Background
This appeal arose out of proceedings in the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida, before Judge Elijah Smiley. The appellant, Roger T. Rhodes, Jr., brought the action in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of his deceased father, Roger T. Rhodes, Sr. The appellee, Sherry Garrett, participated as successor defendant following the death of the original defendant, Kathryn L. Rhodes.
The underlying dispute involved competing interests connected to the estates of Roger T. Rhodes, Sr. and Kathryn L. Rhodes. After the circuit court ruled against the appellant, Roger T. Rhodes, Jr., as personal representative, filed a timely appeal to the First District Court of Appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. Chief Judge Osterhaus and Judges Lewis and Ray concurred in the affirmance without issuing a written opinion elaborating on the reasoning.
The decision is not yet final, as it remains subject to any timely and authorized motion filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.
Key Takeaways
- The First District affirmed the Bay County circuit court’s judgment in full, with all three judges concurring.
- The case proceeded with substituted parties on both sides due to the deaths of the original principals, Roger T. Rhodes, Sr. and Kathryn L. Rhodes.
- The per curiam affirmance without written opinion signals the appellate court found no reversible error warranting discussion.
Why It Matters
While the per curiam affirmance provides no precedential guidance on the merits, the case illustrates the procedural mechanics of estate litigation when parties die during the course of proceedings, requiring substitution of personal representatives and successor defendants to carry the action to conclusion.
Practitioners in probate and estate disputes should note that the First District found no error in the circuit court’s handling of this matter, reinforcing the deference appellate courts extend to trial court rulings in the absence of a written explanation to the contrary.