Tower Group, Inc. v. Thyssen Elevator Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tower Group, Inc. v. Thyssen Elevator Co.

823 So. 2d 264, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11421, 2002 WL 1800985

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-702

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 823 So. 2d 264 (Tower Group, Inc. v. Thyssen Elevator Co.) 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

Tower Group, Inc. v. Thyssen Elevator Co., 823 So. 2d 264, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11421, 2002 WL 1800985 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Tower Group, Inc. appeals an order denying exceptions to a general master’s report. We affirm.

First, we see no error with regard to the involuntary dismissal of the counterclaim. The record does not establish error in the general master’s ruling, or the denial of the exception on this point by the trial court.

Second, we decline to order a new trial on the basis of procedural error. At the time the case went to trial before the master, the parties and master had not noticed that the counterclaim had never been answered. The trial took place without any objection that the case was not at issue. The appellant contends that there must be a new trial. We disagree, and conclude that the objection was waived. See Parrish v. Dougherty, 505 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We do not accept the argument that this is fundamental error.

The appellant relies on Kuvin v. Keller Ladders, Inc. 797 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), but the case is not on point. The question of preservation of the issue for appeal was not discussed in that case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Tower Group, Inc. appeals an order denying exceptions to a general master’s report. We affirm.

First, we see no error with regard to the involuntary dismissal of the counterclaim. The record does not establish error in the general master’s ruling, or the denial of the exception on this point by the trial court.

Second, we decline to order a new trial on the basis of procedural error. At the time the case went to trial before the master, the parties and master had not noticed that the counterclaim had never been answered. The trial took place without any objection that the case was not at issue. The appellant contends that there must be a new trial. We disagree, and conclude that the objection was waived. See Parrish v. Dougherty, 505 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We do not accept the argument that this is fundamental error.

The appellant relies on Kuvin v. Keller Ladders, Inc. 797 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), but the case is not on point. The question of preservation of the issue for appeal was not discussed in that case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

823 So. 2d 264, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11421, 2002 WL 1800985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-group-inc-v-thyssen-elevator-co-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack