Bilbao — Fourth District affirmed without a written opinion

Case
Erkys Bilbao v. William Bloodworth, Madeleyn Bloodworth, Daniel Leyton, and Kravitz, Talamo, & Leyton, LLP
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
CIKLIN (Charlie Crist, 2008); Conner (Rick Scott, 2011)
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-0441
Topics
Appeals, Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Erkys Bilbao appealed from a judgment or order of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. The circuit court proceeding was assigned case number 062018CA015453AXXXCE and was heard by Judge Mark Alan Speiser.

The Fourth District’s opinion identifies William Bloodworth, Madeleyn Bloodworth, Daniel Leyton, and Kravitz, Talamo, & Leyton, LLP as appellees. Because the appellate court issued only a per curiam affirmance, the opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the claims asserted, the ruling challenged, or the parties’ appellate arguments.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The disposition was unanimous, with Judges Ciklin, Conner, and Klingensmith concurring.

The court provided no written reasoning, legal analysis, or explanation of the grounds for affirmance. Accordingly, the opinion establishes only that the challenged circuit court decision was left in place; it does not identify which arguments the court accepted or rejected.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the circuit court’s decision.
  • The court issued a per curiam affirmance without a written explanation.
  • The opinion supplies no facts, legal issues, reasoning, or rule of law beyond the affirmance itself.

Why It Matters

The ruling ends the appeal in the appellees’ favor unless altered through a timely rehearing proceeding or further review. The opinion stated that it would not become final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

Because the court did not explain its reasoning, the decision offers practitioners no substantive guidance on the underlying legal issues and should not be read as announcing a new legal rule.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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