Case Name: Dorothy C. MARGOLIS, Appellant, v. Alexander S. KLEIN, Jr., Allan B. Margolis, Joseph Liedman, Benjamin Schwartz, Consolidated Communications Corporation, a Florida corporation, and Community Service Broadcasters, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-03-01
Citations: 184 So. 2d 205
Docket Number: No. 65-1038
Parties: Dorothy C. MARGOLIS, Appellant, v. Alexander S. KLEIN, Jr., Allan B. Margolis, Joseph Liedman, Benjamin Schwartz, Consolidated Communications Corporation, a Florida corporation, and Community Service Broadcasters, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ., and GOODING, MARION W., Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 184
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
Dorothy C. MARGOLIS, Appellant, v. Alexander S. KLEIN, Jr., Allan B. Margolis, Joseph Liedman, Benjamin Schwartz, Consolidated Communications Corporation, a Florida corporation, and Community Service Broadcasters, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Appellees.
No. 65-1038.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
March 1, 1966.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1966.
Garland M. Budd and Henry G. Sim-monite, Miami, for appellant.
Carr & Warren, Joseph Pardo, Paul & Sams, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ., and GOODING, MARION W., Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Dorothy C. Margolis, by this interlocutory appeal, seeks to review that portion of an order dismissing her counter and cross claim. The defendants urged that the trial court erred in failing to permit leave to amend the counter and cross claim. However, we fail to find any application to the trial court in the record to allow such an amendment.
It is elementary that before a trial judge will be held in error, he must be presented with an opportunity to rule on the matter before him. Wasserburg v. Coastal Aluminum Products Const. Co., Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 889; Paul v. Kanter, Fla. App.1963, 155 So.2d 402. This is clearly contemplated by Rule 1.15(a) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Therefore, although the counter and cross claim might have been amendable without any application to the trial judge, we are not in a position to hold that error was committed in this regard.
Affirmed.