/22/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Grandview Palace Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Atkinson Trust, LLC
    3D15-1051
    06/14/2016
   App.dism.

Cir.- Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Grant v. State
    3D16-1221
    06/09/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. Christina Trust
    3D15-2588
    05/24/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Grundy v. Ceballos
    3D16-1143
    05/31/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Gutierrez v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
    3D15-1627
    05/04/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Harris v. State
    3D16-1125
    05/16/2016
   Pet. stricken


text:
    Hernandez v. Ortiz
    3D16-0723
    04/01/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Hernandez v. Rodriguez
    3D16-0452
    05/11/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Heyes Intern. Ltd. v. Hellman Worldwide Logistics, Inc.
    3D16-1254
    06/01/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Holliman v. State
    3D16-1156
    05/20/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Inda v. Garcia
    3D16-1251
    05/27/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Israel v. State
    3D16-0516
    05/16/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Jaramillo v. Guevara
    3D16-0901
    04/22/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Jean-Francois v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust
    3D15-2553
    05/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Jean-Marie v. State
    3D16-1005
    05/26/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Jenkins v. State
    3D15-2918
    05/10/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Jett v. State
    3D16-0137
    05/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Jones v. Martin
    3D16-0793
    04/19/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Jones v. Procesadora de Alimentos Infal, S.A.
    3D16-0156
    05/18/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Joseph v. Haitian Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
    3D16-0740
    05/18/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Juarro v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.
    3D15-2632
    05/17/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Kelly v. Miami-Dade County
    3D16-0789
    05/05/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Kiehlmeier v. Premium Collision Parts, Inc.
    3D16-0074
    05/31/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Kotch v. Philip Morris-USA Inc.
    3D15-2887, 3D15-2886
    05/11/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lacs v. Edderai
    3D16-0110
    05/04/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lago Mar North Homeowners v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n
    3D15-1704
    05/10/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lamington Resources, Inc. v. Burger King Corp.
    3D16-0261
    05/16/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lawton v. State
    3D16-0586
    04/05/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Ledea v. State
    3D16-0233
    05/13/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Lewis v. M.R.A.
    3D15-1714
    05/11/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Liberte v. Sulfa
    3D16-0738
    04/08/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Llopis v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc., FSB
    3D16-0815
    05/13/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Lopez v. State
    3D16-1042
    05/11/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Lunan v. Department of Revenue ex rel. Watson
    3D16-0951
    05/18/2016
   App.dism.

Dept. of Revenue


text:
    Machado v. Guevara
    3D16-0862
    04/18/2016
   Hab.Corp.gr,


text:
    Maglio v. U.S. Bank N.A.
    3D16-0829
    05/12/2016
   App.dism.

Cir, Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Mariah v. State
    3D16-0249
    05/25/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Martin v. State
    3D16-0470
    04/19/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Martinez Celaya, Inc. v. Nader
    3D16-0277
    05/13/2016
   Cert.dism.


text:
    Mathis v. State
    3D16-1212
    05/24/2016
   Mand.dism.


text:
    Mendez v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co.
    3D16-0615
    05/12/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Mickens v. State
    3D16-0898
    04/22/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Miller v. Baptist Hosp., Inc.
    3D15-0857
    05/12/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct, (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Milton v. State
    3D16-0944
    04/28/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    MSG Development, LLC v. Hometown Station
    3D16-0223
    05/13/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Nesbitt v. State
    3D13-1017
    04/25/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Nestor v. Von Kahle
    3D15-2808
    03/04/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Nestor v. Von Kahle
    3D15-2808
    04/20/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Nieblas v. U.S. Bank N.A.
    3D15-2574
    05/25/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. Britt
    3D16-0737
    05/05/2016
   Pet.den,


text:
    Oehling v. State
    3D15-2926
    05/04/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Paul v. Guevara
    3D16-0931
    04/22/2016
   Pet.den,


text:
    Peltier v. Shea
    3D15-2287
    05/24/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Peralta v. Peralta
    3D16-0209
    05/13/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Perez v. James B. Nutter & Co.
    3D16-0522
    04/21/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Perez v. State
    3D16-0307
    05/18/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Petruzzelli v. Sands Pointe Ocean Beach Resort Condominium Ass’n, Inc.
    3D16-0375
    04/18/2016
   App.dism.


text:
    Pimentel v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.
    3D16-0921
    05/10/2016
   App.dism.

Cir, Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Price v. Sortino
    3D16-1099
    05/13/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Realty Associates Fund IX, L.P.
    3D16-0486
    04/22/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Quintana v. State
    3D16-0504
    04/26/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Quintana v. State
    3D16-0504
    05/12/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Rizzo v. Myers
    3D16-0339
    05/25/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Monroe)


text:
    Rodriguez v. American Integrity Ins. Co.
    3D15-1791
    05/10/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Rodriguez v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n
    3D16-0852
    05/06/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Rojas v. Olmo
    3D16-0739
    04/08/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Rouse v. Best Hospitality Group, Inc.
    3D16-0886
    05/13/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Ruiz v. State
    3D15-2675
    04/22/2016
   Pet. den.


text:
    Russo v. Wells Fargo
    3D16-0006
    05/31/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Saintfleur v. State
    3D16-409
    06/08/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. Dade) (Miami-


text:
    Saralegui v. Navarro
    3D16-0696
    04/06/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Silberman v. Porcelli
    3D16-0439
    06/16/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Silverman v. 1225 8th Street Property, Inc.
    3D15-1856
    06/02/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Silverman v. 16 SE 2nd Street, LLC
    3D16-0232, 3D15-2677
    06/01/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. B&G Graphics, Inc.
    3D16-0030
    05/11/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Tib Bank v. Franks
    3D15-1485
    03/18/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Tisdol v. State
    3D15-2231
    03/14/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Toscano v. Moore
    3D16-1106
    06/02/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    U.S. Century Bank v. Hernandez
    3D15-2717
    05/12/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Urribarri v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat. Ass’n
    3D16-0657
    04/21/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Vilme v. U.S. Bank, Nat. Ass’n
    3D16-0072
    06/07/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Vilsaint v. State
    3D16-0919
    04/25/2016
   Motion den,


text:
    Waldon v. Alger
    3D16-0684
    05/23/2016
   App.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Watkins v. State
    3D16-0799
    04/13/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Weiss v. Weiss
    3D16-0351
    05/11/2016
   Motion den.


text:
    Weiss-Ortiz v. C.W.
    3D15-2562
    05/12/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Wells v. Ginarte
    3D16-0724
    04/01/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Whitford v. Gross
    3D15-2777
    06/09/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Whyce v. Petithomme
    3D16-0697
    04/01/2016
   Proh.den.


text:
    Williams v. State
    3D16-0895
    04/22/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Wilson v. Guevara
    3D16-0997
    05/03/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    Wilson v. State
    3D16-0906
    04/25/2016
   Pet.dism.


text:
    Winston Towers 200 Ass'n, Inc. v. Custom Group, Inc.
    3D16-0970
    06/13/2016
   Vol.dism.

Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)


text:
    Wright v. State
    3D16-1006
    05/11/2016
   Pet.den.


text:
    100 NWT Fee Owner, LLC v. Rolland
    3D15-2417
    04/21/2016
   Cert.den.


text:
    3625 Design Dist., LLC v. Cohen
    3D16-1139
    06/02/2016
   Vol.dism.


text:
    940 Lincoln Road Associates LLC v. 940 Lincoln Road Enterprises, Inc.
    3D16-0751
    05/26/2016
   Motion den.; Pet.den.


text:
    Bassett v. State
    4D15-3889
    03/03/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Blue v. State
    4D15-109
    02/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (St. Lucie)


text:
    C.C. v. State
    4D14-1904, 4D14-1909
    02/25/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Dawson v. State
    4D14-2416
    03/10/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Indian River)


text:
    Furfaro v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC
    4D15-0935
    01/28/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Johnson v. State
    4D15-2179
    03/10/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Latson v. State
    4D15-3316
    02/04/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Levine v. Whitehall Condominium of Pine Island Ridge, Inc.
    4D14-654
    02/18/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Lorenzo v. State
    4D15-3771
    03/03/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    Piscatelli v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC
    4D14-1847
    02/25/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


text:
    U.C. v. State
    4D15-928
    01/22/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Vilchiz v. State
    4D15-3469
    02/25/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Bro-ward)


text:
    Wilson v. State
    4D15-1926
    02/11/2016
   Aff.

Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Montgomery Blair SIBLEY, Appellant, v. Barbara SIBLEY, Appellee.
    No. 3D06-348.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 31, 2006.
    Lisa Marie Macci, Boca Raton, for appellant.
    Caruana and Lorenzen and Dirk Loren-zen, Miami, for appellee.
    Before COPE, C.J., and GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.
   On Order to Show Cause

PER CURIAM.

This court received the initial brief of appellant, and other papers, bearing the signature of Montgomery Blair Sibley on his own behalf and the signature of Lisa Marie Macci as attorney for appellant. This court entered an order to show cause why the brief and related papers should not be stricken, as being in violation of this court’s decision in Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So.2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). That opinion stated in part:

We therefore prohibit the former husband [Montgomery Blair Sibley] from further self-representation in this court.
We direct the clerk of this court to reject any further filings in this court on the former husband’s behalf unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar (other than the former husband).

Id. at 988 (emphasis added).

After considering the appellant’s response to the order to show cause, the court rules that appellant Montgomery Blair Sibley is not allowed to sign briefs, motions, responses, and other legal papers filed in this court. This court’s opinion in Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So.2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), stated, “The former husband is precluded from further self-representation in this court.” Id. at 988. The signing of briefs, motions, responses, and other legal papers in this court by appellant Sibley constitutes self-representation in this court in violation of this court’s opinion.

Accordingly, the court strikes appellant’s initial brief and Appellant’s Response to Sibley Children’s Motion to Require Appellant to Affiliate an Attorney Licensed to Practice in the State of Florida on this Appeal and to Require the Posting of a Bond. Ms. Macci, as appellant’s counsel, may file an amended initial brief and an amended response over her signature only, within ten (10) days.


text:
    Elbert WOODSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).
    No. 3D05-2094.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 11, 2006.
   The petition for belated appeal is granted on both lower tribunal case nos. 03-12829 and 03-23785. This order shall serve as a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence. The circuit court clerk shall promptly certify this order and return it to this Court. Upon receipt of the certified order, a new appellate case number will be assigned to the appeal.

Upon receipt of the acknowledgment letter of the new appeal, appellant shall forthwith file the necessary motions to cause the record to be filed and this appeal shall proceed in accordance with the Florida appellate rules governing criminal appeals.

Upon consideration, appellant’s request for appointment of counsel is hereby denied.

WELLS, SUAREZ and CORTIÑAS, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM. WELLS, Judge,

text:
    The DURHAM PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., the Miami River Marine Group, Inc., and Captain Herbert Payne, Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI and Brisas del Rio, LLC, Appellees.
    No. 3D06-2718.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 24, 2007.

      Andrew W.J. Dickman, Naples, for appellants.
    Jorge L. Fernandez, City of Miami Attorney and Rafael Suarez-Rivas, Assistant City of Miami Attorney; Shutts Bowen and Stephen B. Gillman and Stephen T. Maher and Suzanne Youmans Labrit, for appellees.
    Before WELLS and CORTIÑAS, JJ., and FLETCHER, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a Final Order of the Florida Department of Community Affairs which adopted the administrative law judge’s Recommended Order and denied Appellants’ Exceptions. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) made certain findings of fact and concluded that appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the City of Miami’s approved small-scale amendment of its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan for two parcels of property (“Parcel 1” and “Parcel 2”) along the Miami River was not in compliance with pertinent statutes and administrative regulations, was not supported by the adequate data and analysis, and/or was internally inconsistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.

The amendment, approved by the City in Ordinance 12776, changed the land use designation in the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) for Parcel 2 from “Industrial” and “Medium Density Multifamily Residential” to “Restricted Commercial.” The amendment did not change the “Medium Density Multifamily Residential” for Parcel 1. The City passed the amendment pursuant to the procedures for small-scale development amendments found in section 163.3187(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).

The ALJ who adjudicated appellants’ current petition found that appellants were collaterally estopped from raising certain aspects of their challenge based on the adjudication of a previous petition in which the same petitioners challenged a similar small-scale amendment to the FLUM for a different parcel of property, which was also located near the Miami River. See Payne v. City of Miami, DCA Case No. 06-GM-132, DOAH Case No. 04-2754 (Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, Final Order, June 21, 2006). The ALJ further held that the Department of Community Affairs’ Final Order in DOAH Case No. 04-2754 conclusively established certain disputed issues in this case. The Recommended Order in this case also cites the Department of Community Affairs’ Final Order in DOAH Case No. 06-759, which was a similar challenge to a third small-scale FLUM amendment for yet another piece of property along the Miami River. See Payne v. City of Miami, DCA Case No. 06-GM-214, DOAH Case No. 06-759 (Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, Final Order, Aug. 31, 2006).

Both the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 04-2754 and the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 06-759 were appealed and each appeal, including this one, has raised almost identical challenges. On August 8, 2007, we reversed the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 04-2754, and on August 29, 2007, we also reversed the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 06-759. See Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, 2007 WL 2254570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) and Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2055, 2007 WL 2428453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Importantly, the ALJ in this case found the Final Orders in DOAH Case No. 04-2475 and DOAH Case No. 06-759 (which were reversed on appeal by this court) to be collateral estoppel in the instant action. Thus, we are compelled to reverse the order presently before us and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinions in those cases.

Reversed and remanded.

WELLS, Judge,

(specially concurring).

I agree that because we are bound by our earlier decisions in Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2055, 2007 WL 2428453 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 29, 2007), and Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, 2007 WL 2254570 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007), the order on appeal here must be reversed.

FLETCHER, Senior Judge, concurs.

      . The same ALJ adjudicated Appellants’ petition in DOAH Case No. 06-759 and this case.


text:
    Todd GORDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Polk County Sheriff, Appellees.
    No. 2D15-4178.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 17, 2016.
    Todd Gordon, pro se.
    Jack P. James, III and Hank B. Campbell of Valenti, Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo & Aranda, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellee Polk County Sheriffs Office.
    No appearance for Appellee State of Florida.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Dustin J. McINTYRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-258.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Mosley, 149 So.3d 684 (Fla.2014); Cotto v. State, 139 So.3d 283 (Fla.2014); Gandy v. State, 163 So.3d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Claycomb v. State, 142 So.3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Fredrick J. ALONZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-263.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Young v. State, 141 So.3d 161 (Fla.2013); Alonzo v. State, 151 So.3d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (table decision); McDonald v. State, 133 So.3d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Doby v. State, 25 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Steward v. State, 931 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Harris v. State, 777 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Labadie v. State, 840 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Paul v. State, 830 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hams v. State, 789 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Anthony LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-266.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
    Anthony Lopez, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Daniel v. State, 935 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Pitts v. State, 832 So.2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Duarte v. State, 59 So.3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Amos v. State, 833 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    William Fennell PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-307.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Hackley, 95 So.3d 92 (Fla.2012); State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000); Pittman v. State, 160 So.3d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (table decision); Harris v. State, 777 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Patrick JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-323.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Dominguez v. State, 98 So.3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Vidak v. State, 793 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Haynes v. State, 106 So.3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    James Blaine McELROY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-349.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
    James Blaine McElroy, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 810.011(4), Fla. Stat. (1989); Carbajal v. State, 75 So.3d 258 (Fla.2011); DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260 (Fla.1988); State v. King, 426 So.2d 12 (Fla.1982); McDonald v. State, 133 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Doby v. State, 25 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Steward v. State, 931 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mosely v. State, 688 So.2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Desmond v. State, 576 So.2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Budd v. State, 477 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Sanchez v. State, 979 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Foss v. State, 834 So.2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); State v. Hawkins, 790 So.2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Harris v. State, 789 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Messina v. State, 728 So.2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lemus v. State, 641 So.2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Alexander COTE-FERRER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-454.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
    Alexander Cote-Ferrer, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.082(3)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2010); Robinson v. State, 37 So.3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Byron J. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-610.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Dominguez v. State, 98 So.3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Sweet v. State, 987 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Shaw v. State, 780 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Haynes v. State, 106 So.3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, 917 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Clayton v. State, 904 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Paul v. State, 830 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Mar- tell v. State, 676 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    Ira Bernard PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 2D16-945.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 6, 2016.
    Ira Bernard Parker, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.084(2), Fla. Stat. (1989); Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125 (Fla.1993); State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d 22 (Fla.1992); Kirby v. State, 198 So.3d 15, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1591, 2015 WL 4154172 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2015); Parker v. State, 65 So.3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Steward v. State, 931 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Campbell v. State, 884 So.2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Lee v. State, 685 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Gary v. State, 5 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Quintana v. State, 913 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Jones v. State, 907 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


author: SLEET, Judge.

text:
    Jeffrey WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF WINTER HAVEN and Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Appellees.
    No. 2D15-2587.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    July 15, 2016.

      Jeffrey Williams, pro se.
    Cristina A. Velez, Appellate Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee RAAC.
    No appearance for Appellee City of Winter Haven.
   SLEET, Judge.

Jeffrey Williams appeals an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (the Commission) affirming an appeals referee’s decision finding him ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because Williams’ violation of the City of Winter Haven’s policy did not constitute misconduct as defined by section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2014), we reverse.

“The determination of whether the employee committed misconduct connected with work ... is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Hernandez v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 114 So.3d 407, 408-09 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The unemployment compensation statute must be liberally construed in favor of the claimant, and the “disqualification provisions, being remedial in nature, are to be narrowly construed.” Davidson v. AAA Cooper Transp., 852 So.2d 398, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). It is the employer’s burden to prove misconduct within the meaning of section 443.036(29). Cesar v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 121 So.3d 1181, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Contrary to the Commission’s assertions on appeal, the 2011 addition of subsection (e) to the definition of “misconduct” in section 443.036(29), see ch. 2011-235, § 3, at 3485, Laws of Fla., has not changed Florida’s abiding precedent that an isolated rule violation based on a good faith error in judgment does not amount to misconduct that would justify a refusal of benefits. See Vilar v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 889 So.2d 933, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Repeated violations of explicit policies, after several warnings, are usually required for a finding of misconduct.” (quoting Barchoff v. Shells of St. Pete Beach, Inc., 787 So.2d 935, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))); Contreras v. Reemploy ment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 178 So.3d 953, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that isolated instances of ordinary negligence or good faith errors in judgment do not amount to misconduct for which benefits can be denied); Responsible Vendors, Inc. v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 172 So.3d 561, 561-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that isolated instances of “good faith errors in judgment or discretion” do not support a denial of benefits); Cesar, 121 So.3d at 1184 n. 3 (“Generally, an employee must evidence intentional insubordination to meet this standard of misconduct.”); Hernandez, 114 So.3d at 409 (holding that “isolated incidents involving poor judgment, inattention, or failure to perform in the workplace” did not amount to misconduct); Morales v. Fla. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 106 So.3d 81, 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“A single instance of insubordination that reflects at most an isolated error in judgment, without more, does not amount to disqualifying misconduct under the statute.”); Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 664 So.2d 1089, 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“A single act of insubordination can be misconduct but a single act arising out of poor judgment may not be misconduct.... Generally, courts require more than a single instance of poor judgment to disqualify a claimant from unemployment compensation.”).

Although there is no question that the city proved that Williams’ conduct violated city policy and justified his discharge, it does not necessarily follow that he is not entitled to unemployment benefits. See Vilar, 889 So.2d at 935 (“Although an employee’s actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits.” (quoting Donnell v. Univ. Cmty. Hosp., 705 So.2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998))). A finding of misconduct requires evidence of an intentional or repeated violation of the employer’s rule or policy, not just evidence that the employee has violated the rule or policy. See Responsible Vendors, 172 So.3d at 562 (“[T]he employer must prove that the employee behaved intentionally or with a degree of carelessness or negligence that manifests a wrongful intent or evil design, or otherwise acted in a way that would constitute misconduct as defined in section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2015).”); see also Contreras, 178 So.3d at 955-56; Cesar, 121 So.3d at 1184 n. 3; Hernandez, 114 So.3d at 409; Morales, 106 So.3d at 82. Because the record does not contain any evidence that Williams intentionally or repeatedly violated company policy, Williams is entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits.

Reversed.

NORTHCUTT and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.


text:
    George GOULD, Petitioner, v. Julie JONES, Respondent.
    No. 2D16-739.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Aug. 3, 2016.
    George Gould, pro se.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315; Carbajal v. State, 75 So.3d 258 (Fla.2011); Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004); Lareau v. State, 573 So.2d 813 (Fla.1991); State v. King, 426 So.2d 12 (Fla.1982); State v. Broom, 523 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Farrell v. State, 62 So.3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Branch v. State, 990 So.2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Thier v. State, 967 So.2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Gould v. State, 860 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

LaROSE, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.


text:
    GOLD ROCK, INC., as Assignee of Nikkia McKendrick, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a the Bank of New York as trustee for Harborview 2006-CB1 Trust, Appellee.
    No. 2D15-4756.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Aug. 5, 2016.
    Heather A. DeGrave and Jamie A. Cummings of Walters Levine Klingensmith & Thomison, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
    Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee; William P. Heller of Aker-man LLP, Fort Lauderdale; and Eric M. Levine of Akerman LLP, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 193 So.3d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (on motion for rehearing).

KELLY, WALLACE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.