Case Name: Alberto Dalva MALZONE, et al., Appellants, v. Andres URIBE, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-11-01
Citations: 232 So. 3d 1095
Docket Number: No. 3D16-2608
Parties: Alberto Dalva MALZONE, et al., Appellants, v. Andres URIBE, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 232
Pages: 1095–1095

Head Matter:
Alberto Dalva MALZONE, et al., Appellants, v. Andres URIBE, et al., Appellees.
No. 3D16-2608
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed November 1, 2017
Law Offices of David S. Harris, and David S. Harris; Jennifer A. Kerr, P.A., and Jennifer A. Kerr, for appellants.
Ronald I. Strauss, P.A., and Ronald I. Strauss, for appellees.
Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Williams v. Miami-Dade Cty. Public Health Tr., 17 So.3d 859, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when its sanctions order was well-supported by the evidence); P.B. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 709 So.2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("We do not consider the question of adequate notice because Appellants did not object to the lack of notice in the proceedings below or request a continuance. The first time they raised the issue was on appeal. By failing to object and by proceeding on the matter at the hearing, Appellants waived their objections to the lack of notice.).