We are so excited that former Chief Judge of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, Gerald B. Cope, Jr. is speaking at our upcoming Preserving the Record for Appeal Two-Part Webinar on August 1 and 3, 2023.

Use coupon code PTRFL10 to receive a 10% discount on your order. ***New Orders Only!

Gerald is now a chair of Akerman’s Appellate Practice. He and Lorayne Perez, also a partner at Akerman LLP, created detailed outlines for the program.  Below is a post we adapted from one of their outlines, discussing recent important developments in preserving your appeal, as well as a discussion about the concept of preservation and the judicial mind.

What is highlighted below are initial guiding principles prepared by Gerald and Lorayne about how to preserve a record for appeal in Florida civil cases. Gerald, as well as a variety of other prominent speakers, will elaborate on these principles during the upcoming two-part webinar, Preserving the Record for Appeal in Florida Civil Cases, to be held on August 1 and 3, 2023.

RECENT IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS

•  R. Civ. P. 1.530(a) (eff. 4/27/2023) – requires the filing of a motion for rehearing to preserve for appellate review a trial court’s failure to make required findings of fact. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530 was also amended in the same manner. See In re: Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 and Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.530, 2023 WL 3104357 (Fla. Apr. 27, 2023).
• The court’s opinion adopting the above amendments states that the amendments are “applicable to all orders, not just final judgments, and makes clear that the rules apply only when a judge is required to make specific findings of fact and not when a party seeks to make other challenges to a trial court’s order.”
• Rule is in effect now, but motions for rehearing are pending, so rule might be subject to further change.
• This will be addressed in more detail later in our presentation at Preserving the Record for Appeal in Florida Civil Cases.
• Effective January 1, 2023, Florida has a Sixth District Court of Appeal (22-163, § 4, Laws of Fla.):
  • Headquartered in Lakeland, Florida
  • Extends from Orlando and Lakeland to Ft. Myers and Naples.
  • Not bound by decisions of any other District Court of Appeal. CED Capital Holdings 2000 EB, LLC v. CTCW-Berkshire Club, LLC, 2023 WL 1487713, at *3 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).
  • Administrative Order 23-01: Requires that appellants’ briefs contain “As to each issue presented, a statement as to where in the record on appeal the issue was raised and ruled on as well as identification of the applicable standard of review.

• In federal court, you no longer have to raise in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue which was the basis of an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment in order for the issue to be preserved for appeal. See Dupree v. Younger, 143 S.Ct. 1382, 598 U.S. — (May 25, 2023).
• You do still have to raise in a post-trial motion a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument that was previously raised in a summary judgment motion.
• When in doubt, raise the issue anew in a post-trial motion.

PRESERVATION OF THE RECORD IN FLORIDA CIVIL CASES

THE CONCEPT OF PRESERVATION

Inside the Judicial Mind.

Fairness.  When an appellant asks an appellate court to reverse a judgment or order, this is a request that the panel write an opinion saying the trial judge made a mistake serious enough to require the proceeding to be done over.

In fairness to the trial judge, the appellate court wants to know that the appellate issue was presented to the trial judge in an understandable way.

“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.” Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

“[A]n objection on specific grounds does not preserve the error for purposes of appeal on other grounds.” Judd v. Rodman, 105 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Fed. R. Evid. 103; Palavicini v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 787 Fed. Appx. 1007, 1012 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that an argument was not preserved where “the objection was not clear or specific enough for [the circuit court of appeals] to understand” the argument).

Judges Are Attuned to Preservation Arguments.  Many civil practitioners proceed directly to the merits of their opponent’s argument, without looking at the threshold question whether the appellate issue was presented in the trial court.

Over half the workload of Florida’s appellate courts is criminal law, and in criminal cases, preservation issues are constantly raised. Appellate judges become attuned to preservation, and are receptive to preservation arguments where they have merit. Preservation is an issue practitioners should be alert to.

Organizing Principles.  Every outline on preservation, including this outline, has pages of detail.  Is preservation a hodge-podge of disconnected rules, or is there an organizing principle or theme?  For the most part, the authorities in this outline are applications of the basic preservation rules to specific situations.

Contemporaneous Objection Rule

The basic idea is simple: an objection must be promptly presented to the trial court so as to give the judge a fair chance to rule on it.

To meet the objective of any contemporaneous objection rule, an objection must be sufficiently specific both to apprise the trial judge of the putative error and to preserve the issue for intelligent review on appeal.

Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978).

And counsel must obtain a ruling on the objection.

In Florida state court, if you file a motion setting forth your argument, but you never obtain a ruling, the issue is not preserved for appeal. See, e.g., Grazette v. Magical Cruise Co. Ltd., 280 So. 3d 1120, 1123 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“[T]his issue was not properly preserved as it was never set for hearing and was never brought to the court’s attention at any point after filing.”).

(to be continued in our seminar and Part 2 of this post!)

To learn more about this topic, including a discussion about what a Preserved Error is, types of Error and not accidentally abandoning the argument during your appeal, sign up for our upcoming program, or order the recorded package: Preserving the Record for Appeal Two-Part Webinar.

Additional authorities that Gerald and Lorayne mention include:

1. Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice.
2. Philip J. Padovano, Florida Civil Practice.
3. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence.
4. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Trial Objections.
5. Stephen L. Brannock, “Florida Civil Appellate Practice,” in The Florida Bar, Advanced Appellate Practice and Certification Review.
6. 3 Fla. Jur 2d, Appellate Review, Part V – Preserving Questions Below.
7. Jason S. Lambert, “The Perfect Proffer,” Florida Bar Journal (April 2015).

Always popular at our seminars, Gerald Cope previously spoke on this topic in our “Preserving Your Record for Appeal” in 2017 and also at our “Appellate Skills and Strategies Boot Camp: Navigating State and Federal Appeals” in June 2014.  As mentioned above, Lorayne Perez is a partner at Akerman LLP and she also lectured in 2017 at our “Preserving Your Record for Appeal” program to rave reviews.

Looking forward to the program!

After about a year of deliberation among the bar and the court, the CA Supreme Court has adopted the so-called lawyer “snitch” rule, requiring attorneys to report misconduct by their peers, beginning August 1, 2023.

You can read more about it at the LA Times or at The Recorder.

The new rule obligates attorneys to notify the CA State Bar if they have, according to the rule, “credible evidence that another lawyer has committed a criminal act or has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit” or other wrongdoing that “raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.”  Misconduct is defined in the rule here.

As mentioned in the LA Times, attorneys who do not comply face penalties of up to a three-year suspension of their law licenses.