We affirm the trial court’s final order of dismissal of appellant’s counterclaim and cross-claim without leave to amend.

Although appellant is now pro se, she was represented by counsel when her initial and reply briefs were filed. The initial brief contains a proposed “Second Amended Counterclaim” and “Second Amended Third Party Complaint,” which proposed pleadings are sua sponte stricken, there being nothing to reflect either was presented to the trial court in any fashion — by a proper pleading accompanied by an appropriate motion for leave to file same, or by a transcript of any hearing which reflects counsel requested an opportunity to present these allegations in pleadings.

Examination of the record which is properly before us reveals neither error in discussing what pleadings the trial court had before it, nor abuse of discretion in refusing to permit further amendment.

ORDER GRANTING REHEARING

ORDERED that appellant’s motion filed February 16, 1995, to stay the attorney fee’s awarded under rule 9.400 until the merits of the original action for a brokerage commission is decided and if the broker/corporation violated the public policy of Florida is treated as a motion for rehearing of first paragraph of February 8, 1995, order and is hereby granted, no response having been filed. In its stead, we provisionally grant appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees herein, subject to appellee prevailing upon the merits of the pending action in the trial court.