County Civil Court: APPELLATE
PROCEDURE –– Preservation of Error -
Court cannot review issues that were not presented to trial court – Appellant
failed to meet burden of demonstrating that the trial court committed
reversible error - Final Judgment affirmed.
Akopova v. Boyer, Appeal No. 07-0004AP-88A (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE
DIVISION
JEANNE AKOPOVA,
Appellant,
vs. Appeal No. 07-0004AP-88A
UCN522007P000004XXXXCV
DIANE BOYER,
Appellee.
______________________________________/
Appeal from
Small Claims Division
Jeanne Akopova
Appellant, pro se
Gene M. Strebel, Esquire
Attorney for Appellee
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS
CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by Jeanne Akopova, from the Final
Judgment, entered December 11, 2006. Upon
review of the briefs, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court affirms
the trial court’s ruling as set forth below.
The record shows that, on September 26, 2006, Ms. Akopova filed a Statement of Claim against
Diane Boyer, Esquire, in Small Claims Court for “misleading,
misrepresentation.” The record shows
that Ms. Boyer represented Ms. Akopova in a circuit civil proceeding, Akopova
v. Abilities, et.al., Case No. 01-4981CI-8.
Ms. Akopova sought damages in the amount of $ 2,500.00 for Ms. Boyer’s
alleged mishandling of the circuit civil case.
On December 11, 2006, the matter came before the trial court for a
non-jury trial. After considering the
evidence and testimony, the trial court entered Final Judgment in favor of Ms.
Boyer.
Before this
Court, Ms. Akopova argues that that trial court erred in granting final
judgment in favor of Ms. Boyer. The
trial court’s interpretation of a contract is a matter of law subject to a de
novo standard of review. See Jenkins
v. Eckerd Corporation, 913 So.2d 43, 49 (
Further, as stated by Ms. Akopova in
her Initial Brief, the “sole point on appeal in this case is that the trial
Judge erred in denying Plaintiff’s pro se
Motion to Suppress defendant’s arguments, based on defendant’s false
testimony and fabricated bill statements, violating Fla. St. 817;
(C-11).” (emphasis original). There is
nothing in the record to show that Ms. Akopova ever requested the trial court
to “suppress” Ms. Boyer’s testimony or evidence. Absent fundamental error, the Court cannot
consider issues that were not presented to the trial court. See Herskovitz v. Herskovitz,
910 So.2d 366, 367 (
Therefore,
it is,
ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment is affirmed. It is further,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Appellant’s Motion for Any Attorney’s Fees and the Appellee’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees are both denied.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
________________________________
R. TIMOTHY PETERS
Circuit
Judge, Appellate Division
______________________________ ______________________________
GEORGE M. JIROTKA CYNTHIA
J.
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Honorable Henry J. Andringa
County Court Judge
Jeanne Akopova
3567 –
Gene M. Strebel, Esquire