HOTEL INVESTOR GROUP, LLC
v.
MARIA DAVIS; JUDSON C. DAVIS, JR,; AND WARRINGTON OIL CORPORATION
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.
An appellate court must presume the trial court had a proper basis for its ruling when the appellant fails to provide a transcript of the hearing at issue on appeal.
[1] When an appellant fails to provide a transcript of a hearing on appeal, the appellate court must presume the trial court had a proper basis for its ruling and will not re…
[2] Under the invited-error doctrine, a party may not invite error at trial by agreeing to a procedure and then challenge that same procedure on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“HIG in essence brings forward a record on appeal that 'is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.'”
The court explaining why it could not review the trial court's denial of the motion to amend
Hotel Investor Group filed a complaint against the defendants. After a first motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court granted HIG's oral …
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 Ore Tenus Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hotel Investor Group, LLC, (“HIG”) appeals a final judgment of dismissal. In response to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, HIG’s counsel made an ore tenus motion for leave to amend its complaint. The trial court granted the requested leave. After HIG served an amended complaint, a second motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed. At the hearing on that subsequent motion, HIG’s counsel ostensibly made another ore tenus motion for leave to amend. This second time, however, the trial court denied the request for leave and granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings in an order that is now on appeal.
HIG argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the second ore tenus motion. We know nothing about that motion, however, because HIG has not provided a transcript or a statement of evidence in lieu of a transcript. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(5). HIG in essence brings forward a record on appeal that “is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). For instance, we cannot determine whether the issues raised on appeal were first brought before the trial court and, thus, preserved for purposes of appeal. In any event, we must presume that the trial court had a good reason, based on what was presented at the hearing, to deny the second ore tenus motion to amend, so we affirm. J P Morgan Chase Bank v. Combee, 883 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (affirming because, without a transcript of a hearing at issue on appeal, the appellate court was left “without any information as to what” transpired in the proceeding, and the trial court was presumed to have a proper basis for its ruling).
To the extent HIG argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for rehearing without first conducting a hearing, it invited any alleged error by agreeing that a hearing was not necessary under the circumstances. See Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, M.K. THOMAS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- J P Morgan Chase Bank v. Combee, 883 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)