Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Cook

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Cook

572 So. 2d 6, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9519, 1990 WL 205496

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2836

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 So. 2d 6 (Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Cook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Cook, 572 So. 2d 6, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9519, 1990 WL 205496 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We agree with the appellee that there is no merit to appellant’s claims and that the appellant waived virtually all of the claims now raised on appeal by not timely or properly raising such claims in the trial court. See Affiliated Marketing, Inc. v. Dyco Chemicals & Coatings, Inc., 340 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). For example, it is apparent from the name of the brokerage account involved that the appellant was aware from the very beginning of these proceedings that the appellee was a judge in the circuit where the action was filed, yet appellant waited to near the end of the proceedings, and then by an improper “motion to change venue,” to question the authority of the court to preside over the proceedings to confirm an arbitration award. We find no error or abuse of discretion in any of the trial court’s actions.

ANSTEAD, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We agree with the appellee that there is no merit to appellant’s claims and that the appellant waived virtually all of the claims now raised on appeal by not timely or properly raising such claims in the trial court. See Affiliated Marketing, Inc. v. Dyco Chemicals & Coatings, Inc., 340 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). For example, it is apparent from the name of the brokerage account involved that the appellant was aware from the very beginning of these proceedings that the appellee was a judge in the circuit where the action was filed, yet appellant waited to near the end of the proceedings, and then by an improper “motion to change venue,” to question the authority of the court to preside over the proceedings to confirm an arbitration award. We find no error or abuse of discretion in any of the trial court’s actions.

ANSTEAD, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 6, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9519, 1990 WL 205496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-brokerage-services-inc-v-cook-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack