KINGDOM OF SWEDEN
v.
KAWA SAEED FOAD
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.
Arguments and affirmative defenses not raised before the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
[1] Arguments and affirmative defenses not presented to the trial court before judgment are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
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“[A]n affirmative defense . . . should not be raised by a motion for summary judgment prior to raising such defense in an answer. However, this is a procedural matter that can be waived. It must be timely raised before the trial court in order to give the trial court the opportunity to correct itself. It may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Danford v. City of Rockledge, 387 So. 2d 968, 969–70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
Kingdom of Sweden appealed a decision from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The specific factual circumstances are not detailed in this per curiam opi…
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 Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Danford v. City of Rockledge, 387 So. 2d 968, 969–70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (“[A]n affirmative defense . . . should not be raised by a motion for summary judgment prior to raising such defense in an answer. However, this is a procedural matter that can be waived. It must be timely raised before the trial court in order to give the trial court the opportunity to correct itself. It may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So. 3d 321, 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[Where] Appellants never made [an] argument below, either in response to Appellees’ summary judgment motions and supporting legal memoranda, or in a motion for rehearing . . . . [I]t [is] not preserved.”);
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (finding that absent a transcript, an appellate court cannot conclude that the trial court’s judgment was unsupported by the evidence or so misconceived a controlling principle of law as to require reversal).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Danford v. City OF Rockledge, 387 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)