CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
v.
VICTOIRE FONTUS
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.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a trial court decision in a dispute with Victoire Fontus. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the appellant failed to properly preserve certain arguments for appellate review through timely objections and requests for curative measures at trial.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment because the appellant failed to properly preserve its claims for appellate review. The appellant did not make timely objections or request mistrials or curative instructions as required by law, and did not demonstrate that any error constituted fundamental error warranting review despite improper preservation.
[1] A timely objection is necessary to provide a trial court with the opportunity to correct errors.
[2] When an objection is sustained, the objecting party must move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“To provide a trial court with the opportunity to correct errors, a timely objection is necessary.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that parties must make timely objections at trial to preserve issues for appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and Victoire Fontus that proceeded to trial in Miami-Dade County Circuit C…
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 Fundamental Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Millar Elevator Serv. Co. v. McGowan, 819 So. 2d 145, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“To provide a trial court with the opportunity to correct errors, a timely objection is necessary.”); Companioni v. City of Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452, 456 (Fla. 2010) (requiring objecting party to move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction for any objections that are sustained by the trial court); Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1027-30 (Fla. 2000) (if a claim is not properly preserved for review, the issue can only be reviewed for fundamental error, which requires the movant to demonstrate: 1) the challenged argument or comment was improper; 2) the argument or comment was harmful; 3) the argument or comment is incurable; and 4) the argument or comment must be such that it so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public’s interest in our system of justice requires a new trial); Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[I]f the complaining party fails to establish that the argument being challenged is improper, harmful, and incurable, then the analysis does not proceed to the last prong of this four-part test.”); Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“[T]he matter is not properly preserved for review because the bare hearsay objection made below did not elucidate the double hearsay[] argument [that the appellant] now offers as a basis to exclude the evidence.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Companioni v. City OF Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2010)
- Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Millar Elevator Serv. Co. v. McGOWAN, 819 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)