I). Hunter I provided Mr. Hunter the necessary relief. During the pendency of the appeal in Hunter I, the trial court issued a final order that was substantially the same as the previous non-final order except that the trial court added a finding of contempt against Mr. Hunter. We must again reverse. Because the order on appeal is substantially the same as the order in Hunter I, we will not repeat here the reasons why the trial court erred in entering this second order. Furthermore, Mr. Hunter’s appellate counsel has not briefed as an issue in this appeal the only substantive difference in the two orders — a finding of contempt — and thus has waived any potential error on appeal. See David M. Dresdner, M.D., P.A. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 972 So.2d 275, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>); accord Kenyon v. Kenyon, 496 So.2d 839, 840
holding that where appellant omits to address in the initial brief a trial court error raised in the appeal the appellate court will deem such potential issue waived or abandoned holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that appellate court will not normally address issue raised for the first time on appeal