The joy of the PCA

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 24

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 19, 2026

FOURTH DISTRICT ISSUES PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE (PCA)– CONCURRING OPINION DEFENDS CONTINUED USE OF PCAS AS ESSENTIAL TO FLORIDA’S APPELLATE SYSTEM

Bruce v. Bruce, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1176 (Fla. 4th DCA June 10, 2026):

The underlying appeal involved a dissolution of marriage judgment. The Fourth District affirmed the using a simple PCA.

Instead, Judge Klingensmith wrote an extensive concurrence—not to discuss the merits of the parties’ dispute, but to explain why Florida appellate courts should continue using per curiam affirmances (“PCAs”) in appropriate cases.

The concurrence explained that the appeal presented nothing more than the routine application of settled law to a fact-specific record. The issues involved no novel legal question, no conflict in precedent, and no need for clarification of existing law. Under those circumstances, a written opinion would have added words without adding guidance.

Judge Klingensmith emphasized that PCAs perform an important institutional function. By affirming without an opinion, appellate courts avoid creating unnecessary precedent in cases controlled by well-established law. Written opinions–even carefully drafted ones, often become cited for propositions far beyond the facts before the court, gradually expanding or complicating the law where no clarification is actually needed.

The concurrence responded to recent criticism suggesting Florida should adopt a system of unpublished, non-precedential opinions instead of relying upon PCAs. Judge Klingensmith concluded that such a system would create a growing body of “shadow law” that lawyers would feel obligated to research and cite, increasing litigation costs while doing little to improve the quality or clarity of Florida’s jurisprudence.

The opinion further observed that every appeal receives full judicial consideration regardless of whether it results in a written opinion. A PCA does not signify that the court ignored the issues presented. Rather, it reflects the panel’s determination that existing law adequately resolves the dispute without requiring additional discussion.

Judge Klingensmith also explained that PCAs serve important practical purposes. They conserve judicial resources for cases involving unsettled legal questions, avoid unnecessary advisory commentary, discourage meritless post-decision litigation, and preserve flexibility in areas committed to the trial court’s discretion. They also reduce the risk that fact-specific affirmances will gradually harden into unintended rules governing future cases.