BRENDAN FORBES, INC.
v.
MEGNUTT ENTERPRISES, INC.
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.
Error not raised in the trial court is generally not preserved for appellate review, and it is the appellant's burden to present record evidence demonstrating reversible error.
[1] Error not raised or preserved in the trial court is not reviewable on appeal.
[2] On appeal, the burden rests upon the appellant to present record evidence demonstrating reversible error by 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 intelligenceBrendan Forbes, Inc. appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a dispute with Megnutt Enterprises, Inc.…
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 Burden Of Demonstrating Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1067 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3460
________________
Brendan Forbes, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Megnutt Enterprises, Inc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. The Williams Law Group, and Andrew Williams, for appellant. Law Offices of Alan I. Karten, PLLC, and Alan I. Karten (Boynton Beach), for appellees. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2010) (holding that error not raised in the trial court is generally not preserved for appellate review); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Avila-Gonzalez, 164 So. 3d 90, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (explaining that a hearing pursuant to Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), is not necessary where the sanction is based on the acts of the litigant and not the litigant’s counsel); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) (“[T]o justify reversal [of a discretionary decision refusing to excuse noncompliance with court rules], it would have to be shown on appeal that the trial court clearly erred in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment and not merely that the court, or another fact-finder, might have made a different factual determination.”); Schroeder v. MTGLQ Invs., L.P., 290 So. 3d 93, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding that it is appellant’s burden on appeal to present record evidence demonstrating a trial court’s reversible error); Mora v. State, 964 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that a party cannot invite error and then complain of it on appeal).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)
- Wagner Mora v. State, 964 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Avila-Gonzalez, 164 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Anamarie M. Schroeder v. MTGLQ Invs., L.P., 290 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)