CARYLL C. BARRETT, APPELLANT,
v.
VANSANA H. BARRETT, APPELLEE
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 court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the husband waived one issue by failing to argue it and that his motion for attorney's fees was untimely.
The husband appealed a final judgment, claiming the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a portion of a debt. He also filed an untimely motion for…
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 Waiver Of Issues On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, C.J.
We affirm Judge Sprinkel’s very thorough and well-supported final judgment. Normally, we would issue a per curiam affirmance, but in this case we need to address two items for the education of appellate counsel. Before we do that, appellant’s counsel is reminded that this court functions to correct errors. We do not reweigh evidence.
In the list of issues in his brief, the husband claims the trial court erred in ordering the husband to pay a portion of a debt owed to the wife’s brother. However, in the body of the husband’s brief, the husband makes no mention of this claimed error. In his reply brief, the husband acknowledges that he failed to address this issue in the argument. Accordingly, he waived this argument. See Raskin v. Cmty. Blood Ctrs. of S. Fla., Inc., 699 So. 2d 1014, 1016-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Why bring it up in the first place?
Secondly, the husband filed an untimely motion for attorney’s fees. Rule 9.400(b) requires the motion to be served “not later than the time of service of the reply brief....” The time for filing a reply brief was extended to June 20, 2006. On June 29, 2006, he filed a motion for attorney’s fees and a separate motion to accept his reply brief as being filed on June 29, 2006. This court granted the motion to accept the reply brief, but the motion was silent as to the motion for attorney’s fees. Thus, the motion for attorney’s fees was untimely. If a motion for attorney’s fees is untimely, why file it?
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wright, 172 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…k N.A., 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. v. Lira, 48 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Porras v. Porras, 29 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Bardol v. Martin, 763 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Barrett v. Barrett, 951 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that the appellant’s claim of trial court error was waived because he failed to argue the error in the body of his initial brief). Accordingly, we deny the State’s petition. PETITION DENIED. PALMER, WALLIS and EDWARDS…
-
Barahona v. State, 10 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…concurring specially. I write simply to note that the State’s cross appeal raising the failure of the trial court to adjudicate and sentence the appellant as to Count 4 of the information was not briefed and thus was waived. See Barrett v. Barett, 951 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).…
Authorities Cited
- Raskin v. Cmty. Blood Ctrs. OF S. Fla., Inc., 699 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)