Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in an appeal involving a motion to strike a pleading as a sham. The court held that the appellant’s argument was not preserved for appellate review and cited standards governing preservation, review of motions to strike, sham-pleading hearings, and incorporation by reference in pleadings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellant preserved the specific legal argument or ground asserted on appeal.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling on the motion to strike.
- Whether the motion-to-strike proceeding properly concerned the existence of genuine issues rather than resolution of the merits.
Holdings
- An issue is preserved for further review only when it was presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground asserted on appeal was included in that presentation.
- A lower court's ruling on a motion to strike a pleading under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A hearing on a motion to strike a pleading as a sham determines whether genuine issues remain to be resolved and is not a proceeding to decide the merits of those issues.
- Statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in another part of the same pleading, in another pleading, or in a motion.
Key quotations
“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.” (slip op. at 1)
“A hearing on a motion to strike a pleading as a sham is not a hearing to resolve the merits of the issues, but to determine if there are any genuine issues to be determined.” (slip op. at 1)
Factual background
The opinion contains no substantive factual background concerning the underlying construction dispute. It addresses the appellate challenge to a circuit-court ruling involving a motion to strike a pleading as a sham.
Procedural history
Ramallah, Inc. appealed the circuit court's ruling. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed in a per curiam opinion, citing preservation principles, the abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing a motion to strike, the standard governing a motion to strike a pleading as a sham, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130(b).