SPARTA STATE BANK, PETITIONER,
v.
LEE PAPE AND LINDA PAPE, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sparta State Bank obtained a summary judgment against the Papes in county court to accelerate payment on promissory notes and repossess pledged vehicles. The circuit court, reviewing the case on appeal, reversed and remanded for additional hearings. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the circuit court erred by considering defenses never raised by the Papes at trial, violating the rule that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Yes. The appellate court erred by considering matters not presented to the trial court. It was improper for the circuit court to afford respondents a trial de novo on appeal by considering defenses never raised, as the established rule prohibits raising issues for the first time on appeal.
[1] An appellate court cannot consider issues not presented to the trial judge.
[2] A party generally cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As a general rule it is inappropriate for a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal.”
Establishes the foundational appellate rule that the circuit court violated by considering new defenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSparta State Bank filed suit in county court to accelerate payment on two promissory notes and an installment note, and sought replevin of a 1976 Audi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Issues Not Raised Below cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Sparta State Bank petitions this court for a writ of common law certiorari to review an order entered by the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, reversing a summary final judgment entered by the county court. Sparta State Bank filed a complaint in county court to accelerate payment of two promissoiy notes and security agreements and an installment note for failure of respondents, Lee and Linda Pape, to make timely payments. In addition, the complaint sought replevin of a 1976 Audi automobile and a 1975 Harley-Davidson motorcycle which were pledged as collateral for the two promissory notes. Filed along with the complaint was a motion for prejudgment writ of replevin. The trial court entered an order granting the motion ex parte.
Respondents answered by letter filed with the court. Several months later Sparta State Bank moved for summary judgment filing supporting affidavits. Respondents received notice of the hearing but failed to appear and no affidavits in opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment were filed. The court entered summary final judgment against respondents in the amount of $7,075 which included principal, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs. The prejudgment replevin bond was released.
On appeal to the circuit court the summary final judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the county court to “conduct further evidentiary hearings, if necessary and/or additional hearings or proceedings to provide appropriate equitable relief to [respondents].” The court noted in its order that procedural errors which occurred in the trial court worked an undue hardship upon respondents in that petitioner acquired the collateral and also received judgment in an amount exceeding the value of the property.
Petitioner submits the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by affording respondents a trial de novo on appeal when it considered defenses never raised by respondents at or before the hearing on summary judgment. We agree.
As a general rule it is inappropriate for a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1957). An appellate court cannot consider issues not presented to the trial judge either on appeal from an order of dismissal, Lipe v. City of Miami, 141 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1962), or on appeal from final judgment on the merits. Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1971); Mariani. In Dober v. Worrell, the Florida Supreme Court extended this rule to include an appeal from a summary final judgment.
In the instant case respondents’ answer neither raised affirmative defenses nor was it in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(e). Further, procedural due process was given respondents relating to the entry of summary final judgment. Respondents chose not to appear after notice of the hearing and they chose not to file affidavits in opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. We hold that it was error for the circuit court to consider matters not before the trial court and therefore we grant the petition. We do not address the questions related to the propriety of the trial court’s granting the prejudgment writ of replevin and the subsequent disposal of the replev-ied goods because the record is incomplete relating to these issues.
The petition is granted, the final order entered by the circuit court is quashed and the cause remanded to the circuit court to affirm the county court’s judgment.
WRIT GRANTED, ORDER QUASHED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Dralus v. Dralus, 627 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…, and should have, but did not, present to the trial court. Abrams v. Paul, 453 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See Moorman v. American Safety Equip., 594 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 606 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1992); Sparta State Bank v. Pape, 477 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Secrist v. Nat’l Serv. Indus., Inc., 395 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Florida First Nat’l Bank v. Fryd Constr. Corp., 245 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Alliance For Conservation of Natural Resources in Pinellas County v. Fur…
-
Frederick W.J. Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…mproper venue can be waived if not timely raised. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b). Having failed to raise improper venue in his motion below, Frederick cannot raise the issue for the first time on appeal.1 See Sparta State Bank v. Pape, 477 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Gross v. Franklin, 387 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Given Frederick’s waiver, Citrus County is deemed a legally acceptable venue and the issue on appeal concerns whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding tha…
-
Siegel v. Siegel, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…11 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The issue of the husband’s equity in the marital home was never presented to the trial court and, therefore, cannot be considered on appeal. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Sparta State Bank v. Pape, 477 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1957)
- Lipe v. City OF Miami, 141 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1962)
- Cowart v. City OF W. Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1971)