Otto v. Seacrest Services — Fourth District affirmed without a written opinion

Case
Maureen Otto v. Seacrest Services, Inc., Ventnor “D” Condominium Association, Markel Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, Trusted Coverage Professionals Agency, LLC, Member – Great American Insurance Company
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
May; Levine; Forst
Date Decided
October 8, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-3478
Topics
Appellate Procedure; Per Curiam Affirmance; Civil Litigation
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Maureen Otto appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Levenson presided over the underlying case, docketed as No. 062017CA020783AXXXCE.

The appellees included Seacrest Services, Inc.; Ventnor “D” Condominium Association; Markel Insurance Company; The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company; Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company; and Trusted Coverage Professionals Agency, LLC, Member – Great American Insurance Company. Otto represented herself on appeal. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the trial court’s ruling, or the arguments presented on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision in a per curiam opinion. Judges May, Levine, and Forst concurred.

The court provided no reasoning or discussion of the facts or legal issues. The opinion therefore establishes only that the challenged judgment or order was affirmed; it does not identify a legal rule or explain the basis for the court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the circuit court’s decision.
  • The court issued a per curiam affirmance without a written explanation.
  • The opinion does not disclose the underlying dispute, the issues raised on appeal, or the grounds for affirmance.

Why It Matters

The decision ends the appeal in the appellees’ favor unless further review or rehearing is available and pursued. Because the court supplied no reasoning, the opinion offers no substantive guidance on the legal issues underlying the case.

The opinion was designated not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

✉️ 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