BOBBY CROCKER
v.
JAMIE WALDRON

Fla. 5th DCA | 2024-11-15
No. 5D2023-2223
2024 FL 13104 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2024)

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.

Synopsis

Bobby Crocker appeals a final judgment awarding his sister-in-law Jamie Waldron $6,250 in damages for the value of her fifth-wheel camper. The appellate court affirms the judgment without reaching the merits because Crocker's arguments are insufficiently developed and not properly preserved for appeal.


Holding

The court affirms the final judgment without reaching the merits because Crocker's arguments on appeal are insufficiently developed to permit meaningful appellate review and are not properly preserved for appeal.


Headnotes

[1] An appellate court may affirm a judgment without reaching the merits if the appellant's arguments are insufficiently developed for meaningful review and not properly pres…

[2] An affirmance of a judgment on appeal may be without prejudice to the filing of a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“Because his arguments on appeal are insufficiently developed to permit meaningful appellate review and they are not properly preserved for appeal, we affirm without reaching the merits.”

Establishes the core holding that inadequate development and preservation of arguments preclude appellate review on the merits.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Crocker's sister-in-law, Jamie Waldron, obtained a final judgment against him for damages in the amount of $6,250.00 for the value of her fifth-wheel …

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

November 15, 2024 PER CURIAM.

Bobby Crocker appeals, pro se, from a Final Judgment awarding his sister-in-law, Jamie Waldron, damages for the value of her fifth-wheel camper. Because his arguments on appeal are insufficiently developed to permit meaningful appellate review and they are not properly preserved for appeal, we affirm without reaching the merits. See, e.g., Fish v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n/Koger Equity, Inc., 802 So. 2d 1201, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED. EISNAUGLE, and PRATT, JJ., concur. WALLIS, J., concurs with opinion.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

5D2023-2223 L.T. 2022-CC-1239-CR WALLIS, J., concurs with opinion.

I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to note that Crocker received the Final Judgment awarding Waldron $6,250.00 in damages one week after the trial court had orally granted his motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead of filing a motion for rehearing or motion for relief from judgment to challenge the judgment, Crocker appealed. Although his appeal is unsuccessful for the reasons stated, I believe our affirmance is without prejudice to Crocker filing, in the trial court, a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) or Florida Small Claims Rule 7.190(b)(4), if he can do so in good faith. See Keeter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 194 So. 3d 469, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Although we affirm due to the lack of proper preservation, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant filing in the trial court a motion seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).”); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Reyes, 126 So. 3d 304, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Because the judgment below grants relief wholly outside the pleadings on which the default was entered, it is void and should have been vacated by the court below.”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw