Sanon v. Sanon — affirmed the county court without a written explanation

Case
Jude Sanon v. Edner Sanon
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
CIKLIN (Charlie Crist, 2008); Conner (Rick Scott, 2011)
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-2931
Topics
Appeals, Per Curiam Affirmance, County Court
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Jude Sanon appealed from the County Court for Florida’s Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in St. Lucie County. County Judge Edmond Warren Alonzo III presided over the underlying case, docketed as No. 562025CC003684AXXXHC.

Jude Sanon represented himself on appeal. Edner Sanon made no appearance. The appellate opinion does not identify the nature of the underlying dispute, the county court’s ruling, or the arguments raised on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s judgment in a per curiam decision.

The court provided no reasoning or discussion of the facts or legal issues. Judges Ciklin, Conner, and Klingensmith concurred, and the decision remained nonfinal pending disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the county court’s judgment.
  • The per curiam opinion supplied no factual account or legal analysis.
  • The decision does not establish which arguments were presented or why the county court’s judgment was upheld.

Why It Matters

The decision ends the appeal in the appellee’s favor unless altered through a timely rehearing proceeding. Because the court affirmed without explanation, the opinion offers no articulated rule or reasoning for attorneys to apply in other cases.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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