MARYLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A GEORGIA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 court held that issues not presented to the trial court for a ruling cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.
Maryland National Insurance Company appealed forfeiture judgments, arguing they were improperly entered and included unauthorized costs and interest. …
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.
Maryland National Insurance Company appeals from final judgments in the Circuit Court of Dade County on three separate orders of forfeiture from the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Dade County, Florida. These appeals have been consolidated by order of this court.
Appellant argues that the final judgments were improperly entered by the trial court judge and that § 903.27, Fla.Stat., F. S.A., requires such judgments to be entered by the Clerk and that proper statutory procedure was not followed. It argues that the final judgments were also erroneous because they included costs and interests and these items are not specifically authorized under the terms of the statute.
While these points were vigorously argued here we cannot consider them as they are raised for the first time on appeal and were never presented to the trial judge for a ruling.
Section 903.271, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., permits appellant the right to have presented these arguments and points to the Circuit Court and permits that court to set aside the final judgment in whole or in part for reasonable cause shown within a time certain.
Appellant, by failing to utilize the statutory procedures, which would have permitted the trial court to make a determination of the points raised in this appeal, has not allowed the trial court judge to rule on these items and we may not consider them for the first time in this appeal. Margolis v. Klein, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 205; Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54; and Wasserburg v. Coastal Aluminum Products Const. Co., Fla.App. 1964, 167 So. 2d 889.
The final judgments herein appealed are, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia-Roque v. Roque-Velasco, 855 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ause remain in the Family Division, it is clearly inappropriate for this Court to even consider this issue which is being raised for the first time on appeal. See Miller v. Miller, 709 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co. v. State, 243 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Affirmed. GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Holland v. Safreed, 372 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Maryland National Insurance Co. v. State, 243 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Nigel Winfield v. Second Nat'l Bank OF N. Miami, 381 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ert the error complained of on appeal. The inaction below constituted a waiver in several respects and the final judgment is therefore affirmed. Green v. Barhydt, 121 Fla. 265, 163 So. 587 (1935); Maryland National Insurance Co. v. State of Florida, 243 So. 2d 183 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), and American Home Assurance Company v. Keller Industries, Inc., 347 So. 2d 767 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). AFFIRMED. DOWNEY, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Margolis v. Klein, 184 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Hubbard v. State, 167 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)