Dober v. Worrell
| Citation | 401 So.2d 1322 |
| Decision Date | 23 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 59608,59608 |
| Parties | Stanley DOBER, M.D., Alan B. Cohen, M.D., and H. John Richmond, M.D., Petitioners, v. Julian WORRELL and Roselynn Worrell, his wife, co-administrators of the Estateof Jason Worrell, a deceased minor, and Julian Worrell and Roselynn Worrell,individually, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Marjorie D. Gadarian of Jones & Foster, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
David T. Price and Peggy J. Tribbett of Price, Byrne & Tribbett, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, reported at 384 So.2d 897 (Fla.4th DCA 1980). The issue is whether an appellant on appeal from summary judgment may raise for the first time an affirmative defense to the statute of limitations and have the appellate court remand to the trial court for repleading of the newly asserted defense.
In its opinion, the district court noted that "(t)here is considerable confusion among the authorities." We find conflict. See Forte v. Tripp & Skrip, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We hold that failure to raise an affirmative defense before a trial court considering a motion for summary judgment precludes raising that issue for the first time on appeal.
In the instant case, respondents Worrell alleged medical malpractice and sued petitioner doctors for the wrongful death of their infant son. The doctors defended by answering that the applicable statute of limitations barred the claim. The respondents filed no responsive pleading to this defense. The trial court agreed that the limitations period barred the action and thereafter granted the doctors' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Fourth District Court analyzed the limitations question, determined that the trial court had properly decided it, and affirmed the summary judgment. In the appeal, however, respondents asserted for the first time that the period of limitations was extended because of the doctors' alleged fraudulent concealment of the facts surrounding the infant's death. Even though the record revealed that respondents had knowledge of the alleged concealment when initiating the suit, the district court determined that the cause should be remanded so that respondents would have an additional opportunity to amend their pleadings and assert the fraudulent concealment issue.
We agree with the district court in its construction and application of the applicable statute of limitations. That matter is not in issue here. The sole question for our determination is the appropriateness of the district court's remand after its affirmance of the summary judgment to allow for repleading of the affirmative defense not previously raised.
In other areas of the law we have previously held it inappropriate to raise an issue for the first time on appeal. For example, an appellate court will not consider issues not presented to the trial judge either on appeal from an order of dismissal, Lipe v. City of Miami, 141 So.2d 738 (Fla.1962), or on appeal from final judgment on the merits, Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So.2d 673 (Fla.1971); Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So.2d 829 (Fla.1957); Jones v. Neibergall, 47 So.2d 605 (Fla.1950). We now add to this list and hold it inappropriate for a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal from summary judgment.
This Court held in Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368 (Fla.1979), that a party seeking to toll the statute of limitations has the burden of proving and pleading the circumstances that in fact toll the statute. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a) is explicit: "(i)f an answer ... contains an affirmative defense and the opposing party seeks to avoid it, he shall file a reply containing the avoidance." 1 The instant record is clear that respondents, although aware of their affirmative defense before initial pleading, chose not to file a reply until appeal. This in effect waived the affirmative defense.
It is our view that a procedure which allows an appellate court to rule on the merits of a trial court judgment and then permits the losing party to amend his initial pleadings to assert matters not previously raised renders a mockery of the "finality" concept in our system of justice. Clearly, this procedure would substantially extend litigation, expand its costs, and, if allowed, would emasculate summary judgment procedure.
Respondents claim that our decisions in Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla.1956), Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla.1963), and Gold Coast Crane Service, Inc. v. Watier, 257 So.2d 249 (Fla.1971), authorize the district courts to remand causes in which proper summary judgments have been entered for repleading on issues not previously raised.
In Roberts, this Court was attempting to harmonize the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvord v. Wainwright
...trial court did not have a "full and adequate opportunity to consider." In re Beverly, 342 So.2d 481, 489 (Fla.1977); see Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Silver v. State, 188 So.2d 300, 301 (Fla. 1966). This contemporaneous objection rule is grounded in the familiar purpose of ......
-
Perez v. State
...a cause of action for wrongful discharge where such discharge interferes with an employee's access to the courts); Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.1981) (writing majority opinion receding from Gold Coast Crane Serv., Inc. v. Watier, 257 So.2d 249 (Fla.1971), and holding that fai......
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum
...was never even discussed or preserved as an issue for appellate review. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32 (Fla.1985); Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1981). It is not that I have any disagreement whatsoever with the district court's or discussion of "professionalism" in the abstract,......
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, Case No. SC01-1830 (FL 7/7/2005)
...was never even discussed or preserved as an issue for appellate review. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985); Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981). It is not that I have any disagreement whatsoever with the district court's or majority's discussion of "professionalism" i......
-
The appellate decision-making process.
...issues or objections for the first time on appeal applies to substantive issues and procedural irregularities. E.g., Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gillespie, 455 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1984). In F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003), the court s......