Background
The supplied decision is a two-page appellate order identifying Christopher Miller as the appellant. The appellees are U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Owner Trustee for RCF 2 Acquisition Trust; Dixie Lee Owens a/k/a Dixie L. Owens; Total Home Properties, Inc. d/b/a Total Home Roofing; and United States of America Department of Treasury-Internal Revenue Service. The caption preserves the bank’s stated trustee capacity and does not describe it as appearing individually.
The appeal came from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, with Samuel Bookhardt, III, identified as the lower-court judge. The appellate docket is Case No. 5D2025-1434, and the lower-tribunal number is LT Case No. 2023-CA-018185. The order does not identify the particular judgment or order under review, describe the underlying dispute, or recount any proceedings below beyond that court and case information.
Beau Bowin, of Bowin Law Group, Indialantic, appeared for Miller. Gennifer L. Bridges and Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, of Burr & Forman LLP, Orlando, appeared for U.S. Bank Trust National Association in the trustee capacity stated above. The decision expressly records “No Appearance for Remaining Appellees.” That notation concerns appearances in this appellate matter; the document supplies no further explanation of the remaining appellees’ participation.
The Court’s Holding
On November 5, 2026, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision stating only “AFFIRMED.” The printed concurrence line reads: “JAY, C.J., and LAMBERT and MACIVER, JJ., concur.” The affirmance leaves the lower-court result in place, but the public order does not explain the basis for that outcome or separately address any claim, defense, or appellee.
No factual findings, legal issues, arguments, authorities, standards of review, or reasons for affirmance appear in the supplied text. Accordingly, the order cannot support a description of the underlying claims, a claim-specific rationale, or a distinction between legal and factual review. It also announces no circumstance-specific forfeiture ruling or universal procedural rule. Any account of foreclosure allegations, property interests, lien priorities, statutes, or merits reasoning would go beyond the document.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth District affirmed in Case No. 5D2025-1434 by a per curiam order dated November 5, 2026.
- The order identifies the parties, counsel, lower court, and concurring judges but provides no public reasoning or factual narrative.
- The bank’s appearance is expressly limited to its capacity as Owner Trustee for RCF 2 Acquisition Trust, and there was no appearance for the remaining appellees.
- The decision is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Why It Matters
For attorneys tracking the docket, the verified development is the affirmance itself, together with the stated panel participation and nonfinality notice. The document does not permit a broader precedential characterization or an explanation of why the circuit court’s result was upheld.
Readers should therefore treat this as an outcome-only appellate disposition. The printed notice makes finality contingent on disposition of any timely and authorized motion under the identified Florida appellate rules; the order supplies no additional information about any such motion.