SUSSMAN v. KANGAS 2012 (2026)

Attorney Sheldon McMullen and Sarah Sussman seek certiorari review of the postjudgment sanctions order rendered June 25, 2025.¹ We treat this certiorari proceeding as a direct appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c); cf. Graham v. Graham, 898 So. 2d 210, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). To the extent Mr. McMullen and Ms. Sussman challenge the trial court's finding of entitlement to attorney's fees and costs, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not set the amount. See SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Surgery Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 208 So. 3d 775, 781-82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). The sanctions order is otherwise affirmed.

We take this opportunity to remind Mr. McMullen, as a Florida licensed attorney appearing before this court, of his continuing duty of candor to this court. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3; see also Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595, 600-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“During the pendency of an appeal, the duty of candor imposes an obligation on counsel to notify the court of any development that may conceivably affect the outcome of the litigation, including facts that may raise a question of mootness․ ‘It is one thing to argue that a settlement does not moot a particular case; it is quite another to promote an advisory opinion by disguising a settlement in order to hide it from the court's consideration.’ ” (quoting Douglas v. Donovan, 704 F.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983))).

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mr. McMullen represented Ms. Sussman in the trial court, and he represents her in this proceeding.

BLACK, Judge.

KELLY and GUARD, JJ., Concur.