EVAN J. WEISS
v.
GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A.
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.
This per curiam opinion affirms a trial court decision, addressing the appellate preservation requirement for challenging the sufficiency of trial court findings. The court holds that issues not properly preserved through a motion for rehearing are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
An appellant cannot raise for the first time on appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of trial court findings or other trial court errors without first preserving the issue through a motion for rehearing or reconsideration. The appellant's failure to raise the issue at the trial court level constitutes a waiver of the issue for appellate review.
[1] To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court's findings in a final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under Flori…
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 intelligenceThe opinion does not detail specific facts but addresses a procedural challenge to trial court findings or a dismissal order. The appellant failed to …
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 Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Bistricer v. Oceanside Acquisitions, LLC, 59 So. 3d 215, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n. v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (issues that are not properly preserved are deemed waived, and an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); In re:
Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.530, 346 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2022) ( “To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”); Carbonell v. Glade, 394 So. 3d 679, 681, 684 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (disagreeing with defendants’ argument that striking defendants’ pleadings was improper without the court making an express finding of willfulness and finding that “defendants failed to preserve the issue by raising it in their motion for rehearing”); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ribaudo, 199 So. 3d 407, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding that the court would not consider the Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) argument because the appellant “did not raise. . . these issues. . . by subsequently filing a motion for rehearing or reconsideration”); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Sandhill, 202 So. 3d 944, 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“We have held in other situations that a party must move for rehearing or similarly provide the trial court with an opportunity to set forth mandatorily required factual findings before seeking appellate review based upon the absence or insufficiency of factual findings.”); A-1 Pro. Asphalt, LLC v. The N. Groves Condo. Ass’n., Inc., 372 So. 3d 1278, 1278 (6th DCA 2023) (citing to Sandhill for the proposition that “to preserve [a] trial court error in Kozel context, appellant needed to raise absence of trial court analysis in motion for rehearing”); Sanderson v. Karch, 257 So. 3d 1091, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citing to Ribaudo for the proposition that trial court’s alleged errors and failing to consider Kozel factors before dismissing a complaint could not be reviewed on appeal due to the sanctioned party’s failure to “raise either of these issues at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or by subsequently filing a motion for rehearing or reconsideration”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005)
- Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Ribaudo, 199 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Sandhill, 202 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Rojas v. Londono (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Bistricer v. Oceanside Acquisitions, LLC, 59 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Sanderson v. Karch, 257 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- City of Miami v. Vilma Marcos (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)