Devenson Walker v. Estate of Robert Yee

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 10, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0366
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DEVENSON A. WALKER, Appellant,

v.

ESTATE OF ROBERT YEE, deceased, TED YEE, and ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.

No. 4D2023-0366

[January 10, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Tabitha Blackmon, Judge; L.T. Case No. COWE22- 001495.

Devenson A. Walker, Sunrise, pro se.

Kansas R. Gooden and Nicholas Ryan Consalvo of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees Estate of Robert Yee and Ted Yee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pro se, appeals the final order dismissing his complaint with prejudice, as well as the order denying his motion to vacate dismissal and motion for rehearing, after appellant failed to appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Appellant’s brief cites no legal authority and contains no citations to the record on appeal. “It is the duty of counsel to prepare appellate briefs so as to acquaint the Court with the material facts, the points of law involved, and the legal arguments supporting the positions of the respective parties.” Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). “When points, positions, facts and supporting authorities are omitted from the brief, a court is entitled to believe that such are waived, abandoned, or deemed by counsel to be unworthy.” Id. Appellant, as a pro se litigant, was still required to adequately present his arguments on appeal. Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.”); Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[I]t is a mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney.”); Figueroa v. Kossiver, 336 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (applying Polyglycoat principles to a pro se litigant’s brief). The deficiencies in appellant’s brief mandate affirmance.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS, and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.