MARGARITA CHESS and DAVID CHESS, Appellant(s) v. JAMES P. CONVEY, as Trustee, etc., et al., Appellee(s).

ORDERED that, upon consideration of Appellee's July 16, 2025 response, Appellants' July 1, 2025 motion for rehearing is denied. GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., dissents.

ORDERED that Appellee's July 23, 2025 "Notice of Agreed Extension of Time - Answer Brief" is stricken as not in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(d) in that the certificate of service does not comply in substance with the requirements of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516(f). You are notified of the requirement to serve the Appellant with a copy of everything you file with this court and to indicate in the certificate of service that you served the Appellant. Appellee may re-file the document with a proper certificate of service which indicates service on the Appellant.

Initial Brief

ORDERED that, upon consideration of Appellee's May 16, 2025 response, Appellants' March 28, 2025 motion for review is denied. Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d 772, 772-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Further, ORDERED that Appellants' May 27, 2025 motion for leave to file reply is denied as moot. GROSS and CONNER, J., concur. WARNER, J., dissenting. I would grant the stay. From what I gather, this is a trust for a disabled child. The child lived in the condo at the beach (although has been displaced for a couple of years due to construction) which the trustee now wants to sell. The child and his parents opposed for various reasons. The sale of the condo will generate a huge tax liability. That can't be fixed by appeal, because it wouldn't be damages that another party would pay for. It could be a loss to the trust. I think there may be a reasonable possibility of success. And moreover, this isn't a true "adversary" proceeding. If the condo isn't sold, the trust will not get the money to invest in other properties. That will ultimately only be a loss to the child. So it's not as though anyone else is demanding the sale for their own purposes.

ORDERED that Appellant's May 30, 2025 motion to supplement the record is granted. The material requested in the motion shall be included in the record on appeal. The clerk of the lower tribunal shall prepare and file the supplemental material in this court within ten (10) days from the date of this order. Appellant shall monitor the supplementation process.

ORDERED that Appellee is directed to respond, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, to Appellants' March 28, 2025 motion for review. Further, ORDERED that Appellee is directed to file a status report, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, regarding the progress being made toward the disposition of Appellee's pending motion in the trial court.

ORDERED that, upon consideration of Appellants' March 25, 2025 response, Appellee's March 27, 2025 amended motion to relinquish jurisdiction is granted. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the trial court for thirty (30) days to resolve the pending motion to correct scrivener's error. Appellee shall forward to this court a copy of any order issued during relinquishment. It is further ORDERED that the Appellee shall monitor this proceeding in the trial court. If further time is needed beyond this relinquishment period, it shall be the duty of Appellee to request an extension of time by proper motion to this court. This case shall proceed in this court upon expiration of relinquishment unless otherwise notified in writing by the parties.

Reply To Appellee's "Response To *Urgent* Motion For Review Of Motion For Stay Pending Appeal"

Pay Case Filing Fee-300

Acknowledgment Letter