Appeals 101: What is an Appeal?

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

What exactly is an appeal, and how is it different from a trial court action? The most important answer I can give you is what an appeal is not: it is not simply a “do over” where the appellate court gets to re-weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.

Instead, an appeals court is a reviewing court, and it can only review for “preserved error.” There are two components to “preserved error.”

What is Preserved Error?

First, there has to be error of some kind. This is generally either a misinterpretation of the law, or a misapplication of the law to the facts, or rarely an “abuse of discretion” in interpreting the facts (like finding the facts sufficient when they clearly are not, and no reasonable judge should have found them to be sufficient). In addition, some “calls” that a trial court makes, even if we think it was the wrong call, are reviewed for discretion, and the appellate court can’t overturn it even if the appellate judges think “I would have done it differently if I were the trial judge.”

Second, it needs to be preserved. That is, there needs to be a proper objection made and ruled on, or the argument that you want to make on appeal has to have been made to the trial court, and that has to be reflected on the docket so that the appeals court can see exactly what was put in front of the trial court. In civil cases in Florida state courts, the parties need to hire a court reporter for hearings themselves and then pay for a transcript of the hearing in order to show the appellate court what happened at a hearing. Without a transcript, it is often impossible to make the required showings to win on appeal because you can’t show that your arguments and objections were preserved. (In Federal Court and in Florida criminal cases, proceedings are recorded and transcripts can be ordered at a later date without the parties’ needing to order a reporter).

Why you need a court reporter

Because of this preservation requirement, it often impossible to appeal if you have not taken all of the steps necessary to ensure that there is a complete record for the appellate court. It breaks my heart when I see cases that have real issues that simply were not preserved, and therefore make an appeal impossible to win. The most important thing you can do is make sure there is a court reporter at any hearing where important issues will come up — especially for summary judgment or for trial, but also for any other issue you think can affect the outcome of the case. Yes, there is a cost to this: Most court reporters charge an “appearance fee” for attending a hearing or trial. You do not need to order the actual transcript unless you need it for an appeal to assist with an argument before the trial court, but there is no transcript to be ordered if there is not a court reporter there. Zoom hearings are generally not recorded and you cannot assume there will be court reporter or recording just because the hearing was conducted by Zoom. This is why one of the first questions we ask when we assess an appeal is “was there a court reporter at the hearing”?

Standards of Review Matter

When we assess a case for possible appeal, we always start with very important question: What is the standard of review? I already talked about them above, though not in these terms. A standard of review is the lens through which the appellate court will review the trial court’s work. There are three main standards of review: Abuse of Discretion, De Novo, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Abuse of Discretion. If the trial court made what the law considers a discretionary call, then the appellate court will apply the “abuse of discretion” standard. And this means that the appeals court is looking for big problems, not just areas where the appellate judges might have made a different judgment call. This standard of review applies to most factual issues, as well as many rulings where the rules of procedure give the trial judge discretion to manage its docket. The abuse of discretion standard means that the trial court’s ruling has to be so wrong that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that the trial judge did. Appeals courts are very clear that it is not their job to second guess the trial court’s judgment calls, and that the trial court judge is the one who is “in it,” viewing live testimony and making split second judgment calls. Those judgments will not be disturbed on appeal unless they rise to the level of error, even if the appeals judges might have done things differently. If reasonable minds can differ, then the appellate court will defer to the trial court’s judgment.

De Novo. “De novo” is Latin for over again, or anew. As a standard of review, it means that the appeals court will look at the issue anew, and not give any deference to the trial court. This kind of review applies mostly to interpretation of statutes or contracts or the meaning of the law.

Sufficiency of the Evidence. When an appellate court is reviewing how the trial court applied the facts, is sometimes looking just to see if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. The appellate court may be looking to see, for example, whether there is evidence to support every prong of a legal test.

Sometimes, more than one standard of review can apply in the same case — there may be several issues, with different standards of review, in the same case.

Assessing Your Appeal

We hope this article has been helpful to you as part of our continuing Appeals 101 series [link]. But remember, this article is for information only, and cannot really replace legal advice specific to your situation.
If you plan to handle your appeal by yourself, we recommend you consult the Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section’s Pro Se Handbook [link] for additional information. If you would like our professional analysis of your possible appeal, please contact us quickly, as there are significant deadlines in appeals that must be met or your appeal may be waived. You can request a review of your appeal by filling out our intake form here [link]. Based on the intake form, we will be able to quote you a fee for conducting an appeal assessment. Our appeal assessments look at these preservation issues as well as the underlying legal and factual issues to determine whether we believe we can make a winnable argument on appeal.

Old cartoon of man with bike quarreling with another man over a stone in the roadway.

Now You Can Appeal Two More Types of Nonfinal Orders

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , /by

 

Old cartoon of man with bike quarreling with another man over a stone in the roadway.

Are these two gentlemen arguing over
whether they have a settlement?
Now they can let the appellate courts figure it out.

Today is the day that a myriad of changes to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure go into effect. We’ve previously outlined all of the changes, but in our first post of 2019 we’ll focus in on the changes to Rule 9.130, which governs what kind of nonfinal orders you can immediately appeal to Florida District Courts.

Orders that decline to enforce a settlement agreement.

Rule 9.130 contains the exclusive list of non-final orders that are reviewable by appeal in the district courts.  As of January 1, parties will be able to obtain an immediate appeal from an order that determines “that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed.”

This change appears to have been inspired by a law review article I co-authored with Anthony Russo and Ezequiel Lugo in 2013.  In the midst of investigating a proposed “functional restatement” to certiorari review, we looked into review of orders denying a motion to enforce settlement (see pages 417-424 of the linked article).  No avenue for review existed at the time, but as we discussed the matter we reasoned that immediate review of such an order would further the interests in judicial economy and support the long-established public policy favoring settlements.  The Appellate Court Rules Committee considered our article and also thought that immediate review of such an order would be worthwhile.  They made the recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court, and in this recent wave of amendments, the supreme court adopted this provision into the rules.

This rule will be useful when one party thinks that a settlement has been reached, but the other party either denies the same or refuses to comply with the settlement.  The party seeking to enforce the settlement may file a “motion to enforce settlement” in the trial court, attempting to either confirm the settlement or force the other party to comply.  Should the trial court deny the motion for whatever reason, that order would now be immediately appealable.

Orders that grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.

Similarly, parties may now also receive immediate review of orders that “grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.”  This type of motion has always been reviewable by certiorari, but given that higher standard of review, was not likely to provide any immediate relief.  Now, parties may seek immediate review regarding disqualification, and avoid the likelihood that the trial would have to proceed all the way through conclusion and then ultimately be invalidated on appeal just to send the parties back to the beginning.

Another consideration–a stay.

An appeal of either of these orders will not automatically delay the trial court proceedings while the appellate court considers the appeal.  Consequently, either party may want to move the trial court to stay the proceedings pending the appellate court’s ruling on the matter.  Doing so would avoid the risk of wasted effort and resources should the appellate court ultimately determine that there was an enforceable settlement agreement, or that the trial court erred in either disqualifying or refusing to disqualify counsel.

Motions for stay are governed by rule 9.310 and initially filed in the trial court in most cases.  Review of an order granting or denying a stay is by motion in the appellate court.  Both involve an in-depth analysis of the likelihood of prevailing on appeal and the risk of irreparable harm should a stay not be granted.

Can you use these new rules to your advantage?  Call us!

Non-final review jurisdictional issues and stays pending appeal are sometimes simple, but in our experience will often become complex issues that can determine the course of all future litigation.  We often handle these situations on behalf of clients or in cooperation with trial attorneys as part of our regular practice.  Feel free to contact us if you have any questions involving these or any other issues regarding non-final appeals, certiorari review, or stays pending appeal.

Calendar Carefully: Excusable Neglect

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Repeat after the Eleventh Circuit:

“The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.”

(citation omitted).

Sure, there’s an out in Federal Court. You can ask the trial court for an enlargement of time to file the notice of appeal — if you can demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause. But in a recent unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the trial court’s denial of such a motion, noting that:

miscalendaring a deadline was within the reasonable control of the Plaintiff, and that the “cumulative effect” of the Plaintiff’s missed deadlines exhibited an absence of good faith

The moral of the story: Don’t ever rely on a Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. The bar for establishing “excusable neglect or good cause” is a moving target, and review of the trial court’s decision on such a motion is on an abuse of discretion standard. So don’t mess around with your calendaring!

The case is Global Horizons Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., No. 09-16508 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) [.pdf].