Sussman, McMullen v. Kangas, Estate of John J. Gaffney
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 18, 2026
Docket2D2025-1956
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
SARAH K. SUSSMAN, individually, and SHELDON
D. McMULLEN, Esquire, an interested party,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL R. KANGAS, administrator ad litem of the Estate of John J.
Gaffney, deceased; TERESA GAFFNEY, individually and as trustee of the
Sussman Family Trust Living Trust, u/a/d January 9, 2012; and
ROBERT N. LYNCH, Bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, f/b/o Christ
the King Catholic Church,
Respondents.
No. 2D2025-1956
September 18, 2026
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough
County; James M. Barton, II, Senior Judge.
Sheldon D. McMullen, pro se, and for Petitioner Sarah K. Sussman.
Michael R. Kangas, pro se.
No appearance for remaining Respondents.
BLACK, Judge.
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.
KELLY and GUARD, JJ., Concur.
1 Mr. McMullen represented Ms. Sussman in the trial court, and he
represents her in this proceeding.
2
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3