The Florida District Courts of Appeal were busy on December 10, 2025, issuing a quartet of opinions that read like a checklist of what not to do in litigation—especially family law and appellate practice. From last-minute regret over settlement agreements, to relocation confusion, to amendment denials, to outright fictitious case citations, the message from the DCAs was remarkably consistent:
Final means final. Procedure matters. And you actually have to read the cases you cite.
Here’s a quick tour of the highlights.
1. Buyer’s Remorse Is Not a Legal Strategy
Martin v. Sater (5th DCA)
In Martin v. Sater, the Fifth DCA dealt with a familiar post-judgment refrain: “I agreed to it, but I wasn’t really thinking clearly.”
The former wife attempted to set aside a marital settlement agreement after the final judgment had already been entered, arguing that the agreement was unfair, that she lacked adequate financial disclosure, and that she relied on misinformation from her husband. In short, she claimed the agreement “shocked the conscience.”
The problem? Timing and procedure.
Because the MSA was incorporated into a final judgment before her motion was filed, the court held that relief could only be sought under Florida Family Law Rule 12.540, not the Casto unfairness test. The wife failed to meet the strict requirements of Rule 12.540, and the trial court’s denial was affirmed.
The Fifth DCA went further, expressly receding from Suppa v. Suppa and certifying a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the interplay between Macar, Casto, and Rule 12.540.
Takeaway:
Once a settlement agreement is baked into a final judgment, Casto is out, Rule 12.540 is in, and regret alone won’t get you relief.
2. You Can Move—The Kids Don’t Automatically Come With You
Lally v. Lally (4th DCA)
In Lally v. Lally, the Fourth DCA addressed a non-custodial father’s attempt to modify a parenting plan based solely on his own voluntary relocation.
The court wasn’t impressed.
The father moved and sought modification of timesharing, but notably never sought permission to relocate the children under section 61.13001. As a result, the trial court—and the appellate court—treated the case strictly as a modification under section 61.13.
Voluntary relocation by a parent, standing alone, does not constitute a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances.
Takeaway:
Relocation law is its own animal. If you don’t invoke section 61.13001, don’t expect the court to do it for you.
3. Amendments Are Liberally Granted—Until They Aren’t
Russell v. Mells (2d DCA)
The Second DCA reminded trial courts that Florida remains a leave-to-amend state.
In Russell v. Mells, the trial court denied leave to file a third amended complaint and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice—despite the absence of a trial date, discovery, prejudice, abuse of the amendment privilege, or futility.
That was reversible error.
But the opinion didn’t stop there.
The court took the extraordinary step of referring defendant’s appellate counsel to The Florida Bar for submitting a brief that misquoted caselaw and cited cases that did not exist at all.
The court made it explicit:
Ethical obligations are not excused simply because a computer program generated the analysis.
Takeaway:
You get chances to amend pleadings. You do not get chances to fabricate authority—intentionally or otherwise.
4. An Amended Judgment Doesn’t Restart the Appellate Clock
Fletcher v. Board of County Commissioners (3d DCA)
In Fletcher, the Third DCA addressed a common appellate misconception: that an amended final judgment opens the door to re-litigate everything.
It doesn’t.
Even when an amended judgment materially modifies an original judgment, the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited only to the amended portions. If the alleged errors were in the original judgment and not appealed timely, they remain unreviewable.
Takeaway:
An amended judgment is not a mulligan. Appeal deadlines still matter.
The Big Picture
Taken together, these cases reinforce a few core truths every Florida lawyer—and litigant—should remember:
- Final judgments mean what they say
- Procedure is not optional
- Relocation requires the correct statute
- Amendment is liberal, but not infinite
- Citations must be real—and accurate
Or, put more simply:
You can’t undo it, move it, make it up, or appeal it late.
If you have questions about post-judgment relief, relocation, or appellate strategy—or want to make sure your case law actually exists—feel free to reach out.
Because “the computer wrote it” is not a recognized legal defense.