Kitchens by Design, Inc. v. Confino

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kitchens by Design, Inc. v. Confino

687 So. 2d 364, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 967, 1997 WL 55693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3612

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 364 (Kitchens by Design, Inc. v. Confino) 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

Kitchens by Design, Inc. v. Confino, 687 So. 2d 364, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 967, 1997 WL 55693 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee Shirley Confino filed an action against appellant Kitchens by Design, Inc. for breach of contract. Kitchens defended the action, in part, on the basis that Confino entered into the contract as an unlicensed interior designer whose contracts are unenforceable as a matter of law. On appeal, Kitchens now argues that Confino was acting as an unlicensed contractor, and the trial court erred in entering judgment on the contract in Confino’s favor.

We affirm the final judgment under review as the record does not reflect that the specific claim of error made on appeal was argued and presented to the lower court. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)(“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”). In any event, it appears the services provided by the appellee were exempt from the applicable licensing requirements when they were rendered. § 481.203(8), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994); § 481.229(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee Shirley Confino filed an action against appellant Kitchens by Design, Inc. for breach of contract. Kitchens defended the action, in part, on the basis that Confino entered into the contract as an unlicensed interior designer whose contracts are unenforceable as a matter of law. On appeal, Kitchens now argues that Confino was acting as an unlicensed contractor, and the trial court erred in entering judgment on the contract in Confino’s favor.

We affirm the final judgment under review as the record does not reflect that the specific claim of error made on appeal was argued and presented to the lower court. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)(“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”). In any event, it appears the services provided by the appellee were exempt from the applicable licensing requirements when they were rendered. § 481.203(8), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994); § 481.229(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 364, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 967, 1997 WL 55693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitchens-by-design-inc-v-confino-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack