Page 17 - Palm Beach Vol 6 No 4
P. 17

Reining in the Tipsy Coachman: Purpose and Limitations of the Doctrine
BAy Robin Bresky, Esq., and Randall Burks, Esq.
ppellate courts can, “a rm a de- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. cision from a lower tribunal that 1982) (citations omitted).  us, for appel- reaches the right result for the lants, “the speci c legal ground upon which wrong reasons so long as there a claim is based must be raised at trial and
is any basis which would support the a claim di erent than that raised below will
judgment in the record.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Levine, 837 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2002) (citation and internal quotes omitted).  is “tipsy coachman” doctrine re ects the “well-established rule that trial court decisions are presumptively valid and should be a rmed, if correct, regard- less of whether the reasons advanced are erroneous.” Vandergri  v. Vandergri , 456 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 1984).
 e “tipsy coachman” moniker derives from a Georgia Supreme Court decision in 1879, which quoted some poetry about a coachman who arrived at the correct ad- dress inadvertently:
not be heard on appeal.” Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493, 499 (Fla. 1992). By contrast, appellees are not limited to the arguments that they made in the lower tribunal; “the appellee can present any argument sup- ported by the record even if not expressly asserted in the lower court.” Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 645 (Fla. 1999) (citation omitted).
 at statement does not give appellees carte blanche to make any and every con- ceivable argument. Appellate courts are required to a rm “if upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there was any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court’s judgment.” Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222, 225 (Fla. 1962) (e.s.).  e Florida Supreme Court has made it clear that “the key to ap- plying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must sup- port the alternative theory or principle of law.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 837 So. 2d at 365. In other words, “the appellee’s argument on appeal must be supported by evidence in the record.” State, Dept. of Rev- enue ex rel. Rochell v. Morris, 736 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citation omitted).  e tipsy coachman doctrine is limited to cases where the result was “correct for any reason appearing in the record.” Suburban Med. Hosp., Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 600 So. 2d 1195, 1197 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (e.s.; citation omitted).
If an appellee’s argument is outside the scope of the trial court litigation, it is not appropriate for the answer brief. See Rob- ertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 908-09 (Fla. 2002) (the appellate court “improperly re- lied upon the ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine” when “the matter was never litigated on the basis of the Williams rule [and] the trial court never made determinations [on that basis]” so the “record [was not] su ciently
developed to allow a rmance on this al- ternate ground”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 837 So. 2d at 365 (the tipsy coachman doctrine “cannot be applied in this case be- cause the record does not provide an ad- equate basis for us to reach such [alterna- tive] conclusion as a pure matter of law”).
 e tipsy coachman principle is useful for appellees, but there are limitations. Ap- pellants should be able to detect if an ap- pellee applies the doctrine inappropriately and should point out the impropriety in their reply brief.
Appellate Law
Robin Bresky of The Law Offices of Robin Bresky, in Boca Raton, is an appellate attor- ney who handles civil and criminal appeals and litigation support matters throughout Florida. Robin is a member of The Florida Bar Board of Governors. She is a past president of the Florida Association for Women Lawyers and will serve as president of the National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations for 2017-2018. Randall Burks, an experienced appellate attorney, is a senior associate with the firm. For more information, you can visit www.BreskyAppellate.com.
Robin Bresky, Esq.
Randall Burks, Esq.
 e pupil of impulse, it forc’d him along,
His conduct still right, with his argument wrong;
Still aiming at honour, yet fearing to roam,
 e coachman was tipsy, the chariot drove home....
Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga. 345, 346 (Ga. 1879) (quoting the poem “Retaliation,” written in 1774 by Oliver Goldsmith, the Irish novel- ist, playwright, and poet).  at poem was  rst mentioned in a Florida case in Car- raway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1963).
In exploring the bene ts and limitations of the tipsy coachman principle for appel- lees, who want the appellate court to a rm an order in their favor, we  rst note a dis- tinction in the scopes of permissible argu- ments for appellees vis-à-vis appellants. For appellants, “in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specif- ic contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”
Vol. 6 No. 4 Attorney at Law Magazine® South Florida | 17


































































































   15   16   17   18   19