Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17473 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed November 23, 2016.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D15-1451
    Lower Tribunal No. 10-64050
    ________________
    Sharon L. Rollins,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Marilyn M. Dickerson and Misti R. Delgado,
    Appellees.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice
    Butchko, Judge.
    Billbrough & Marks and Geoffrey B. Marks, for appellant.
    Kubicki Draper and Sharon C. Degnan (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.
    Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.
    EMAS, J.
    Sharon L. Rollins, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in her
    favor and a subsequent order of the trial court denying her motion for additur and,
    alternatively, for new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as the alleged errors upon which the
    motion was premised are either unmeritorious or were not properly preserved. See
    Roth v. Cohen, 
    941 So. 2d 496
    , 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that an issue
    “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to
    be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered
    preserved”) (quoting Archer v. State, 
    613 So. 2d 446
    , 448 (Fla. 1993)). Had
    Rollins’ trial counsel made a specific, proper and contemporaneous objection,
    thereby giving the trial court adequate notice of the nature and impact of the
    alleged error, the trial court would have had the opportunity to fashion an
    appropriate remedy to ameliorate any error and cure the resulting prejudice which
    Rollins raises for the first time on appeal.
    We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    Rollins’ motion for additur. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 
    707 So. 2d 1110
     (Fla.
    1998); Carnival Corp. v. Amato, 
    840 So. 2d 1088
     (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Kmart
    Corp. v. Bracho, 
    776 So. 2d 342
     (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Phillips v. Ostrer, 
    481 So. 2d 1241
     (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
    Affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3D15-1451

Citation Numbers: 208 So. 3d 770, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17473

Judges: Emas, Fernandez, Scales

Filed Date: 11/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024