PAULINE FOWLER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Plaintiff Fowler appealed an order granting defendant Alterman Transport Lines a new trial after defendant's counsel failed to appear at the original trial. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that plaintiff's acceptance of $500 in attorney's fees as a condition of the new trial order constituted waiver of error and estoppel to prosecute the appeal.
Plaintiff waived her right to appeal by accepting the $500 payment, which constituted implied agreement to the terms and conditions of the new trial order and estopped her from prosecuting the appeal.
“It is apparent that the payment of said sums by defendant was intended as a condition precedent to the granting of the new trial.”
Establishes that the $500 payment was a condition, not a separate award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt trial, no one appeared on behalf of defendant due to neglect and misunderstanding by defendant's counsel. A jury verdict was rendered against defen…
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 Error cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting the appellee, defendant below, a new trial. *676On motion of appellee tlie appeal is dismissed.
The order appealed reflects that as a result of neglect and misunderstanding on the part of counsel for defendant at the time of the trial, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant as counsel, witnesses, or otherwise. On motion of defendant for a new trial the lower court examined certain depositions, interrogatories and answers thereto on file in said cause, none of which were presented to the. jury, and determined therefrom that it was reasonable to believe that the jury might have reached a different conclusion and verdict if the same had been introduced in evidence at the trial. The order granting a new trial also reflects that defendant’s present attorney confessed liability of the defendant, and it was ordered that on the new trial the issue should be limited to the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The order also required defendant to pay to plaintiff the costs of the former trial and the sum of $500.00 to plaintiff’s attorney of record, and states that the defendant consented to make such payments. The order was subsequently amended by adding, as a ground for granting the new trial, that the verdict does not accord with the substantial justice of the cause.
It is apparent that the payment of said sums by defendant was intended as a condition precedent to the granting of the new trial. The motion to dismiss reflects and it is not contested that defendant paid $500.00 to plaintiff’s attorney by check and that he received the proceeds thereof. While we are not aware of any rule of law authorizing the trial court to require payment of such an attorney’s fee as a condition for granting a new trial, the provision is not challenged by the motion under consideration and we do not undertake to resolve it. The fact is, nevertheless, that in this instance the plaintiff by accepting such payment impliedly agreed to the terms and conditions of the order granting the new trial and under such circumstances is estopped to prosecute this appeal. Her. conduct amounts to a waiver of error. Rayle v. Merrill, 141 So.2d 288 (Fla.App.1962).
The motion to dismiss this appeal should be and it is hereby granted.
. WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.