BECRUISING TELECOM, LLC
v.
PALAU SUNSET HARBOR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
An issue is not preserved for appellate review unless it is presented to the lower court with the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal as part of that presentation.
[1] An issue is not preserved for appellate review unless both the issue itself and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal are presented to the trial co…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
Standard for issue preservation on appeal
BeCruising Telecom, LLC appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County regarding a dispute with Palau Sunset Harbor Condominium Association, I…
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 Consequential Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-0877 Lower Tribunal No. 18-2477
________________
BeCruising Telecom, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Palau Sunset Harbor Condominium Association, Inc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge. Inger M. Garcia (Davie); Eric J. Cvelbar, for appellant. Akerman LLP, and Alexandra M. Mora, and Alejandro J. Paz; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Kurt T. Koehler (Jacksonville), for appellees. Before EMAS, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. 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.”); Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 242 So. 3d 461, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Generally, in order to raise an issue on appeal, it must be presented to the trial court, and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation.”) (quotation omitted). See also Gen. Tool Indus., Inc. v. Premier Mach., Inc., 790 So. 2d 449, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (enforcing limitation of liability clause which barred recovery for “incidental or consequential damages for lost profits”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005)
- Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, 242 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Gen. Tool Indus., Inc. v. Premier Mach., Inc., 790 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)