A recent appellate case, Whitehall at Bal Harbour Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Raviv, case No. 3D24-2031 (3d DCA, Jan 21, 2026), is a great reminder that in litigation, silence is not golden and can lead to a courtroom disaster. Legal disputes often turn on complex facts, nuanced statutes, and competing interpretations of precedent. But sometimes, the decisive factor is far simpler, such as whether a party raised its legal argument(s) at the right time.
This recent decision is a textbook example of how failing to timely assert a procedural objection can effectively forfeit it, and how that forfeiture can shape the outcome of an entire appeal, leading to a windfall victory for the other side. This case is much more than just a condominium dispute. It is a cautionary tale about litigation strategy, procedural diligence, and the indispensable value of retaining skilled litigation counsel.
The underlying dispute began as a typical conflict between a condominium association (Whitehall) and a unit owner (Raviv). Raviv brought claims for negligence, injunctive relief, and breach of contract. The parties eventually agreed that Raviv was the prevailing party on the injunction claim (Count II), and that she was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs for that count.
Crucially, Raviv moved shortly thereafter for the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs and to enter a judgment awarding them to her. Importantly, Whitehall did not object to the entry of a judgment at that time but only to the amount of fees and costs. Whitehall participated fully in a five-hour long evidentiary hearing, negotiated the awardable attorney’s fees and costs, and allowed the process to move forward without raising any procedural challenges.
Only after the trial court entered a final judgment on the award of attorney’s fees and costs did Whitehall, for the first time, argue that the judgment was “premature” because other counts of the complaint remained pending. The trial court fully rejected that argument. Whitehall appealed. Ultimately the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s final order in Raviv’s favor.
The appellate court’s reasoning was relatively straightforward. Whitehall waived its objection by failing to raise it when it mattered most. Florida law is clear that parties must timely object to procedural irregularities or else such challenges can be considered fully waived. In fact, Florida law is quite clear that parties must timely object to procedural irregularities. The 3rd DCA reiterated this and referred to its own prior precedent that by failing to timely object to an outcome, now believed to be irregular, the party waives their objection by acquiescence. Whitehall had every opportunity to object before or during the five‑hour evidentiary hearing. It did not. Instead, it waited until after the judgment was entered, which was far too late.
The appellate court also emphasized that trial judges are not required to entertain new arguments raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing and made clear that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by rejecting arguments that “could have, but weren’t, raised” earlier. Thus, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion, and the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs as to Count ll remained intact.
Whitehall had attempted to frame the judgment as “void,” which would have opened the door to relief under relevant Rules of Florida Procedure. But, the appellate court rejected that characterization. A judgment is “void” only when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or due process (meaning proper notice and an opportunity to be heard). None of those defects existed here. At most, Whitehall alleged a procedural irregularity, which—if it were error at all—would make the judgment voidable, not void. Voidable judgments must be challenged timely, and Whitehall did not do so.
This case also exemplifies the need for competent representation and underscores a truth that experienced litigators know well: procedural missteps can be just as damaging as substantive ones. Good litigation counsel can do more than just argue the merits. They can do the following:
- anticipate procedural pitfalls
- preserve objections
- ensure the record is properly developed
- raise issues at the correct time
- act to prevent waiver of critical arguments.
Whitehall’s attorneys may have had strong views about the timing of the fee judgment; but by failing to raise the issue until after the judgment was entered, they effectively forfeited the argument. Courts expect parties to speak up when they believe something is procedurally improper. Waiting until after an adverse ruling is almost always too late.
A lawyer’s role is not only to argue the case but also to protect the client from avoidable procedural pitfalls. Thus, community associations are well advised to choose counsel who understands both the substantive and procedural law and the overall trial strategy.
The Whitehall case is a reminder that litigation is as much about procedure as it is about substance. Even a valid argument can be lost if not raised at the right time. The lesson is clear: choosing competent legal representation to ensure that the association’s rights are protected at every stage is a great investment! In fact, often community associations will retain our law firm to assist insurance defense counsel selected by the association’s insurer to help avoid these types of outcomes. Along this line of thought, not too long ago I overheard a hallway discussion where it was questioned why two attorneys were assigned to assist a client with a litigation matter when, after all, it was argued, one attorney could handle it? The response was that while I suppose one attorney could do so, having that additional set of eyes and additional experience of the other attorney can be absolutely invaluable. Just like everything else, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.