Chapter 18-6 Standards of Review

• Jurisdiction: United States

18-6 Standards of Review

An appellate court's review of any case is framed by an appropriate standard of review, based on the nature of the order being appealed. In some cases, a "mixed" standard of review may be utilized where the appellate court is called upon to conduct two or more distinct reviews in the same underlying case.⁶¹

18-6:1 De Novo

The standard of review for pure questions of law, where factual determinations are not relevant to the issue on appeal, is de novo.⁶² Consequently, the standard of review on summary judgment is de novo,⁶³ as is the standard of review on an order granting a motion to dismiss.⁶⁴ The de novo standard is also applied when an appellate court is called upon to consider whether a foreclosing plaintiff proved its standing in the trial court.⁶⁵ De novo review means that the appellate court reviews the issue on appeal without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court.⁶⁶

18-6:2 Abuse of Discretion

A trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion.⁶⁷ Other examples of orders reviewed for an abuse of discretion in foreclosure actions include orders on motions to vacate, or objections to, the foreclosure sale,⁶⁸ orders granting a deficiency decree,⁶⁹ orders on motions to vacate defaults,⁷⁰ and orders on motions to vacate final judgments.⁷¹ To find abuse of discretion, the appellate court must necessarily find that no reasonable person in similar circumstances would have made the same ruling as made by the trial court.⁷²

18-6:3 Competent, Substantial Evidence

Factual findings made by the trial judge regarding the sufficiency of evidence at a trial are evaluated by appellate courts for competent, substantial evidence.⁷³

court's legal conclusion, which was reached by the application of the law to the facts. As stated earlier, the review of this legal conclusion is reviewed with a recognition that the factual component was determined by the trial judge and that all factual determinations may not have been expressly stated in the order. The interrelationships between the findings of fact and the conclusions of law is what makes the standard of review "mixed." 157 So. 3d 332, 337-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

--------

Notes:

^[61] Florida's Second District Court of Appeal provided a noteworthy example of a "mixed" standard of review in Jarrard v. Jarrard:

Most commonly, the appellate court reviews the findings of fact to assure they are supported by competent, substantial evidence.

...