Joli v. Hannon
Decision Date | 05 November 2021 |
Docket Number | 3D21-2068 |
Parties | Mayra JOLI, etc., Appellant, v. Todd B. HANNON, etc., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mayra Joli, in proper person.
Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and John A. Greco, Deputy City Attorney, and Christopher A. Green and George K. Wysong, Senior Assistant City Attorneys, for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
Mayra Joli, a putative candidate for the office of Mayor of the City of Miami in the November 2, 2021 election, appeals from the trial court's final judgment determining that she was not a qualified candidate for that office because she did not meet the requirement, set forth in the City of Miami Charter, that candidates must reside in the City of Miami for at least one year prior to qualifying for office. See City of Miami Charter, § 4(b) () See also Miami Code, § 16-6(f) ( )
On appeal, Joli does not contend that the final judgment is unsupported by competent substantial evidence.1 Instead, she asserts that Todd Hannon, Clerk of the City of Miami, lacked standing to commence the action in circuit court seeking a judicial determination of whether Joli was a qualified candidate. However, and as the City of Miami correctly points out, Joli did not raise this issue at any point during the proceedings below. In fact, Joli announced in open court she had no objection to a judicial determination of whether she met the requisite qualifications to run as a candidate for the office of Mayor of the City of Miami. Because appellant failed to raise any objection to the City Clerk's standing, she is precluded from raising this claim for the first time on appeal. See Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Political Comm., 625 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1993) ) ; Republic of Ecuador v. Dassum, 255 So. 3d 390, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ( ) See also Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (holding: "In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved" (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) ); Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial