AMERICAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORENCE U. LORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consent Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error to which timely objection was made in the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See F.A.R. 3.3, 32 F.S.A.; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 205. Cf. Roe v. Henderson, 1939, 139 Fla. 386, 190 So. 618.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
ON REHEARING
Appellant asks for rehearing and, alternatively, for an opinion “so that there will be a clear basis for determining if there exists any conflict” which might warrant Supreme Court review. There is not. This is a simple case. Appellant wisely recognized that it could not argue error on the basis of testimony not transcribed, and confined its argument to the question whether appellee could take the position in one action involving this property that it was formed by accretion and, in another action, that it was not. This would be an arguable point except for the fact that the inclusion in the judgment appealed from of the finding objected to as contradictory was expressly consented to by appellant’s former counsel. The trial court’s recitation that the judgment in its entirety was consented to is perhaps erroneous, but immaterial. The judgment is supported either by testi*923mony not transcribed or by findings of fact consented to in writing by appellant’s attorney of record. Thus we should not, and do not, reach the question which appellant seeks to argue. This question should have been preserved in the trial court, but it was not.
Rehearing denied.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
MANN, Judge.
Appellant asks for rehearing and, alternatively, for an opinion “so that there will be a clear basis for determining if there exists any conflict” which might warrant Supreme Court review. There is not. This is a simple case. Appellant wisely recognized that it could not argue error on the basis of testimony not transcribed, and confined its argument to the question whether appellee could take the position in one action involving this property that it was formed by accretion and, in another action, that it was not. This would be an arguable point except for the fact that the inclusion in the judgment appealed from of the finding objected to as contradictory was expressly consented to by appellant’s former counsel. The trial court’s recitation that the judgment in its entirety was consented to is perhaps erroneous, but immaterial. The judgment is supported either by testi mony not transcribed or by findings of fact consented to in writing by appellant’s attorney of record. Thus we should not, and do not, reach the question which appellant seeks to argue. This question should have been preserved in the trial court, but it was not.
Rehearing denied.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Mortg. Corp. v. Lord, 260 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 253 So. 2d 922. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Leonard v. Roth, 393 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…upled with the later dismissal of the action, estops appellants from asserting the error, if any, on appeal. Florida Antilles Properties, N.V. v. Rose and Rose, Inc., 324 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also American Mortgage Corporation v. Lord, 253 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 260 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1972); Martel v. Carlson, 118 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1960).…
Authorities Cited
- Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1939)