appellant

De Novo Appellate Standard Of Review For Summary Judgments

Posted by David Adelstein on December 14, 2014
Appeal, Standard of Review / Comments Off on De Novo Appellate Standard Of Review For Summary Judgments

De Novo Appellate Standard

An appellate court’s standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s summary judgment is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000); accord L’Etoile Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Fresolone, 940 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). A de novo standard of review means that the appellate court will examine the trial court’s record anew and will rule on the record evidence and law without giving any deference to the trial court. This is a favorable standard of review for an appellant (party appealing trial court’s ruling) because there is no deference afforded to the trial court’s findings.

As explained by the Fifth District Court of Appeal:

In order to determine the propriety of a summary judgment, a reviewing court should determine whether there is any genuine issue regarding any material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The party seeking summary judgment has the burden to prove conclusively the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. On appeal, a reviewing court should consider the evidence contained in the record, including any supporting affidavits, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If the slightest doubt exists, of course, summary judgment must be reversed.

Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 937 So. 2d 695, 697-98 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (internal citations omitted).

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Tags: , , , ,

The Trial Court Reached The Right Result For The Wrong Reason – The Tipsy Coachman

Posted by David Adelstein on December 14, 2014
Appeal / Comments Off on The Trial Court Reached The Right Result For The Wrong Reason – The Tipsy Coachman

The Tipsy Coachman

 

Trial courts sometimes reach the right result / ruling, but for the wrong reason. This wrong reason serves as the basis of an appeal.

However, under the appellate principle known as the “tipsy coachman doctrine,” an appellate court can affirm a trial court’s ruling even if the trial court reached the right result / ruling, but for the wrong reason. The right reason(s), though, needs be supported by the record before the trial court (that makes up the record before the appellate court). See Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999); accord State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Levine, 837 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2002).

The tipsy coachman doctrine allows an appellee (party prevailing in the trial court) to respond to an appellant’s (party appealing the trial court’s ruling) appeal that the trial court’s ruling should be affirmed based on an alternative basis adequately supported by the record.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Tags: , , ,

Contact Me Now

Prove YOUR Case!

Contact:

David Adelstein ♦

(954) 361-4720 ♦

dadelstein@gmail.com