finding that the plaintiffs failed to preserve for appellate review the trial court’s dismissal of their complaint with prejudice where the plaintiffs did not object to the court’s oral ruling, seek leave to amend the complaint, or file a motion for rehearing or reconsideration
How later courts described this case
- finding that the plaintiffs failed to preserve for appellate review the trial court’s dismissal of their complaint with prejudice where the plaintiffs did not object to the court’s oral ruling, seek leave to amend the complaint, or file a motion for rehearing or reconsideration
- noting that “the rule of preservation applies to the improper dismissal of a complaint with prejudice” and holding that the appellant waived a challenge to an unrequested dismissal with prejudice when the appellant never requested leave to amend the complaint and “failed to raise any issue at the trial level with respect to the improper dismissal with prejudice”
- holding appellants failed to preserve issue on appeal by both “fail[ing] to contemporaneously object” or, alternatively, “not fil[ing] a motion for rehearing . . . after the order of dismissal was entered”
- affirming dismissal with prejudice because appellants had not argued below that dismissal should be without prejudice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHEPHERD, J.,
concurring.
I write only to clarify that my reading of the majority opinion does not prohibit the Vorbecks from maintaining a separate substantive cause of action against Diego Be-tancourt. See § 608.4101(2), Fla. Stat. (2012)