Since its creation, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has signaled a willingness to rethink established Florida law, and Judge Mize’s special concurrence in Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. makes that invitation explicit.
The “Clean Slate” Philosophy
Judge Mize emphasized that the Sixth District, as a new court without a massive body of its own precedent, possesses a “unique ability to correct long-existing errors in the law and return the law of our state to first principles”.
The court noted a frustrating trend: a “stunning dearth of litigants making arguments from first principles,” with lawyers routinely pointing to decisions from sister courts and assuming the Sixth District will automatically follow them. To reiterate its independence, the court cited a litany of its own recent opinions where it declared it is not bound by other district courts when it finds their decisions incorrect:
- CED Cap. Holdings 2000 EB, LLC v. CTCW-Berkshire Club, LLC, 363 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
- Edmonds v. Edmonds, 363 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
- Julia v. Ramos-Baez, 395 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
- Amazulu Transp., Inc. v. Dinkins, 407 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- J.E.J. v. S.A.B., 416 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- Crecelius v. Rizzitano, 2026 WL 555031 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
A Roadmap for Trial Lawyers
Because the Sixth District cannot correct an error unless the issue is properly preserved below, the concurrence laid out a specific roadmap for trial attorneys.
Under Florida law, a trial court is bound by the decisions of other district courts of appeal if there is no interdistrict conflict or controlling precedent from its own district or the Florida Supreme Court. (See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992)) Therefore, when facing adverse out-of-district precedent, practitioners must:
- Confirm there is no binding Florida Supreme Court holding on the issue.
- Acknowledge to the trial judge that the court is bound by the sister district’s decision.
- Explicitly argue that the sister district’s decision is wrong to preserve the argument for appeal.
- Raise the argument on appeal as a basis for the Sixth District to reverse.
The Citation Opinion Contradiction
While the Sixth District champions its independence and asks lawyers to help it dismantle bad precedent, an elephant remains in the appellate courtroom: the court’s use of “citation opinions.”
It is common practice for appellate courts—including the Sixth District—to issue brief per curiam affirmances (PCAs) that merely state “See…” followed by a citation to a case from another district. This creates a seeming contradiction. How can a court proudly declare it is not bound by the precedents of its sister courts, yet summarily dispose of cases by citing exclusively to those same out-of-district precedents? Are these two judicial postures logically reconcilable?
Also, under Florida law, a citation opinion has no precedential authority of its own. As the Florida Supreme Court established in Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1983), a per curiam affirmance without a written opinion has no precedential value and establishes no binding point of law. Of course, the Court lacks the resources to write opinions on every case before it, and a citation opinion gives the parties at least some idea of the reasoning behind the Court’s decision. However, the Court’s practice of disposing of cases through non-precedential citations to out-of-district cases it claims it is not bound by creates a paradox that seemingly fails to further the court’s goal to “improve the law in our state.”
