Chapter 19-6 Standards of Review

19-6 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.⁷⁷

19-6:1 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.⁷⁸ Consequently, the de novo standard of review is applied to the review of summary judgment,⁷⁹ and orders granting involuntarily dismissal.⁸⁰ The de novo standard is expressly applied when an appellate court is called upon to consider whether a foreclosing plaintiff proved its standing in the trial court⁸¹ and upon review of a statutory entitlement to attorney's fees.⁸² De novo review means that the appellate court reviews the issue on appeal without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court.⁸³

19-6:2 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.⁸⁴ When the appellate court determines that certain damages at trial were supported by competent, substantial evidence, but other damages were not, the appellate court may reverse the amounts that were unsubstantiated without upsetting the judgment in its entirety.⁸⁵ When expert witnesses are offered at trial, the trial court may even reject unrebutted expert opinions, as long as a reasonable explanation is offered for the decision to do so.⁸⁶

19-6:3 Abuse of Discretion

A trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion.⁸⁷ 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,⁸⁸ orders granting a deficiency decree,⁸⁹ orders entering or vacating defaults,⁹⁰ orders on motions to vacate final judgments,⁹¹ orders denying motions for rehearing,⁹² orders awarding attorneys' fees,⁹³ and the stay of an action pursuant to a bond.⁹⁴ 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 was made by the trial court.⁹⁵

19-6:4 Tipsy Coachman

In addition to careful consideration of the standard(s) of review applicable to every issue on appeal, litigants should further assess whether the record contains an alternative justification for the trial court's ruling. Florida has long recognized the "tipsy coachman" doctrine, allowing an appellate court to affirm a trial court order that reaches the right result, but for the wrong reason.⁹⁶ The trial court must first make factual findings on an issue before the appellate court will consider applying this doctrine.⁹⁷

--------

Notes:

^[77] Florida's Second District Court of Appeal provided a noteworthy example of a "mixed" standard of review in Jarrard v. Jarrard, 157 So. 3d 332, 337-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015):

Most commonly, the appellate court reviews the findings of fact to assure they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Occasionally, the appellate court is called upon to review de novo the trial court's decision as to applicable law. In so doing, the appellate court provides only a modest presumption of correctness to the trial court because the issue is almost always one that is exclusively a pure issue of law upon which the trial court has no greater insight than the appellate court. Finally, the appellate court reviews the trial court's legal conclusion, which was reached by the application of the law to the facts. As stated earlier,

...