The Appellate Courts

Date

2025-09-12

Actor

2D DCA panel (per curiam)

Institution

2D DCA (2D2025-0681)

Mechanism

the petition asking for the first written review of the orders that shut off the financial records was dismissed in three words, and the order that later denied every post-dismissal motion carries no judge's name at all

What the law required

Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.030(b)(2)(A) give the Second District certiorari jurisdiction over a non-final order that departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury with no adequate remedy on appeal; Rule 9.100 supplies the procedure. Rule 9.330(a)(2)(D) lets a party ask for a written opinion, and the court's own Internal Operating Procedures, section 3.3, direct the clerk to identify on the face of every dispositive order the names of the participating judges.

What happened

On September 12, 2025 the Second District dismissed the certiorari petition per curiam, naming the panel: "NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur." Every post-dismissal motion was denied on February 2, 2026 by an order naming no one, reading in full: "Petitioner's motion for rehearing, clarification, oral arguments, en banc review, and/or written opinion is denied." A written opinion was asked for in terms and refused in terms, by an order that gives no reason and identifies no judge. The mandate issued February 19, 2026. The discovery freeze below was left undisturbed, and the orders that produced it remain unexamined. [DENIED: review refused without a written explanation.]

Baseline deviation

Certiorari would have been the first written look at the orders that cut off the financial records (N-018). The court dismissed in three words. The 2/2/26 order that later denied every post-dismissal motion names nobody, in a court whose own procedures direct the clerk to put the participating judges' names on every dispositive order. Asked in writing which judges decided, the court answered that no record shows who participated (N-114). This is the first of three unexplained appellate silences on this record (N-066, N-088).

Receipt

• 9/12/25 dismissal, eDCA original, 2D2025-0681 docket 065: "PER CURIAM." / "Dismissed." Panel: "NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur." Lower tribunal: Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Kelly A. Ayers, Judge. Footer: "Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication."
• Also in 1150 record at Doc 248 p.2 (filed by Wife 10/14/25) and Doc 275.
• 2/2/26 order, eDCA original, docket 066: "BY ORDER OF THE COURT:", denies "Petitioner's three motions for oral argument, all filed on November 4, 2025", and denies the notice of filing error/request to strike as moot; no judge named; certified by Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel, Clerk. Also at 1150 Doc 263.
• Mandate 2/19/26.
• Orders that cut records off below: N-018, N-018. Three-doors pattern: N-066, N-088. Refusal to identify deciding judges: N-114.

Spawned by: N-018, N-018

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2025-10-14 -> ongoing

Actor

Judge Matthew Felix; the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; a 2D DCA panel (Villanti, Sleet, Smith); The Florida Bar

Institution

25-CA-010255 (13th Cir.); 24-DR-001150 (13th Cir.); 2D2026-0279; 2025-CA-2469 (Leon)

Mechanism

one structural question was put to three courts and answered by none: may a judge who is a defendant in one case keep presiding over the related one

What the law required

Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution forbids anyone to judge a cause in which he has an interest: In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (disqualification required where the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable); Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016) (the error is structural). Court rules govern "practice and procedure" (Art. V, s. 2(a), Fla. Const.); the impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee, and the federal Constitution binds "the Judges in every State," any state rule to the contrary notwithstanding (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Under Rule 2.330(h) the facts alleged are taken as true and the motion is judged on legal sufficiency alone. In a records mandamus the respondent's role is to answer the writ (Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)), so the named judges are either nominal custodians with no stake, in which case no merits advocacy for them is proper, or parties with a stake, in which case Murchison and Williams apply; no court in this record has answered either way.

What happened

The conflict takes three forms across related cases: Judge Felix, a named defendant in the records mandamus, kept presiding over the family case; the mandamus was filed in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, with the Attorney General appearing for the judicial defendants; and The Florida Bar is itself a party in two of the forums. Three courts were asked whether a judge who is a defendant in one case may preside over the related one, and each disposed of the request without reaching that question. Judge Felix denied the disqualification motions on the successive-motion rule, the second time 9 hours and 27 minutes after it was filed, ruling it legally insufficient and stating that he can be fair and impartial (N-069, N-118). The Second District denied the prohibition petition in one sentence, seven days after filing, with no response required (N-078). The Sixth Circuit judge assigned to the records case ruled that he had no power to transfer the family case (N-075). No court has said why a judge who is a defendant in one case may preside over the related one. [IGNORED]

Baseline deviation

Due process forbids anyone to judge a cause in which he has an interest, and a procedural rule cannot override that guarantee. A judge named as a defendant in the records case kept presiding over the related family case. The question was put to three courts; each disposed of it without reaching the merits, and no court has said why a judge who is a defendant in one case may preside over the related one.

Receipt

• Amended mandamus petition caption (e-filed 11/13/25, 25-CA-10255).
• Disqualification order rested on the successive-motion rule (Rule 2.330(i)).
• 2D DCA denial: prohibition petition filed 2/3/26 and denied 2/10/26, seven days later, one day after fee paid, no opinion, no response required (N-078).
• 1150 Doc 258 (1/8/26) and Doc 331 (6/10/26, e-signed 9:27:13 AM; the motion, Doc 329, e-filed 12:00:02 AM).
• 10255 Doc 61 paras. 9 and 11 (family-case transfer denied for lack of authority).
• Two of the judges in this chain have ruled for Husband.
• Defendants have a nominal-party answer available; naming a court and its judges in a mandamus about the court's own records is how such petitions are normally styled.

Spawned by: N-058, N-069, N-078, N-091

This decision point also appears on: Under Judge Felix, Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit, The Florida Bar, the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-053

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Read the source document: 2D2026-0279 Doc 1, Order denying the petition for writ of prohibition (Feb. 10, 2026), p. 1

Spawned by: N-069

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-06

Actor

2D DCA ('BY ORDER OF THE COURT', no panel named)

Institution

2D DCA (2D2025-1936)

Mechanism

nine days before it affirmed, the court refused to add the video to the record and struck five filings in a one-page order naming no judge, while an order from the same court fifty-five days earlier named all three of its judges.

What the law required

Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(f) provides for supplementing a record that omits an item the trial court considered. Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of establishing an exemption on the custodian.

What happened

On April 6, 2026 the Second District refused to supplement the record with the April 4, 2025 video and the recusal documents, and struck five filings in the same one-page order. The order names no judge. It issues only "BY ORDER OF THE COURT". The per curiam affirmance came nine days later, on a record that still did not contain the video (N-088).

Fifty-five days earlier the same court had denied the prohibition petition in an order that did name its judges: Villanti, Sleet, and Smith (N-078).

Four written refusals followed the question of who decided: by the Clerk on June 3 and again on July 27, 2026, by the Chief Judge on July 14, 2026, and by the Marshal on August 4, 2026, each resting on rule 2.420(c)(1). This is the middle order in the series opened at N-066 and continued at N-101. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 9.200(f) permits supplementing an incomplete record. Same court, same year, two orders: the prohibition denial fifty-five days earlier carries three names; this one carries none. The unnamed order decided whether the central evidence would be in the record, nine days before the court affirmed on that record. Husband asked which judges decided; the court refused four times in writing. Article I, section 24(a) puts the burden of proving an exemption on the custodian.

Receipt

• The 4/6/26 order, filed in 2D2025-1936 at docket 043, one page. It strikes five filings (Appendices 1 through 3 of 3/31 and the Notices of Filing of 4/1), treats the 4/3 "Updated Notice of Related Cases, Supplemental Motion to Supplement the Record, and Motion for Panel Review of 4-4-25 Video" as a motion to supplement and denies it, and names no judge.
• The named comparator at Doc 270, the 2/10/26 prohibition denial (N-078), naming Villanti, Sleet, and Smith.
• The four written refusals to identify the deciding judges: Clerk Kuenzel on 6/3/26 and again on 7/27/26 (N-114), Chief Judge Lucas on 7/14/26 (N-115), and Marshal Haynes on 8/4/26 (N-149).

Spawned by: N-042, N-049

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-04-15

Actor

2D DCA panel

Institution

2D DCA (2D2025-1936)

Mechanism

the appeal ended in three words, on the same record the court had twice refused to complete with the courthouse video at the center of the case

What the law required

Article V, section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.130(a)(3) give the Second District jurisdiction to review the order denying transfer of venue. Article I, section 9 and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee an impartial tribunal (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.), and findings are required before a section 47.122 transfer is granted (Fast v. Nelson). Rule 9.330(a)(2)(D) lets a party ask for a written opinion, and without one the Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review a per curiam affirmance for conflict (Jenkins v. State).

What happened

On April 15, 2026 the Second District affirmed per curiam. The opinion reads "PER CURIAM. Affirmed." The panel line reads "KHOUZAM, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur." Oral argument had been held on April 7, 2026, eight days before the affirmance. The mandate issued June 2, 2026. One week earlier the same court had struck five filings and refused to put the April 4, 2025 video into that record (N-087), and five months before that it had refused the same thing without naming a panel or giving a reason (N-066). The rulings below stood, and no court has written an examination of them. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

The appeal asked whether a venue ruling made without findings could stand, and a January 2026 notice put the structural conflict before the court. A per curiam affirmance without opinion decides it without a word, and under Jenkins the Florida Supreme Court cannot review it for conflict, so the written opinion Husband then asked for was the last door. This one carries three judges' names. It affirmed on the record the same court had twice refused to complete with the courthouse video (N-066, N-087, N-054).

Receipt

• The 4/15/26 per curiam affirmance in 2D2025-1936, the eDCA original, filed at docket 045, two pages: the disposition and the panel line as quoted
• The appeal taken "pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Matthew L. Felix, Acting Circuit Judge"
• The copy at docket 036 is a KB-layer copy and is superseded by 045 for citation
• Mandate at Doc 035
• The refusals to supplement at N-087 and N-066; the first of the three unexplained dispositions at N-054
• Clerk Kuenzel's letter of June 3, 2026: "The April 7, 2026, oral argument in case no. 2D2025-1936 was live-streamed on the Court's YouTube channel."

Spawned by: N-049

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-05-12

Actor

2D DCA ('BY ORDER OF THE COURT', no panel named; clerk certification only)

Institution

2D DCA (2D2025-1936)

Mechanism

Husband asked the court in writing to state its reasoning; the order refusing that request states no reasoning and names no judge, and it is the fifth of its kind

What the law required

Rules 9.330 and 9.331 let a party ask for rehearing, rehearing en banc, clarification, certification, and a written opinion (Rule 9.330(a)(2)(D)); a per curiam affirmance without opinion is beyond the Florida Supreme Court's conflict jurisdiction (Jenkins v. State), so the written opinion is the last route to further review.

What happened

On May 12, 2026 the Second District denied, in one order, Husband's motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, written opinion, clarification, and certification. That motion listed among its grounds "that supplementation of the record below, and in this Court, was denied". The order issues "BY ORDER OF THE COURT". It names no judge and no panel. The only name on it is the clerk's certification that it is a true copy. The four orders before it are the November 26, 2025 and January 27, 2026 orders (N-066), the February 2, 2026 denial at Doc 263, and the April 6, 2026 order (N-087). The rulings below stood without any written examination, and no judge is identified as having made that choice. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Husband asked in writing for the court's reasoning and for the written opinion that would open the door to Florida Supreme Court review. The order answers in one sentence, states no reason, and identifies no judge. It is the fifth anonymous order in this series; the same court named its judges three months earlier (N-078). Asked which judges decided, the court refused (N-066, N-114).

Receipt

• Doc 301 in the 1150 docket, one page, dated May 12, 2026, 2D2025-1936, L.T. 24-DR-001150, signed by Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel, Clerk, electronically filed 05/12/2026 10:35:30 AM
• The named comparator at Doc 270
• The earlier anonymous orders at N-066, Doc 263, and N-087
• The refusals to identify the panel at N-066 and N-114
• Husband's April 21, 2026 motion (Filing 246531481), 2D2025-1936 docket 047, ground (6).

Spawned by: N-088

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-01

Actor

Paul Flemming, PIO

Institution

Florida Supreme Court

Mechanism

the Florida Supreme Court's records office answered seven of ten categories with a single rule citation that identifies no record, and three categories it never answered at all

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect judicial-branch records; access is the presumption and the custodian carries the burden of establishing an exemption. Rule 2.420 implements that right for the judicial branch, and subdivision (m)(2) requires the basis for a denial in writing. Rule 2.420(c) is a list of discrete exemptions, each with its own elements, so a written basis identifies the subdivision and the record withheld.

What happened

On June 1, 2026 the Florida Supreme Court's public information officer, Paul Flemming, asserted blanket confidentiality under Rule 2.420(c) over seven of the ten categories in a May 30 request about SB 1652 and the Vexatious Litigant Workgroup. He identified no record and cited no sub-provision. Categories 1, 5, and 9 he did not address at all. The file carries a promise: "A response to your request will be given in a reasonable amount of time."

A follow-up and pre-suit letter went by email on July 8, 2026, setting a deadline of "no later than Tuesday, July 15, 2026". That deadline passed with no response in the channels searched, and the request is still open. The June 1 response arrived at the Yahoo address, which has not been swept, so nothing here claims nothing was sent, only that nothing was found where the search ran. [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect court records. Access is the presumption, and the burden of proving an exemption sits on the custodian. Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to state in writing the basis for denial. A basis that identifies nothing tells no one what is withheld, so one rule citation across seven categories leaves nothing to test; three of the ten categories drew no answer, not even a refusal.

Receipt

• Flemming's response of 6/1/26, held as a native PDF; the 6/1/26 text is carried verbatim
• The original request of 5/30/26 as sent and the 6/2/26 reply as sent
• The as-sent follow-up of 7/8/26, an archive built from the Gmail copy, message id 19f41c10b40d43cf; sent 8:42 AM ET as a reply on the existing thread; it is a verbatim text archive rather than an image of the send
• The 7/6/26 files are drafts, not send copies, and a 7/14/26 version was drafted and exported but never sent
• Search scope for the silence: the Florida Supreme Court public-records matter file, which holds no inbound after the 6/1/26 response, and the Gmail account, checked 7/14/26
• The Yahoo mailbox has not been swept, and there is no exported page image of the 7/8 send

This decision point also appears on: Public Records Litigation, the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-03

Actor

Clerk Mary Beth Kuenzel

Institution

2D DCA

Mechanism

the court withheld its own machinery, case assignment, scheduling, the case-management system, and phone logs, behind an exemption that protects deliberation, and the category asking which judges decided the unnamed orders drew the same boilerplate as the rest

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution presumes judicial-branch records open and puts the burden of establishing an exemption on the custodian. Rule 2.420(b)(3) makes the chief judge the custodian of a court's administrative records, and Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to determine, record by record, whether a requested record is exempt and to state in writing the basis for any denial. Subdivision (c)(1) reaches material prepared as part of deciding cases; case assignment, scheduling, and phone logs are administrative machinery.

What happened

On June 3, 2026 the Second District's clerk, Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel, denied nearly all of a nine-category administrative-records request. Every administrative category drew the identical line: non-court-file records "are confidential and exempt under rule 2.420(c)(1)." The administrative records have still not been produced.

Asked specifically who decided, she answered in writing on July 27, 2026, for Chief Judge Lucas, again citing rule 2.420(c)(1) for anything not filed in the court record: "There are no documents filed as part of the court record that reflect which judges participated in those orders."

Read precisely, that is not a statement that no such records exist. It is a statement that none is in the court record, and anything outside it is withheld as exempt. The effect is that the orders deciding these appeals name no judge, and the court's own record contains nothing that would (N-066, N-087, N-101). [DENIED]

Baseline deviation

Rule 2.420(c)(1) protects a court's deliberation, not its machinery. Article I, section 24(a) puts the burden on the custodian; Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires a written basis for denial. Identical boilerplate across nine categories identifies no record and gives no basis specific to any, so nothing can be tested. Assignment records are how a reader learns which judges issued an order that names none (N-087, N-101). The order in case 0279 does name its judges (N-078).

Receipt

• Clerk Kuenzel's 6/3/26 email from 2dcaclerk@flcourts.org, Wednesday, June 3, 2026 at 2:53 PM EDT, her substantive response to the Rule 2.420 request, on file as a native PDF export
• On the judge-identification category it states: "There are no other documents filed as a part of the court record that are responsive to this request, and any records not filed as a part of the court record are confidential and exempt under rule 2.420(c)(1)."
• The 6/3 email states on its face that it responds to a request of May 18, 2026
• Full 7/27/26 answer: "You have asked for any 'records that reflect which judges participated in those orders' prior to or following the disposition in each case, but these records are confidential and exempt under rule 2.420(c)(1) unless filed as a part of the court record. There are no documents filed as part of the court record that reflect which judges participated in those orders." This is a complete mailbox text capture whose operative sentence also appears at p. 5 of the 7/30/26 email to the Second District clerk; the native message itself is not held
• Intake note, recorded as the clerk's stated reason and not as a departure: the clerk's office declined to open the 5/14/26 request because it arrived as an attachment, stating verbatim "we do not generally open attachments from unknown senders", which cost five days at the front of the request and supports a Question Protocol ask for the written policy

Spawned by: N-087

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-04

Actor

Chief Judge Matt Lucas

Institution

2D DCA

Mechanism

the chief judge answered forty days after the request reached him and six days after the follow-up, produced a record for free, then placed every other record behind one rule citation naming no document, and the supplement he promised has not issued

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution gives every person the right to inspect and copy judicial-branch records; access is the presumption, and the burden of establishing an exemption rests on the custodian, a judge included. Rule 2.420(b)(3) makes the chief judge the custodian of the court's administrative records, and Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires him to determine whether each requested record is exempt and to state in writing the basis for any denial. A categorical assertion over a whole class, identifying nothing withheld, leaves nothing a requester or a reviewing court under Rule 2.420(l)(1) can test, and so carries none of the custodian's burden.

What happened

On June 4, 2026 Husband's narrowed records request was redirected to Chief Judge Lucas as custodian. A follow-up went by email July 8. Lucas responded by signed letter dated July 14, forty days after the routing and six days after the follow-up. He named the governing law correctly, citing the Constitution before the rule, and produced the Court's Internal Operating Procedures at no charge.

Everything else he placed behind one sentence: "Other than the case records provided previously by Clerk Kuenzel, any other records that may exist relating to this request are confidential and exempt pursuant to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(1)." No record was identified and no index accompanied the claim.

On the two remaining categories he found nothing responsive and said a report was coming: "We expect a report this week; when it is received, I will update this response." No update issued. [PARTIAL]

Baseline deviation

Article I, section 24(a) presumes judicial-branch records open, and Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires the custodian to state in writing the basis for any denial. He answered within six days of the follow-up, cited the constitution first, and produced a record at no charge. Withholding an entire class under one rule citation, naming no document, still leaves nothing to test. And he wrote that he would update his response when a report arrived. He did not.

Receipt

• Chief Judge Lucas's signed letter response, dated July 14, 2026, pp. 1-2, wet signature over "Matthew C. Lucas", "Encl."
• Record produced: Second District's Internal Operating Procedures, effective 12/1/2025, 22 pages, produced 7/14/26.
• Cover email 7/14/26 8:53 AM EDT from 2dcaAdministrative: "Please see the attached response from Chief Judge Lucas."
• Follow-up and pre-suit notice sent 7/8/26 2:14 PM, demand paragraph setting 7/14 and closing paragraph setting 7/15; the 7/6/26 files are drafts, not send copies.
• Kuenzel's 6/4/26 8:04 AM EDT routing confirmation: "Your request will be forwarded to the Chief Judge of the Second District Court of Appeal, Chief Judge Matt Lucas."
• Letter states it "responds to yours of June 4, 2026, and July 8, 2026."
• Full chronology and search scope for every negative held in the 2D DCA records-front status memo of 8/16/26.
• Elapsed as of 8/16/26: 73 days since the 6/4 routing, 94 days since the original 5/14/26 request, 32 days of Rule 2.420(l)(1) ripeness attaching 7/15/26.
• Letter dated Tuesday 7/14/26; the week he named ended Sunday 7/19/26. 28 days ran from that date to 8/16/26, 33 days from the letter itself.
• Kuenzel answered on his behalf 7/27 and Marshal Haynes answered 8/4 (N-138, N-149); neither purports to be the promised update.
• Which of the two answers (categorical exemption vs. no-records-identified) governs which category is unresolved; ambiguity raised in writing 7/20 and again 7/30, unresolved.
• Search scope for the negative: 60-day Gmail sweep across the court's domains, both 2D DCA records folders, the four 2D DCA matter folders, and the downloads folder, as of 8/16/26; Husband's Yahoo address was not searched.
• RE line on the letter mistypes the first case number as "2D20225-1936" and reads "Office of State Courts Administrator" without "the".
• Two limits: the current text of Rule 2.420(m)(2) is held here only as Husband's own verbatim quotation in the 7/30/26 letter; and which court reviews a DCA chief judge's denial is answered here as (l)(1) rather than circuit-court mandamus under (l)(2).

Spawned by: N-114

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Date

2026-06-30

Actor

The Florida Bar, appellees in 1D2026-0728, by Keating and Londot, Greenberg Traurig

Institution

1D2026-0728

Mechanism

the appeal is where the Bar wrote its positions down: the grievance file "was closed without further investigation," it would be "obligated" to produce Davis communications if the file held any, and no one may compel discipline or appeal a non-discipline decision

What the law required

Article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 2.420(l)(2) place enforcement of the access right against a non-judge custodian in the circuit court. The First District reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, taking the verified petition's allegations as true; Rule 1.630(d)(2) requires an alternative writ on a prima facie showing, and a disputed allegation that a record exists is decided after a hearing (Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford County, 153 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).

What happened

On 6/30/26 the Bar appellees filed their Answer Brief in 1D2026-0728. It states that "Mr. Hanson's grievance file against Mr. Davis was closed without further investigation," and that because review was limited to submissions and court records, the file held no communications with Davis. In a footnote it concedes the condition on which its production duty binds: "If the grievance file contained information pertaining to communications with Mr. Davis, the Bar would be obligated to provide it."

The brief also restates settled law that a person has neither the right to compel discipline nor standing to appeal a non-discipline decision, and describes the 2/24/25 closure as a no-jurisdiction finding, wording absent from the letter. The appeal record carries the Bar's own letters, including a 9/24/25 letter describing a Senior Staff Attorney investigation and two further reviews of the same file the brief says was closed without further investigation (N-055). [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

An appeal reviews whether a case was rightly ended. This one asks whether a verified records petition could be dismissed with prejudice on an unsworn assertion that the records do not exist, before the opposition was filed and without a hearing (N-079). No decision has issued. What the appellate papers supply is the regulator's positions in writing and unhedged, and two concede more than any letter did: the file 'was closed without further investigation,' and the Bar 'would be obligated to provide' Davis communications if the file held any.

Receipt

• Answer Brief of Appellees, 1D2026-0728, filed 6/30/26, Filing 251514921, 34 PDF pages and 28 numbered, signed M. Hope Keating and John K. Londot, held in the appeal's brief file.
• Quotes at PDF pp. 8 (brief p. 2, the "no jurisdiction" characterization), 18 (brief p. 12, the standing sentence), 30 (brief p. 24, both admissions), and 31 (brief p. 25 fn. 3, the conditional concession).
• Precision note, load-bearing: "no jurisdiction" is the BRIEF's phrase, anchored to Standing Board Policy 15.75(d)(1), and does NOT appear in the Huston letter; attribute the phrase to the brief and the deferral language to the letter.
• Composite Exhibit A to the 1/27/26 motion to dismiss with the judicial-notice request at Leon ROA p. 626; the letters at ROA pp. 640-643.
• Underlying letters quoted by the brief at ROA pp. 44 and 103.

Spawned by: N-079

This decision point also appears on: The Florida Bar, the full ledger.

Date

2026-07-25

Actor

2D DCA

Institution

2D2026-1955 (L.T. 24-DR-001150)

Mechanism

the certiorari challenge to the guardian ad litem order is pending, and the Second District has ordered a response

What the law required

Rule 9.100 provides certiorari review of the guardian ad litem order (Doc 337).

What happened

On July 25, 2026 Husband filed a certiorari petition challenging the June 25, 2026 guardian ad litem order, 38 pages with a 429-page appendix, asking the court to "quash the June 25, 2026 order". The Second District docketed it July 27 as 2D2026-1955. A first fee submission was rejected for a case-number error; the resubmission, $311.85, was confirmed docketed the next morning, though its status still read "Processing" at that capture, so nothing here says the payment settled. On August 3, 2026 the Second District ordered a response within thirty days, ordered a reply thirty days after that, and imposed on both parties a duty to keep the court apprised of hearings affecting the proceeding. The order under challenge is being reviewed while the trial court's retainer terms run (N-134, N-135). [PENDING]

Baseline deviation

Rule 9.100 provides certiorari review of the guardian ad litem order. No determination has issued. The court's earlier dispositions in this lane (N-054, N-078, N-087, N-088) are noted for context. What the record shows at this step is a schedule: a response ordered, a reply ordered, a respondent named, and a duty on both sides to keep the court advised.

Receipt

• Filing #253269488 (the petition as filed). The relief quoted at para. 44, PDF p. 18, and again in the conclusion at para. 93, PDF p. 37; the string "Doc 351" appears nowhere in the 38 pages, and the 7/23/26 appointment order is mentioned once, descriptively, at para. 46, PDF p. 19.
• Filing #253628363 (the rejected fee submission), clerk's stated reason: "Case Number Cannot Be Determined or Case Number Not for This Court", with a refund auto-generated; whether the refund posted is unknown.
• Filing #253668293 (the accepted $311.85 fee, Order #19922246, memo line "Statutory Convenience Fee: $11.85 / Total Paid: $311.85"), with the 7/31/26 8:24 AM clerk processing confirmation, native PDF p.1.
• The 8/3/26 order was entered as DIN 363.
• As-filed word count 7,932 per the compliance certificate, PDF p. 38. Appendix tab 35 is the same facially incomplete Doc 351 artifact.
• Three limits: the rejection notice is held without a page image; the portal returned "No Matching Entries" for the certificate of service, and service went by a separate 10:08 AM email; the para. 92 "For 800 days" figure is not recomputed here.
• The 7/30 fee record still displayed "NEW CASE."

Spawned by: N-134, N-125

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-114, N-078

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.

Spawned by: N-115

This decision point also appears on: the full ledger.