If you thought Florida appellate opinions were dry reading, this week’s batch will make you think again. Between a resurrected mortgage, a quashed contempt order, and an alimony calculation gone off the rails, our DCAs have been busy reminding trial courts that procedure still matters.
Let’s break down the highlights.
🚫 Azzam v. Portilla (3d DCA, Oct. 8, 2025)
Contempt—Civil—Family law proceedings—Failure to comply with procedural requirements of Rule 12.615(b).
The Third DCA quashed a civil contempt order because the lower court skipped over the procedural guardrails in Rule 12.615(b). Moral of the story? Even when someone really deserves contempt, the paperwork has to be just as perfect as your outrage.
Takeaway: No notice, no findings, no compliance hearing = no contempt.
💵 Cruz v. Department of Revenue (4th DCA, Oct. 8, 2025)
Child support—Administrative order—Income—Calculation.
Here, the Fourth DCA corrected a classic agency math error: Social Security disability dependent benefits belong to the parent whose work record generated them—in this case, the father—not the recipient parent. The agency wrongly counted those payments as the mother’s income, which inflated her numbers and the father’s support.
Takeaway: SSDI dependent benefits follow the worker, not the wallet.
🏠 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen (2d DCA, Oct. 8, 2025)
Mortgage foreclosure—Quiet title—Lien priority.
File this one under “you can’t foreclose yourself.” Wells Fargo held two mortgages on the same property—a smaller one and a larger one. The smaller one got recorded first by mistake, foreclosed first, and the trial court ruled that the bigger mortgage was extinguished.
The Second DCA wasn’t having it. Because the bank had been removed as a defendant before judgment in the smaller foreclosure, that judgment couldn’t possibly have wiped out the larger mortgage.
Takeaway: The caption isn’t the controlling document—read the actual judgment.
💔 Warner v. Warner (5th DCA, Oct. 3, 2025)
Dissolution of marriage—Alimony—Imputed income—Retroactive child support—Equitable distribution.
This opinion hit the trifecta of reversals. The Fifth DCA reversed:
- The trial court’s imputation of income to the husband (no competent evidence of what he could actually earn in self-employment);
- The alimony calculation (it improperly included expenses for the parties’ adult child); and
- The retroactive child support award (the husband wasn’t given credit for paying all the marital bills during the retroactive period).
Takeaway: If you’re going to impute income, bring evidence—not nostalgia.
🧾 Delgado v. Miller (3d DCA, Oct. 1, 2025)
Discovery—Follow-up depositions—Certiorari.
The Third DCA clarified that there’s no automatic “one-and-done” rule for depositions. Neither Rule 1.310 nor Rule 12.310 requires a finding of good cause for a follow-up deposition. The petitioner didn’t move for a protective order, and the limited, time-bound depositions were well within the trial court’s discretion.
Takeaway: Don’t whine about being re-deposed if you didn’t file for a protective order first.
🎬 Final Thoughts
This week’s appellate lineup reads like a greatest hits album for procedural missteps:
- Azzam: skipped the contempt steps.
- Cruz: misapplied SSDI math.
- Wells Fargo: foreclosed itself (almost).
- Warner: imputed income out of thin air.
- Delgado: deposed, denied, dismissed.
Florida DCAs continue to remind us that process is king—and that even a “harmless” shortcut can turn into a full-blown reversal.