CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1285-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). WEBSTER, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ.,
holding that the district court did not err when it declined to use defendants proposed questions and adequately covered the essence of the proposed questions through its own examination holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review holding that perlow v bergperlow 875 so2d 383 fla2004 does not require a trial court to afford a litigant the opportunity to object to a proposed order prior to the courts adoption of it if the proposed order merely memorializes rulings the trial court has already made holding that while a magistrate lacked the authority to enter an order granting a motion to correct error and thus that the order was defective for failing to contain the judges signature or another indication it was approved or adopted by the trial court the city waived any challenge to the validity of the order by failing to make a timely objection and observing that the indiana supreme court has long held that defects in the authority of a court officer as opposed to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself to enter a final order will be waived if not raised through a timely objection and more recently this court has applied the same principle to civil proceedings and clarified that any objection to the authority of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity occurs or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal