Hernandez v. Villanustre — affirmed the judgment without a written explanation

Case
Anyerson Hernandez v. Estela Villanustre
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
SCALES (Rick Scott, 2013); LINDSEY (Rick Scott, 2017)
Date Decided
July 23, 2026
Docket No.
3D2025-1476
Topics
Appeals, Per Curiam Affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Anyerson Hernandez appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a case involving appellee Estela Villanustre. Circuit Judge Marie E. Mato entered the decision under review.

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

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision.

The court issued a per curiam affirmance consisting only of the word “Affirmed.” It provided no legal analysis or explanation of its reasoning.

Key Takeaways

  • The circuit court’s decision remains in place.
  • The appellate court did not identify or resolve any legal issue in a written analysis.
  • The opinion was designated not final until disposition of any timely motion for rehearing.

Why It Matters

The decision resolves this appeal in Villanustre’s favor while leaving the trial court’s ruling undisturbed. Because the Third District supplied no reasoning, the opinion offers no substantive guidance about the underlying dispute or governing law.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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