Estate of Lopez v. Jones — affirmed the circuit court without a written explanation

Case
The Estate of David Lopez and Derek Lopez, Individually and as Members of Win-Win Real Estate Investment Group, LLC v. Kimberly Jones f/k/a Kimberly Lopez, Jason Lopez, 6171 Metrowest Blvd Unit 103, LLC, and Win-Win Real Estate Investment, Group, LLC
Court
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Wozniak; Smith; Pratt
Date Decided
September 29, 2026
Docket No.
6D2023-2603
Topics
Per Curiam Affirmance, Civil Appeal, Real Estate Investment
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The Estate of David Lopez and Derek Lopez, individually and as members of Win-Win Real Estate Investment Group, LLC, appealed from a judgment or order of the Circuit Court for Orange County. Circuit Judge Margaret H. Schreiber presided over the lower-court proceeding, docketed as No. 2019-CA-014960-O.

The appellees were Kimberly Jones, formerly known as Kimberly Lopez; Jason Lopez; 6171 Metrowest Blvd Unit 103, LLC; and Win-Win Real Estate Investment, Group, LLC. The appellate opinion provides no facts, identifies no claims or defenses, and does not describe the particular ruling under review.

The Court’s Holding

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision in a per curiam disposition. Judges Wozniak, Smith, and Pratt concurred.

The court supplied no reasoning, addressed no legal issue expressly, and announced no rule of law. The opinion therefore establishes only that the challenged lower-court disposition was left intact.

Key Takeaways

  • The Sixth District affirmed the Orange County circuit court’s ruling.
  • The decision was unanimous among the three identified panel judges.
  • Because the court issued an unexplained per curiam affirmance, the opinion does not disclose the underlying facts, issues, or rationale.

Why It Matters

The immediate consequence is that the circuit court’s ruling remains in place as between the parties. Attorneys cannot rely on this opinion for an articulated legal analysis because the appellate court did not explain the basis for affirmance.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top