SFR Services v. Zinober — Fourth District affirmed without a written opinion

Case
SFR Services, LLC, Ricky McGraw, Elite Claims Consultants, LLC, Matthew McGraw, Jessica McGraw, McGraw Property Solutions, LLC and McGraw Asset Management, LLC v. Zinober, Diana & Monteverde, P.A. and Michael A. Monteverde
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
KLINGENSMITH (Rick Scott, 2013); SHEPHERD (Ron DeSantis, 2025)
Date Decided
August 6, 2026
Docket No.
4D2024-1268 and 4D2025-0455
Topics
Per Curiam Affirmance; Civil Appeals; Florida Appellate Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

SFR Services, LLC and six other appellants pursued consolidated appeals against Zinober, Diana & Monteverde, P.A. and Michael A. Monteverde. The appeals arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Martin County before Judge Elizabeth Ann Metzger, under lower-tribunal case number 432022CA000511CAAXMX.

The Fourth District’s opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the circuit court’s rulings, the issues raised on appeal, or the parties’ arguments. Accordingly, no additional factual or procedural details can be determined from the opinion itself.

The Court’s Holding

In a per curiam decision, the Fourth District affirmed the circuit court. Judges Klingensmith, Shepherd, and Lott concurred.

The court provided no written reasoning or explanation for its decision. The opinion therefore establishes only that the challenged judgment or orders were left in place; it does not identify the legal grounds for affirmance or announce a rule of law.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth District affirmed the circuit court in the consolidated appeals.
  • The court issued a per curiam affirmance without explaining its reasoning.
  • The opinion does not disclose the underlying facts, appellate issues, or basis for the circuit court’s rulings.

Why It Matters

The decision ends the consolidated appeals in the Fourth District, subject to disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing, and leaves the circuit court’s rulings undisturbed.

Because the court supplied no reasoning, practitioners should not read the decision as resolving any particular legal question beyond the result reached in these appeals.

✉️ 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