Chessler v. La Montanya — affirmed the county court without a written explanation

Case
Amy Chessler v. Dennis De La Montanya, as Trustee of the 1999 Dennis De La Montanya and Tina De La Montanya Revocable Trust
Court
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Judge
Morris; Rothstein-Youakim; Guard
Date Decided
August 21, 2026
Docket No.
2D2025-3524
Topics
Appeals, Per Curiam Affirmance, County Court
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Amy Chessler appealed an order of the County Court for Sarasota County, where Judge Erika Quartermaine presided. The appellee was Dennis De La Montanya, acting as trustee of the 1999 Dennis De La Montanya and Tina De La Montanya Revocable Trust.

The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The appellate court’s opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the order under review, the parties’ arguments, or the county court’s reasoning.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s ruling in a per curiam decision.

Because the court provided no written analysis, the opinion states no legal rationale or issue-specific holding beyond leaving the appealed ruling in place. Judges Morris, Rothstein-Youakim, and Guard concurred.

Key Takeaways

  • The Second District affirmed the county court’s ruling.
  • The decision was issued per curiam without an explanatory opinion.
  • The opinion does not disclose the underlying facts, legal issues, or basis for affirmance.

Why It Matters

The decision ends this appeal by preserving the county court’s ruling. Its practical effect beyond the parties is limited because the appellate court did not explain its reasoning or announce a 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Your email address will not be published.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