Background
Carlyne Desir and Flint Edwards, proceeding pro se, appealed in litigation involving BMO Harris Bank N.A. The appeal arose from the Osceola County Circuit Court, where Christine E. Arendas presided.
The appellants sought review of orders and judgments entered before a September 2025 post-final-judgment enforcement order concerning the surrender of collateral, as well as other issues.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to review orders or judgments entered before the September 2025 enforcement order because the appellants did not timely appeal them under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b).
The court otherwise affirmed. Citing Duest v. Dugger, it concluded that issues merely referenced from arguments made below, without further explanation in the appellate brief, were waived.
Key Takeaways
- An untimely appeal does not confer jurisdiction to review earlier orders or judgments.
- A post-final-judgment enforcement order does not revive the time to challenge prior rulings.
- Appellants must develop their arguments in the appellate brief; incorporation by reference to trial-court arguments is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores two recurring appellate limits: strict deadlines for seeking review and the requirement to present developed arguments on appeal. Parties challenging enforcement proceedings must separately preserve and timely appeal any earlier rulings they seek to contest.