FOUNDATION FLOORING, LLC
v.
JAMES REICHARD AND FADER REICHARD

Fla. 4th DCA | 2021-03-17
No. 20-1154
Levenson, J., Warner, J., Damoorgian, J., Forst, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2021)

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.


Holding

A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it declines to consider matters raised for the first time in a rehearing motion.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by declining to consider matters raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing, and an appellate court will not consider…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Foundation Flooring, LLC appealed a circuit court decision in a case against James Reichard and Fader Reichard. The trial court declined to consider c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Forst

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FOUNDATION FLOORING, LLC, Appellant,

v.

JAMES REICHARD and FADER REICHARD, Appellees.

No. 4D20-1154

[March 17, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-17- 000864.

Peter Ticktin, Michael Vater and Emily B. Chatzky of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

John J. Shahady of Shahady & Wurtenberger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Fader Reichard.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gaffney v. Gaffney, 965 So. 2d 1217, 1221–22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (a trial court does not abuse its discretion when it declines to consider matters raised for the first time in a rehearing motion); Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (trial judges have the authority, but are not required, to consider new issues that are presented for the first time on rehearing); see also Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 243 So. 3d 985, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (an appellate court will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing at the trial level, as it was not properly preserved for appeal); Bennett v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw