Florida 1DCA: Perry v. Perry 1D2025-0260 Affirmed Per Curiam

• The Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance in Raymond Perry v. Phillip E. Perry.
• The ruling, case number 1D2025-0260, was decided on November 10, 2026.
• This decision upheld the judgment from the Circuit Court for Leon County, presided over by Judge Angela Cote Dempsey.
• A per curiam affirmance provides finality for the parties but offers limited precedential value due to the absence of a detailed opinion.

While providing a definitive resolution for the litigants, a per curiam affirmance without a written opinion offers limited insight into the specific legal principles or factual interpretations that guided the appellate court's decision.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal recently issued a per curiam affirmance in the case identified as Raymond Perry v. Phillip E. Perry, et al. This ruling, designated with case number 1D2025-0260, upheld a previous judgment originating from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

The appellate court's decision, rendered on November 10, 2026, concluded the appeal initiated by Raymond Perry against Phillip E. Perry and other parties. Judge Angela Cote Dempsey presided over the original proceedings in the Leon County Circuit Court, whose findings were the subject of this appeal. The appellate panel's concise ruling affirmed her court's prior determination without providing an extensive written explanation for its reasoning.

A "per curiam" decision, a Latin term meaning "by the court," signifies a ruling issued by the entire court rather than an individual judge, often without a named author. In Florida's appellate system, particularly at the Florida First District Court of Appeal, such decisions are common for cases where the court finds no reversible error and believes a detailed opinion would not add significantly to existing legal precedent.

The affirmance in *Perry v. Perry* (Florida 1D2025-0260) means that the appellate court found no legal grounds to overturn the judgment rendered by the Leon County Circuit Court. This type of ruling typically indicates that the lower court correctly applied established law to the facts presented, or that any errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal.

While providing a definitive resolution for the litigants, a per curiam affirmance without a written opinion offers limited insight into the specific legal principles or factual interpretations that guided the appellate court's decision. This contrasts with decisions accompanied by detailed opinions, which often elaborate on novel legal issues or provide guidance on complex applications of law.

For Raymond Perry and Phillip E. Perry, the November 10, 2026 per curiam affirmance brings finality to their dispute, confirming the outcome established by the Leon County Circuit Court under Judge Angela Cote Dempsey. The appellant, Raymond Perry, has exhausted this avenue of appeal, and the lower court's judgment stands.

From a broader legal perspective, the lack of a detailed opinion in *Perry v. Perry* (Florida 1D2025-0260) means that while the specific outcome is settled, the decision does not establish new legal precedent or offer extensive guidance for future cases. Lawyers analyzing this ruling would understand that its precedential value is largely confined to the specific facts and legal arguments presented in the original appeal, rather than serving as a broad interpretive statement of law.

This characteristic of per curiam affirmances underscores their role in judicial efficiency, allowing appellate courts to swiftly resolve appeals that do not present novel or complex legal questions requiring extensive discussion. However, it also means that practitioners cannot rely on this specific ruling for detailed legal analysis beyond its direct application to the parties involved.

This per curiam affirmance indicates that the lower court's decision in Perry v. Perry was upheld, confirming the legal principles applied in that specific case. Lawyers should note that while it provides a final resolution for the parties, the lack of a detailed opinion limits its precedential value for broader legal arguments beyond the specific facts and issues presented in the original appeal.

Source: Original reporting via Florida First District Court of Appeal