IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF T.B. (2025)

This appeal stems from the trial court's ruling on the motion to tax costs of The Academy of Ability, Inc. and William Harris (“Defendants”) following the voluntary dismissal of the case by Kareana V. McCloud, as guardian of the person and property of T.B. (“Plaintiff”).¹ The parties each raise one issue on appeal, both of which we find unavailing. First, with respect to Defendants’ argument challenging the trial court's rejection of costs associated with treating and expert witnesses, we find they failed to challenge each of the reasons supporting that finding in their initial brief, thus, allowing the trial court's ruling to stand on the unchallenged reason. See Davis v. State, 153 So. 3d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“An appellant who presents no argument as to why a trial court's ruling is incorrect on an issue has abandoned the issue—essentially conceded that denial was correct.” (quoting Prince v. State, 40 So. 3d 11, 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))).² Second, with respect to Plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred by holding Ms. McCloud personally liable for the costs, we find the order on costs does no such thing. Rather, the order expressly recognizes that the guardian, Ms. McCloud, is not personally liable for the costs. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's ultimate ruling on Defendants’ motion to tax costs against Plaintiff.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The claims in this case related solely to T.B., who is an incapacitated person.

2.   While Defendants addressed both reasons in their reply brief, these arguments came too late. E.g., Hoskins v. State, 75 So. 3d 250, 257 (Fla. 2011); Askar v. Abo, 411 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

NARDELLA, J.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE, J., concur.