Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado

208 So. 3d 770, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17473

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 2016

Docket3D15-1451

StatusPublished

This text of 208 So. 3d 770 (Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado) 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

Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado, 208 So. 3d 770, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17473 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.

Sharon L. Rollins, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in her favor and a subsequent order of the trial court denying her motion for additur and, alternatively, for new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as the alleged errors upon which the motion was premised are either unmeritorious or were not properly preserved. See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that an issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved”) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)). Had Rollins’ trial counsel made a specific, proper and contemporaneous objection, thereby giving the trial court adequate notice of the nature and impact of the alleged error, the trial court would have had the opportunity to fashion an appropriate remedy to ameliorate any error and cure the resulting prejudice which Rollins raises for the first time on appeal.

We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rollins’ motion for additur. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998); Carnival Corp. v. Amato, 840 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Kmart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

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

EMAS, J.

Sharon L. Rollins, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in her favor and a subsequent order of the trial court denying her motion for additur and, alternatively, for new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as the alleged errors upon which the motion was premised are either unmeritorious or were not properly preserved. See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that an issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved”) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)). Had Rollins’ trial counsel made a specific, proper and contemporaneous objection, thereby giving the trial court adequate notice of the nature and impact of the alleged error, the trial court would have had the opportunity to fashion an appropriate remedy to ameliorate any error and cure the resulting prejudice which Rollins raises for the first time on appeal.

We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rollins’ motion for additur. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998); Carnival Corp. v. Amato, 840 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Kmart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 3d 770, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollins-v-dickerson-and-delgado-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack