Court Opinion

ID: 4417077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-16 15:04:41.802031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:47.552087
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                         No. 1D19-0171
                 _____________________________

LEVORY W. HICKMON,

    Appellant,

    v.

RACHEL BUSHEY REESE, P.A.,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.
Mark E. Feagle, Judge.

                           July 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

     We treat Appellee’s “notice of confession of error and request
for remand” as Appellee’s answer brief. However, we decline to
accept the concession, and we affirm. See Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d
268, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (a confession of error is not binding
upon an appellate court) (citations omitted); see also Markham v.
N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr., 248 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2018).

    Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by
dismissing his civil complaint for monetary damages with
prejudice because he was entitled to amend it pursuant to Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a). However, the record reflects that
Appellant never presented this argument to the trial court below
nor attempted to amend his complaint. Generally, “the rule of
preservation applies to the improper dismissal of a complaint with
prejudice.” Shelswell v. Bourdeau, 239 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2018) (citing Vorbeck v. Betancourt, 107 So. 3d 1142, 1147
(Fla. 3d DCA 2012)). “For an issue to be preserved for appeal, it
must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal
argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that
presentation.” Holland v. Cheney Bros., 22 So. 3d 648, 649–50 (Fla.
1st DCA 2009). When there is no indication that an argument
challenging a motion to dismiss was first presented to the trial
court, the argument will be deemed waived on appeal. See Metro.
Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tepper, 969 So. 2d 403, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007),
approved, 2 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2009).

     Because Appellant’s claim is not preserved for appellate
review, we decline Appellee’s confession of error and affirm.

RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Levory W. Hickmon, pro se, Appellant.

Rachael E. Reese of O’Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

                                2