The ACADEMY OF ABILITY, INC. and WILLIAM HARRIS v. KAREANA v. MCCLOUD as Guardian of the Person and Property of T.B., an Incapacitated Person

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1498 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-CA-6655 _____________________________

IN RE: Guardianship of T.B., an incapacitated person.

THE ACADEMY OF ABILITY, INC. and WILLIAM HARRIS,

Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v.

KAREANA V. MCCLOUD, as guardian of the person and property of T.B., an incapacitated person,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. _____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Brian S. Sandor, Judge.

August 1, 2025

NARDELLA, J.

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

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

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.

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

Jason M. Azzarone, Thomas Saieva, and Lesley Stine, of La Cava Jacobson & Goodies, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Ryan Christopher Rodems, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

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).