Penaranda v. Florida Department of Revenue

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Penaranda v. Florida Department of Revenue

34 So. 3d 204, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6528, 2010 WL 1816258

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 2010

DocketNo. 1D09-5960

StatusPublished

This text of 34 So. 3d 204 (Penaranda v. Florida Department of Revenue) 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

Penaranda v. Florida Department of Revenue, 34 So. 3d 204, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6528, 2010 WL 1816258 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 446 (Fla.2002) (“In order to preserve the issue for appellate review, a party must have made the same argument to the trial court that it raises on appeal.”). Compare Richardson v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Moore, 742 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that because Richardson’s “sworn response to the commissioner’s report and his sworn motion for rehearing sufficiently raised an issue of fact as to whether he received notice of the August 5 hearing [on a petition to vacate a paternity judgment and reimburse a tax refund that had been divested to pay child support], the trial court was obligated to resolve the issue only after an evidentiary hearing.”).

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432, 446 (Fla.2002) (“In order to preserve the issue for appellate review, a party must have made the same argument to the trial court that it raises on appeal.”). Compare Richardson v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Moore, 742 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that because Richardson’s “sworn response to the commissioner’s report and his sworn motion for rehearing sufficiently raised an issue of fact as to whether he received notice of the August 5 hearing [on a petition to vacate a paternity judgment and reimburse a tax refund that had been divested to pay child support], the trial court was obligated to resolve the issue only after an evidentiary hearing.”).

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 3d 204, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6528, 2010 WL 1816258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penaranda-v-florida-department-of-revenue-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack