CYNTHIA HARRIS
v.
GLEN GILZEAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, AND DAN HELM, INDIVIDUALLY
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.
Cynthia Harris appeals a trial court's declaratory judgment disqualifying her as a candidate for Orange County Supervisor of Elections for failure to pay the required qualifying fee under Florida Statutes section 99.061(7)(a)1. Harris raises three issues on appeal: the trial court's statutory interpretation, Dan Helm's standing to bring the action, and compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. The appellate court affirms, finding Harris failed to preserve her arguments for appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Harris failed to preserve her arguments for appeal because she did not present them to the trial court in a timely manner. The standing argument, in particular, should have been raised as an affirmative defense before trial but was waived by Harris's failure to do so.
[1] Standing to challenge a candidate's qualifications must be raised as an affirmative defense at trial or is waived for purposes of appeal.
[2] Arguments first raised in a motion for rehearing following final judgment are untimely and insufficient to preserve issues for appellate review.
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 intelligenceHarris was disqualified as a candidate for Orange County Supervisor of Elections in the November 5, 2024 General Election due to her failure to pay th…
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 Declaratory Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Lisa T. Munyon, Judge.
October 16, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Cynthia Harris appeals a final declaratory judgment disqualifying her as a candidate for the office of Orange County Supervisor of Elections in the General Election of November 5, 2024, for her failure to pay the qualifying fee as provided in section 99.061(7)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2023) (“Failure to pay the fee as provided in this subparagraph shall disqualify the candidate.”). Harris raises three issues in this expedited appeal: the trial court’s interpretation of section 99.061(7)(a)1.; the standing of appellee and opposing candidate Dan Helm to file the action below; and the trial court’s compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. We cannot reach the merits of these issues as argued by Harris, however, because she did not preserve the arguments in the trial court.1 See Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464, 492 (Fla. 2008) (“For an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be presented to the lower court, and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.”); Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Pol. Comm., 625 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1993) (“The issue of standing should have been raised as an affirmative defense before the trial court, and [appellant’s] failure to do so constitutes a waiver of that defense, precluding her from raising that issue now.”);
Joli v. Hannon, 336 So. 3d 343, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding putative mayoral candidate’s argument on appeal that city clerk lacked standing to challenge her qualification was waived because she did not object to clerk’s standing below);
Correa v. U.S. Bank N.A., 118 So. 3d 952, 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[Appellant] 1 Harris raised the issue of Helm’s standing for the first time in a motion to the trial court for rehearing following the final judgment, which the trial court summarily denied. It was within the trial court’s discretion to decline to consider a new argument on rehearing. See Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Centers, Inc., 88 So. 3d 269, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Even if her argument had been timely, however, it was insufficient to preserve the standing argument she makes on appeal. This is because her argument below consisted almost entirely of lengthy, verbatim quotations from a First District case, Torres v. Shaw, 345 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), which held there is no standing for general voters or political parties to challenge the qualifications of a congressional candidate under section 99.061(7) but distinguished “mandamus and declaratory actions where plaintiff-candidates and plaintiff-election officials have questioned what the elections law requires, or where disputes have arisen about candidates meeting substantive constitutional or statutory qualifying requirements.” 345 So. 3d at 976 (emphasis added).
waived the notice requirements of rule 1.440(c) by agreeing to the rescheduled trial date and proceeding at trial without objection.”).
Even if we could review the trial court’s interpretation of section 99.061(7)(a)1. on Harris’s framing of the issue, we would find the trial court’s interpretation correct and its factual determinations supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Gator Coin II, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., 254 So. 3d 1113, 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“On review of a declaratory judgment, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if supported by competent, substantial evidence, but review conclusions of law de novo.”); Borden v. E.-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 2006) (legal questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo).
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL, SMITH and GANNAM, JJ., concur. Cynthia Harris, Orlando, pro se.
Michael A. Sasso and Xixi Li, of Sasso & Sasso, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee, Glen Gilzean, in his official capacity as Orange County Supervisor of Elections. Dan Helm, of Dan Helm Law Practice, Orlando, and Wilbert R. Vancol, of McEwan, Martinez, Dukes, Hall & Vancol, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee, Dan Helm, individually.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (62 total)
-
Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2010)…o set forth any basis upon which this Court could grant him relief. Instead, he simply refers the Court to his claims filed below. As we have previously held, vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant relief. See Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464, 482 (Fla.2008) (“[T]o merely refer to arguments presented during the postconviction proceedings without further elucidation is not sufficient ... and these claims are deemed to have been waived.”); Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650, 668 (Fla.2000)…
-
Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008)…dant. See Rhodes v. State, 986 So. 2d 501, 513-14 (Fla.2008) (noting that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will be summarily denied absent specific factual allegations of both a deficiency in performance and prejudice); Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464, 483 (Fla.2008) (reminding “attorneys who represent capital defendants of the importance of compliance with minimal pleading requirements to allege a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel” and repeating that insufficiently pled claims “ma…
-
Lynch v. State, 2 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2008)…ejudice prong). As a preliminary matter, Lynch’s warrant-overbreadth ineffectiveness subclaim fails to the extent that he challenges evidence which the police seized but which the State never presented during his trial. See, e.g., Doorbal v. State, 983 So. 2d 464, 500 (Fla.2008) (holding that defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of certain statements was “without merit because the State ultimately did not introduce the statements into evidence”). Further, the majorit…
Previewing 3 of 62 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006)
- Shere v. State, 742 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1999)
- Harris v. Gilzean, 336 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
- Krivanek v. The Take Back Tampa Political Comm., 625 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1993)
- Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for Bacf 2006-D, 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Kendrick Wyly v. Felder, 345 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- Gator Coin II, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 254 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)