WOOLSEY LAW FIRM, PLLC

v.

ALYSSA CLAYTON CAMPER-SHORSTEINST. JOHN'S COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-1054 LT Case No. 2022-CA-000786 _____________________________

WOOLSEY LAW FIRM, PLLC,

Appellant,

v.

ALYSSA CLAYTON CAMPER- SHORSTEIN and ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. James Robert Clayton, Judge.

M. Scott Thomas and Rachel Cocciolo, of Burr & Forman LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Marie A. Mattox, of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahasse, and Cynthia A. Myers, of The Law Office of Cynthia A. Myers, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Alyssa Clayton Camper-Shorstein.

No Appearance for Remaining Appellee.

August 15, 2025

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR and HARRIS, JJ., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., concurs specially with opinion.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-1054 LT Case No. 2022-CA-000786

EISNAUGLE, J., concurring specially with opinion.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees after the court dissolved a temporary injunction. On appeal, Appellant makes several specific arguments, including that denial of fees was in error because the trial court reasoned that (1) there was no adjudication on the merits of the injunction and (2) the Appellee did not engage in bad faith. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b); Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018, 1021–22 (Fla. 1989) (“The standard for determining whether an injunction was wrongfully issued is simply whether the petitioning party was unentitled to injunctive relief.”); Bradenton Grp., Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“Parties may still recover for the damages stemming from a wrongful injunction though the injunction is obtained in good faith.”).

A review of the record demonstrates that these alleged errors appeared for the first time in the trial court’s order and were not raised in a motion for rehearing. See State v. Clark, 373 So. 3d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 2023) (“One specific preservation principle comes into play when a final order addresses substantive issues or reaches legal conclusions that have not been previously raised or challenged. If this occurs, a party must file a motion for rehearing to preserve those alleged errors for appellate review.” (footnote omitted)).

Although Appellant made a general argument in its motion that it was entitled to fees (before rendition of the order), it did not present the much more specific arguments that now appear in the initial brief. See Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (“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.” (citation omitted)). The argument below, for obvious reasons, does not need to be nearly as comprehensive as the one made on appeal. But it must be equally specific. If a party can make a specific argument in an initial brief, it can and must do so in the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.

In conclusion, the fee motion’s general argument did not put the trial court on notice of these substantially more specific errors now advanced on appeal. See Eaton v. Eaton, 293 So. 3d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“The purpose of the preservation requirement is to ensure that the trial court has an opportunity to correct an error at the earliest opportunity, when the court is still in a position to recall the basis of its ruling.”). As a result, Appellant failed to preserve the alleged errors and we must affirm.