JOEL FREDERICSON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EMIL FREDERICSON, DECEASED, CLARE RABE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND JONATHAN RABE AND ISMAILIA RASHID, AS THE CO-GUARDIANS OF THE PROPERTY OF SARA FOX, INCOMPETENT, COMPOSING THE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, KNOWN AS SUNILAND SHOPPING PLAZA, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTIN LEVINSON AND MARTIN LEVINSON, P.A., APPELLEES
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.
The personal representative of a deceased general partner and other partnership members appealed an adverse jury verdict in a dispute with a tenant over lease provisions. The appellate court affirmed the lower court judgment, rejecting arguments about the admission of testimony and the enforceability of the disputed lease provision.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error on either point. The admission of testimony was properly admitted because the plaintiffs failed to preserve the issue for appeal, and the evidence supported that the lease provision was valid, adequately supported by consideration, and not unconscionable.
[1] An issue is not preserved for appellate review when the party fails to object to disputed testimony when it is offered or renew a prior motion in limine when the testimon…
[2] A trial court's admission of testimony is not reversible error if the issue does not present a fundamental error.
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“The said plaintiff did not object to the disputed testimony when it was offered in evidence before the jury, and did not otherwise renew his prior motion in limine, which had previously been denied, when the disputed testimony was presented to the jury.”
Establishes the failure to preserve the testimony issue for appellate review
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs were members of a general partnership known as Suniland Shopping Plaza, including a deceased member represented by his personal represe…
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 Consideration For Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
'This is an appeal by the personal representative of an estate and other members of a general partnership of which the deceased was a member from an adverse final judgment entered after a jury trial. The action below was brought by the said personal representative and partners against a tenant of the partnership for various forms of relief relating to a lease entered into between the respective parties. Two points are raised on appeal relating to (1) the admission of testimony by the defendant tenant concerning a transaction between the said tenant and the deceased partner, and (2) the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as to a count in the complaint which sought to strike a provision in the lease for alleged lack of consideration and for alleged unconscionability. We cannot agree with either point and affirm.
First, no reversible error is shown on the point involving the above admission of testimony because the plaintiff personal representative has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. The said plaintiff did not object to the disputed testimony when it was offered in evidence before the jury, and did not otherwise renew his prior motion in limine, which had previously been denied, when the disputed testimony was presented to the jury. See O’Brien v. Ortiz, 467 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Parry v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 407 So. 2d 936, 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 404 So. 2d 802, 803-04 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Moreover, the point urged does not present a fundamental error. See Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Chisolm v. Mapp, 347 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Ross v. Florida Sun Life Insurance Co., 124 So. 2d 892, 895-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).
Second, there was competent, substantial evidence adduced below which established that (a) the subject provision was in the lease at the time it was signed by the parties, (b) the lease was amply supported by consideration, and (c) the said provision was in no sense unconscionable. See Liza Danielle, Inc. v. Jamko, Inc., 408 So. 2d 735, 737-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503, 506 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for review denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981); Venice East, Inc. v. Manno, 186 So. 2d 71, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nordyne, Inc. v. Fla. Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…t Nordyne failed to preserve its objection to the testimony of Burlingame and Dalton, because it failed either to object contemporaneously or to renew its previously filed motion in limine addressed to those two individuals. Fredericson v. Levinson, 495 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Our review of the record leads us to conclude, further, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling as it did regarding the testimony of those four witnesses. See Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st D…
-
Porter v. Vista Bldg. Maint. Servs., Inc., 630 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…BARKDULL, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent upon the reasoning found in the following authorities. Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 498 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Fredericson v. Levinson, 495 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); OBrien v. Ortiz, 467 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Romulo Padilla v. BIV Invs. & Mgmt., Inc., 783 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ected-to closing argument amounted to fundamental error. The trial court rejected this claim and we agree with the trial court on this point. See Murphy v. International Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.2000); Fredericson v. [*353] Levinson, 495 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Liza Danielle, Inc. v. Jamko, Inc., 408 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hervey S. Ross v. Fla. SUN Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Swan v. Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Darrel Carnell v. Carnell, 398 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Venice E., Inc. v. Manno, 186 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Parry v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 407 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Espositio, 192 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1966)
- In re Est. of Florence H. Thomas, 192 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1966)
- McKENZIE v. State, 467 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)