RODRIGO A. PENARANDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OBO ANGELA C. SANTIAGO, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2010-05-07
No. 1D09-5960
BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
34 So. 3d 204 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2010)

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw