Background
Robert Settle IV, identified in the caption as the appellant, pursued an appeal to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, challenging a decision rendered in favor of Jaime Settle, the appellee. The appeal originated from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The lower tribunal case was assigned number 502024CC001884XXXASB, and the matter was presided over by Judge Reginald Corlew. The appellate docket number assigned to the case was 4D2025-2580.
The record on appeal, as reflected in the public appellate document, does not disclose the underlying facts of the dispute between the parties, the specific legal claims or defenses asserted, the procedural history beyond the county court judgment, or the precise issues raised on appeal. The document does not indicate whether the matter proceeded to trial, was resolved on dispositive motions, or involved any evidentiary hearings. No information is provided regarding the nature of the relationship between the parties, the subject matter of the litigation, or the relief sought by either side.
Representation in the appellate proceeding was provided by David Cruz of Vindex Privatus, PLLC, located in Coral Gables, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, Robert Settle IV. Kimberly H. Schultz of the Law Offices of Kimberly H. Schultz, located in Davie, appeared on behalf of the appellee, Jaime Settle. The appellate document does not reference any amicus curiae participation, intervenors, or additional parties beyond those named in the caption.
The Court’s Holding
On November 5, 2026, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, issued a per curiam decision in the matter. The entire substantive disposition stated by the court was: “Affirmed.” This single-word ruling constitutes the complete holding of the appellate court. The decision was issued per curiam, meaning it was rendered by the court as a whole rather than attributed to any individual judge as author.
The appellate document expressly notes that Judges Gerber, Chief Judge, Klingensmith, and Shepherd concurred in the decision. No judge dissented, and no separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed. The document contains no statement of the standard of review applied, no citation to legal authorities, no discussion of the evidence presented below, and no explanation of the legal or factual basis for the affirmance. The court did not certify any questions to the Florida Supreme Court, nor did it indicate that the decision would be accompanied by a forthcoming written opinion.
The appellate document includes a finality notation stating: “Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.” This notation indicates that the decision remains subject to potential rehearing proceedings before it becomes final for purposes of further appellate review or issuance of the mandate. The document does not specify any deadline for filing such a motion, nor does it reference any pending post-decision motions.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, affirmed the judgment of the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, in favor of appellee Jaime Settle and against appellant Robert Settle IV.
- The appellate decision was issued per curiam with the entire stated disposition consisting solely of the word “Affirmed,” accompanied by no written reasoning, legal analysis, or citation to authority.
- Judges Gerber, Chief Judge, Klingensmith, and Shepherd concurred in the per curiam affirmance, with no dissents or separate opinions noted.
- The appellate document provides no information regarding the underlying facts, legal issues, standard of review, or basis for the affirmance, and expressly states that the decision is not final until disposition of any timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Why It Matters
This per curiam affirmance without opinion represents a common form of appellate disposition in Florida’s district courts of appeal, particularly in cases where the court determines that the lower tribunal’s decision should be upheld without the need for written analysis. For practitioners, such dispositions underscore the importance of preserving issues and building a clear record at the trial level, as appellate courts may affirm without providing guidance on the specific grounds for their decision.
The absence of written reasoning limits the precedential value of the decision and provides no insight into the court’s view of the legal issues presented. Attorneys and litigants reviewing this disposition should be aware that the affirmance does not constitute an endorsement of any particular legal theory or factual finding by the lower court, but rather reflects the appellate court’s conclusion that the judgment should stand. The finality notation serves as a reminder that the decision remains subject to rehearing procedures before it becomes final.