In re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Case No. SC2025-1458 (Fla. 2026).
The Florida Supreme Court adopted rule amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020 (definitions), 9.045 (form of documents), 9.200 (the record on appeal), and 9.420 (filing, service of copies, and computation of time) to conform to recent changes to the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the changes to be effective July 1, 2026.
City of Gainesville v. Parkwood Alachua Land Investments, Inc., Case No. 1D2022-3266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).
Upon rehearing, the First District holds that prefatory paragraphs in a contract are not operative provisions and may not be used to create an ambiguity in, or to restrict the plain meaning of, the numbered operative clauses that follow.
First United Methodist Church of Hobe Sound, Florida, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Florida Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., Case No. 1D2023-1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).
Under Florida's Hierarchical Deference Doctrine, a state court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate intra-church property disputes that have been resolved by the highest judicial body of a hierarchical religious denomination, even when a party frames its claims as challenges under neutral principles of state property or trust law.
Schindler v. Schiavo, Case No. 2D2025-0671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).
Post-judgment intervention is extraordinary and disfavored, and a third party seeking to intervene in a closed guardianship proceeding to unseal confidential records must demonstrate a clear and adverse impact on a readily discernible proprietary or legal interest; generalized public advocacy purposes do not satisfy that standard.
Lam v. Modern Tampa Bay Homes, Inc., Case No. 2D2025-1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).
A party that prevails on the significant issue of liability in a breach of contract action is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney's fees and costs, even if it recovers only a portion of the damages sought if the shortfall results from a contractual limitation on recoverable damages rather than a failure to prevail on a contested damages issue.
Wolland v. Wolland, Case No. 3D25-1520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).
A trial court has no discretion to impose the entire fee obligation in a partition on only one party, as Florida Statutes section 64.081 mandates that attorney's fees benefiting the partition be apportioned among all parties in proportion to their respective interests in the partitioned property.
Bal Harbour Shops Marketplace, LLC v. ORU Associates, Inc., Case No. 3D24-1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).
A commercial tenant's obligation to pay rent does not commence before the contractually defined "Rent Commencement Date," and a trial court errs by importing pre-contract email negotiations to define contractual terms when the lease itself unambiguously defines those terms and contains an integration clause.
Ryan v. HSBC Bank USA, Case No. 4D2024-2957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
A plaintiff seeking to reestablish a lost promissory note under Florida Statutes section 673.3091 must prove both who held the right to enforce the note at the time it was lost and the chain by which the plaintiff acquired ownership from that party; mortgage assignments alone are insufficient to establish that the note was transferred.
Aronov v. Sound Connection Distributors, Inc., Case No. 4D2024-2462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
Claims based on an oral or equitable agreement to convey real property interests are barred by the statute of frauds under Florida Statutes section 725.01 while claims arising from the same facts that do not require a conveyance of real property, including fraud-based torts, breach of oral contract as to membership interests, and unjust enrichment, survive dismissal and may be pled in the alternative at the pleading stage.
Metronet Technologies, LLC v. United Fiber Works, LLC, Case No. 5D2025-1558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2026).
A party waives its contractual right to arbitration when, under the totality of the circumstances, it acts inconsistently with that right by propounding merits-based discovery directed to the central issues of the lawsuit, and the subsequent withdrawal of those discovery requests after the trial court's oral ruling does not undo the waiver.
