JEFFREY C. KETTERSON AND MRI MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
IN RE ESTATE OF COREEN MARY BRUNS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs from a contempt proceeding against Ketterson and MRI Medical Services. The court rejected appellants' claims that they were denied due process and that the trial court improperly curtailed testimony, finding no abuse of discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Any error in cutting off further testimony was not preserved because appellants failed to proffer what testimony they sought to present. The trial court properly exercised its authority to control the mode and time of witness examination to facilitate discovery of truth and avoid needless consumption of time.
[1] Failure to proffer testimony sought to be presented at trial waives any claim of error regarding the exclusion of that testimony.
[2] A trial court has the discretion to exercise reasonable control over the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence to facilitate the discovery of truth…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any error in cutting off further testimony at 4:30 p.m. was not preserved, because of appellant's failure to proffer the testimony he was seeking to present.”
Establishes that the appellants' failure to proffer testimony prevented preservation of the error for appeal review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a hearing on attorney's fees and costs arising from a contempt proceeding, the trial court limited examination time and set firm deadlines for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proffer Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs arising from a contempt proceeding against appellants. Based on a review of the entire record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The hearing on attorney’s fees commenced on March 7, 1996. Because the hearing did not finish, it was rescheduled.
The trial court asked appellant’s attorney how long he needed to complete his case, and he indicated that he needed about three hours more.
On May 23, 1996, the second day of the hearing, the trial court again granted a continuance to allow appellant’s attorney to review documentation and conduct discovery, so that limited hearing time would not be used to conduct a discovery deposition. Eventually, the trial court reset the case for October 21,1996 and ordered there would be no further continuances.
On October 21, appellant’s attorney cross-examined one witness for six hours. At 4:20 p.m., the trial court announced that the hearing on attorney’s fees would conclude in 10 minutes. Appellant’s attorney claimed that he had evidence to present on his side of the case. However, when pressed, appellant’s attorney waffled on whether he had any witnesses. Finally, he said that he would put on his client “in mitigation” and could continue the hearing “as late as [the judge] want[s] to go.” The attorney did not seek to proffer the contents of the testimony he sought to present. Testimony concluded promptly at 4:30 p.m.
Appellant was given 15 minutes for closing argument. His attorney used the time to complain that the court had denied appellant fundamental due process; to argue that the evidence in support of fees was insufficient; to urge that the decision should be deferred until the conclusion of a related civil trial, and to catalogue the history of the trial court’s alleged bias against his client. Nowhere in the argument did the attorney proffer the additional testimony he wished to present.
Any error in cutting off further testimony at 4:30 p.m. was not preserved, because of appellant’s failure to proffer the testimony he was seeking to present. See Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Roberts v. Holloway, 581 So. 2d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); § 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The trial court’s decision to terminate cross examination was within its power to “exercise reasonable control over the mode ... of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to ... [facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth” and “[a]void needless consumption of time.” § 90.612(1)(a) & (b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The admission of the summary into evidence was harmless error in light of the time allowed counsel to obtain and examine supporting documentation. See Stokus v. Phillips, 651 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc., 593 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
STONE, C.J., GROSS, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 736 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…dditional time been made available. The failure to proffer the testimony sought is fatal to wife’s argument. The issue was not preserved for appeal. Stager v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 163 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Ketterson v. Estate of Bruns, 711 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Absent a proffer of the testimony, it is impossible to gauge the value of the testimony and whether the court improperly restricted the wife’s full and fair presentation of her case. See Antoniak v. Antoniak, 652 So. 2d 943 ( Fl…1 / 2
-
Gonzalo Bouquet v. Jones (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…f the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to . . . [f]acilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth.” § 90.612(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2025); see also Ketterson v. Est. of Bruns, 711 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). As to the request to void orders, we reiterate that a writ of prohibition is preventative, not corrective, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Chaviano v. Greater Mia. Caterers, Inc., 254 So. 3d 1047, 1048 (F…
-
Gonzalo Bouquet v. Jones (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc., 593 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Stokus v. Phillips, 651 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Earl J. Roberts, M.D. v. Marvine Holloway and Irene Holloway as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Lorene Denise Holloway, 581 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)