Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado

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