Florida’s appellate courts recently issued a series of instructive opinions spanning injunctions, guardianship proceedings, civil sanctions, and family law relocation agreements. These cases offer practical guidance for litigators and trial courts alike.
1. Stalking Injunctions: Sufficient Allegations Require a Hearing
Odom v. Cole, 1D2025-2646 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 8, 2026)
In Odom, the First District reversed an order denying a petition for injunction for protection against stalking, emphasizing two critical points:
First, the trial court’s order was legally insufficient because it failed to clearly articulate the grounds for denial. Second—and more importantly—the petition itself adequately alleged a cause of action for stalking.
The petitioner alleged multiple instances of harassment and cyberstalking. Notably, she also alleged that she was on pretrial release for domestic violence battery and could face new criminal consequences if she had contact with the respondent. The appellate court found this allegation sufficient to establish circumstances that would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person.
Takeaway:
If a petition alleges repeated unwanted contact and facts demonstrating objective emotional distress, the court should not summarily deny relief. An evidentiary hearing is required.
2. Guardianships: Intervention Disfavored, Confidentiality Preserved
In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 2D2025-0671 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2026)
In this high-profile continuation of the Schiavo litigation, the Second District addressed two post-judgment issues: intervention and unsealing of records.
A deceased ward’s brother and an advocacy group sought to intervene in a decades-old, closed guardianship case to unseal confidential records under section 744.3701, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied intervention—and the appellate court affirmed.
The court reiterated that post-judgment intervention is “rare and disfavored,” permitted only when necessary to serve the “interests of justice,” typically where a movant’s own rights are directly and adversely affected. Here, the movants’ stated purpose—public advocacy—was insufficient.
On the motion to unseal, the appellate court clarified that the trial court erred in deeming the motion moot because the ward’s mother (an original party) joined it. However, the denial was still affirmed because no “good cause” was shown. Generalized public interest, even in significant policy issues, does not override statutory confidentiality protections.
Takeaway:
Guardianship records remain strongly protected—even decades later—and courts will not open the door to intervention or unsealing absent a concrete, legally cognizable interest.
3. Discovery Sanctions: Failure to Appear Can Be Fatal
Rachkov v. Medvednik, 2D2025-1641 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2026)
In Rachkov, the Second District upheld one of the most severe sanctions available: striking pleadings and entering summary judgment.
The defendant’s corporate representative failed to appear for scheduled depositions. As a result, the trial court struck the defendant’s pleadings and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court failed to make the required findings under Kozel v. Ostendorf. The appellate court rejected that argument on two grounds:
- The issue was not preserved for appellate review.
- Kozel findings are required only when attorney misconduct contributes to the violation—not when the party itself is responsible.
Takeaway:
Failing to produce a corporate representative for deposition is a serious violation that can justify case-ending sanctions. And Kozel will not save a party when the fault lies with the client rather than counsel.
4. Relocation Agreements: Technical Compliance Matters
Neira v. Acosta, 3D25-1642 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 8, 2026)
In Neira, the Third District reversed a non-final order enforcing a purported relocation agreement.
The trial court had granted the wife’s motion to ratify and enforce a settlement agreement as a valid relocation agreement under section 61.13001(2), Florida Statutes. The appellate court disagreed.
The agreement failed to include essential statutory components—specifically:
- A time-sharing schedule, and
- Transportation arrangements for the child’s travel between Miami and the foreign country.
Because these elements are required, the agreement was legally insufficient. The court reversed without prejudice, allowing the filing of a compliant petition.
Takeaway:
Relocation agreements must strictly comply with statutory requirements. Missing terms—especially time-sharing and transportation—are fatal.
5. Equitable Distribution: Pension Issues Remain Front and Center
Palmer v. Palmer, 5D2025-0118 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 10, 2026)
While the summary is limited, Palmer highlights ongoing appellate attention to equitable distribution issues, particularly the classification and treatment of pension plans and settlement agreements.
Takeaway:
Practitioners should continue to exercise precision when addressing retirement assets in settlement agreements, ensuring clarity as to marital versus nonmarital portions.
Final Thoughts
Across these decisions, a few consistent themes emerge:
- Procedure matters: Whether it’s articulating reasons for denial or preserving appellate arguments, courts expect precision.
- Statutes control: Especially in family law and guardianship contexts, statutory requirements are strictly enforced.
- Sanctions have teeth: Noncompliance—particularly in discovery—can end your case.
- Confidentiality endures: Even decades later, courts are reluctant to disturb protected records without compelling justification.
These cases serve as a strong reminder: in Florida litigation, details aren’t technicalities—they’re determinative.
Leave a Reply