Lifestyle International Realty, LLC v. Hollywood Rental Houses, LLC — Fourth District Per Curiam Affirmance

Case
Lifestyle International Realty, LLC v. Hollywood Rental Houses, LLC, Mark Henry, 2240 Simms Street, LLC, Ridley Harding, and ADR Financial Group, LLC
Court
District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District
Judge
Per Curiam
Date Decided
November 5, 2026
Docket No.
4D2026-0380
Topics
Per Curiam Affirmance; Appellate Procedure; Civil Appeal; Florida Fourth District
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Lifestyle International Realty, LLC filed an appeal in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, challenging a decision of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. The lower tribunal case number is 062024CA002863AXXXCE, and the presiding circuit judge was Michele Towbin Singer. The appeal was docketed in the Fourth District as No. 4D2026-0380.

The appellees named in the caption are Hollywood Rental Houses, LLC; Mark Henry; 2240 Simms Street, LLC; Ridley Harding; and ADR Financial Group, LLC. The public record before this Court, as reflected in the opinion, does not disclose the underlying facts of the dispute, the nature of the claims or defenses asserted in the circuit court, the specific judgment or order appealed from, or the particular issues raised by the appellant on appeal.

Rhonda A. Anderson of Rhonda A. Anderson, P.A., Coral Gables, appeared as counsel for the appellant, Lifestyle International Realty, LLC. Elliot B. Kula and Elaine D. Walter of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, appeared as counsel for appellee Hollywood Rental Houses, LLC. The opinion does not identify counsel of record for the remaining appellees—Mark Henry, 2240 Simms Street, LLC, Ridley Harding, or ADR Financial Group, LLC—and no representation is made here regarding their counsel.

The Court’s Holding

On November 5, 2026, the Fourth District issued a per curiam decision stating, in its entirety: “Affirmed.” The opinion contains no statement of the facts, no recitation of the procedural history beyond the appeal caption, no identification of the issues presented, and no explanation of the legal reasoning supporting the affirmance. The decision is a per curiam affirmance without opinion.

Judges MAY, SHEPHERD, and SHAW concurred in the disposition. Because the order is expressly designated “PER CURIAM” and contains no Before line or other panel identification beyond the concurring judges’ surnames, the deciding panel is identified here as Per Curiam, consistent with the official opinion’s presentation. No inference is drawn regarding the judges’ full names or any internal court assignment.

The affirmance leaves undisturbed whatever judgment or order of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, was the subject of this appeal. The opinion does not specify whether the affirmance resolves all claims as to all appellees or is limited to particular parties or issues; it simply states “Affirmed” as to the appeal taken by Lifestyle International Realty, LLC from the lower tribunal’s decision in L.T. Case No. 062024CA002863AXXXCE.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the circuit court’s decision without a written opinion explaining its reasoning.
  • The appeal originated from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Judge Michele Towbin Singer, in case number 062024CA002863AXXXCE.
  • Counsel of record included Rhonda A. Anderson for appellant Lifestyle International Realty, LLC, and Elliot B. Kula and Elaine D. Walter for appellee Hollywood Rental Houses, LLC.
  • The opinion is not final until disposition of any timely-filed motion for rehearing.

Why It Matters

This per curiam affirmance concludes the appellate proceedings in No. 4D2026-0380 without creating written precedent or providing guidance on the legal issues, if any, that were presented. For practitioners and parties, the decision underscores that the Fourth District may resolve appeals by summary affirmance, leaving the circuit court’s judgment in place without published analysis.

Because the opinion provides no reasoning, its value as precedent is limited to the specific case and parties identified. The notation that the decision is not final until disposition of a timely-filed motion for rehearing preserves the appellant’s opportunity to seek rehearing under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, after which the mandate may issue and the affirmance will become final.

✉️ 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