The Florida District Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's decision in the case of Robert Perdue versus Domicilium Charleston Borrower, LLC. This ruling, made on October 23, 2026, is significant for borrowers and legal practitioners as it clarifies certain aspects of appeal processes in Florida.

The case, identified by docket number 2D2025-2548, centers on an appeal filed by Robert Perdue, who represented himself in the matter. The appellee, Domicilium Charleston Borrower, LLC, was represented by attorneys Jose Garcia and Gerald C. Biondi from the law firm Baumann, Gant, Keeley & Biondi, P.A. in Tampa.

Background

Robert Perdue, the appellant, initiated the appeal after a lower court ruling that favored Domicilium Charleston Borrower, LLC. The details surrounding the original dispute were not specified in the court filing, leaving some ambiguity regarding the nature of the conflict between the parties.

Perdue's decision to represent himself, known as pro se representation, indicates that he chose to navigate the legal system without an attorney. This can often complicate legal proceedings, as self-represented individuals may lack the legal knowledge and resources that attorneys possess.

The case reached the District Court of Appeal after Perdue sought to challenge the lower court's ruling. The appeal process in Florida allows parties to contest decisions made in lower courts, and this case serves as an example of that process in action.

The Ruling

The District Court of Appeal ruled to affirm the decision made by the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, which was presided over by Judge Michael F. Andrews. The court's opinion was succinct, stating simply, "Affirmed." This indicates that the appellate court found no error in the lower court's ruling that warranted a reversal or modification.

The judges involved in the ruling were Northcutt, LaRose, and Black, who all concurred with the decision. Their agreement suggests a consensus on the matter, although the opinion does not provide detailed reasoning behind the affirmation.

Impact

The affirmation of the lower court's ruling has implications for both Perdue and Domicilium Charleston Borrower, LLC. For Perdue, this means that the original ruling stands, and he may have limited options for further legal recourse unless he can identify a basis for appeal to a higher court.

For Domicilium, the ruling reinforces their position in the dispute and could set a precedent for similar cases involving borrower rights and appeals in Florida. The lack of detailed reasoning in the appellate opinion may also suggest that the court found the lower court's decision to be clear and well-founded.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Perdue plans to appeal this ruling to a higher court. However, given the nature of appellate law, he may still have options depending on the circumstances surrounding his case.