AVI HAREL
v.
KABEL- X USA, LLC

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-01-02
No. 3D2024-0297
362 So. 3d 226 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

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

An appellant cannot discharge its appellate duty by merely posing questions with assertions of improper answers below without substantive legal argument, and issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Headnotes

[1] An appellant must present substantive legal arguments on appeal rather than merely posing questions and asserting they were improperly answered in the trial court.

[2] Issues not raised or presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and are precluded from 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 intelligence
Key Quotes

“An appellant does not discharge [its] duty by merely posing a question with an accompanying assertion that it was improperly answered in the court below and then dumping the matter into the lap of the appellate court for decision.”

Court explaining the standard for appellate presentations
Facts & Procedural History

Avi Harel appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a case against Kabel-X USA, LLC. The appeal involved contract or commerc…

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.

Topics
Raising Issues For The First Time On Appeal

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Raising Issues For The First Time On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0297 Lower Tribunal No. 19-22438

________________

Avi Harel,

Appellant,

vs.

Kabel-X USA, LLC, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Avi Harel, in proper person. Berger Singerman LLP, and Alejandro M. Miyar and Ana E. Kauffmann, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“An appellant does not discharge [its] duty by merely posing a question with an accompanying assertion that it was improperly answered in the court below and then dumping the matter into the lap of the appellate court for decision. Under such circumstances it must be held . . . that [the appellate court is] under no duty to answer the question.” (quoting Lynn v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955))); Est. of Herrera v. Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[Appellant] seeks to raise issues which were not raised in the trial court. However, issues not presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, [appellant] is precluded from raising new arguments on appeal.” (citation omitted)); see also K.R. Exch. Servs., Inc. v. Fuerst, Humphrey, Ittleman, PL, 48 So. 3d 889, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“It is well settled that the court must consider an exhibit attached to the complaint together with the complaint’s allegations, and that the exhibit controls when its language is inconsistent with the complaint’s allegations.”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Avi Harel v. Kabel- X USA, LLC, 362 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
    …Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Avi Harel, in proper person. Berger Singerman LLP, and Alejandro M. Miyar and Ana E. Kauffmann, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“An appellant does not discharge [its] duty by merely posing a question with an accompanying assertion that it was improperly answered in the court below and then dumping the matter into the lap of the appellate court f…
  • United Cab of Broward, LLC v. Nathalia Muller, 397 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
    …s failure to verify his interrogatory responses. We review a party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2022), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 de novo. Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 2015)). We similarly review whether a PFS is ambiguous and statutory interpretation issues de novo. Matrisciani v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 298 So. 3d 53, 6…
  • All Dade Fences, Inc. v. Ortega, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
    …r the jury to decide”). II. Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Proposals for Settlement “Generally, a party’s entitlement ‘to receive attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is reviewed de novo.’” Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 2015)). In this case, the trial court found the proposals for settlement were ambiguous for their failure to “state that a judgment would be entered in the amounts offere…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw