Alpert v. Zea — affirmed the circuit court without a written explanation

Case
Myles Alpert v. Harry M. Zea, individually and as Trustee of the Rohar Trust U/A/D July 12, 2011, and Alison Zea, individually and as Trustee of the Rohar Trust U/A/D July 12, 2011
Court
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Judge
TRAVER (Ron DeSantis, 2023); BROWNLEE (Ron DeSantis, 2023)
Date Decided
August 11, 2026
Docket No.
6D2025-0696
Topics
Civil Appeal; Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Myles Alpert appealed a decision of the Circuit Court for Collier County in litigation against Harry M. Zea and Alison Zea, individually and as trustees of the Rohar Trust dated July 12, 2011. Circuit Judge Tamara Lynne Nicola entered the decision under review.

The appellate opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the circuit court’s ruling, the issues raised on appeal, or the parties’ arguments.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision in a per curiam opinion.

The court provided no reasoning or discussion of the merits. Chief Judge Traver and Judges Brownlee and Pratt concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The circuit court’s decision remains in effect.
  • The appellate court affirmed without a written explanation of its reasoning.
  • The opinion identifies no legal rule or fact-specific rationale supporting the result.

Why It Matters

The decision ends this stage of the appeal in the appellees’ favor, subject to any timely rehearing proceedings. Because the court issued an unexplained per curiam affirmance, the opinion offers no substantive guidance about the underlying dispute or the legal issues presented.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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