We have substantial experience litigating a wide variety of other civil appeals, including consumer litigation (bankruptcy, residential foreclosure, deceptive and unfair trade practices), employment disputes, probate disputes, securities fraud, and tax disputes.

Our notable victories include obtaining reversal of the dismissal of a Madoff securities fraud lawsuit based on the complaint’s supposed untimeliness and failure to plead with specificity, see Walter v. Avellino, 564 Fed. App’x 464 (11th Cir. 2014), obtaining affirmance of the denial of a doctor’s motion to intervene in probate proceedings, see Robert K. McCann, D.O. v. Horvath, 158 So. 3d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), obtaining affirmance of a final judgment holding a towing company liable for damages and attorney fees for selling Corvette without complying with statutory requirements, see RRY, Inc. v. Chisler, 184 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), and obtaining affirmance of a final judgment in a first tier bankruptcy appeal where a creditor had asserted in an adversary proceeding that the debtor had defamed him, see Termeer v. Dunn, No. 8:14-cv-3147 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

In addition to RRY, Inc. and Robert K. McCann, D.O. (argument unavailable), we have also taken other cases to oral argument, including Jenkins v. S. David Anton, P.A., 922 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming judgment in favor of law firm that denied overtime pay to paralegal after five-day bench trial).

Our sample briefs include:

Answer brief in Termeer v. Dunn, No. 8:14-cv-3147 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (affirming final judgment in bankruptcy adversary proceeding where creditor asserted debtor had defamed him);

Appellant’s brief and reply brief in Jenkins v. S. David Anton, P.A., 922 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming judgment in favor of law firm that denied overtime pay to paralegal after five-day bench trial);

Answer brief in RRY, Inc. v. Chisler, 184 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming final judgment holding towing company liable for damages and attorney fees for selling Corvette without complying with statutory requirements);

Appellant’s brief and reply brief in Walter v. Avellino, 564 Fed. App’x 464 (11th Cir. 2014) (reversing dismissal of Madoff securities fraud lawsuit based on complaint’s supposed untimeliness and failure to plead with specificity);

Appellant’s brief and reply brief in Schuster v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 725 Fed. App’x 908 (11th Cir. 2018) (tax dispute); 

Initial brief and reply brief in Howarth v. Ball, No. 2D17-3148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (inheritance dispute).