MICHAEL WILKERSON, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants are challenging an order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, nunc pro tunc. Appellants argue that the appellee is estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense. This estoppel argument, however, was never presented to the lower court. This court has no authority to apply an equitable defense, such as estoppel, in the first instance. See, Palmer v. Thomas, 284 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (the function of an appellate court is to review errors allegedly committed by trial courts and not to entertain for the first time on appeal defenses which the complaining party could and should have but did not interpose and present to the trial court for decision). Because it was not raised below, we cannot find the lower court erred in not applying this equitable defense. See, Mighty Oak, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 399 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Having no basis to overturn the lower court’s order, it is AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…spond by stating that although the trial court erred, the ruling should not be reversed on this ground because Farm Bureau waived [*839] appellate review of the issue by failing to argue the point in the trial court. See Wilkerson v. Alachua County, 675 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). I agree with the Coxes that Farm Bureau waived this statutory exclusion issue. Moreover, on appeal, although Farm Bureau argues the causation issue relating to personal property damages, as it did for the dwelling, it does…
-
Becker v. Becker, 778 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ugust 2, 1999, trial court order. Accordingly, the appeal is untimely. Moreover, the argument is being raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, it is not subject to review by this Court. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(b); Wilkerson v. Alachua County, 675 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Third, the husband argues the trial court did not have the authority to order the sale of the parties’ Minnesota property. In a dissolution proceeding, a trial court has no authority to partition jointly held property wit…
-
Dario Labrada and Maria Del Carmen Calero v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 715 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…. denied, 634 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1994). The issue of the sufficiency of the notice as to the wife’s loss of consortium claim was not argued below and is, therefore, not properly before this court for appellate review. See Wilkerson v. Alachua County, 675 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Sierra v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 661 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). For the above reasons, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Dick Palmer v. Thomas, 284 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Mighty OAK, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 399 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)