floridapractitionersfacea highbarinapplyingthe tipsy-coachmandoctrine todiscretionarygrounds.
Under the tipsy-coachman doctrine— a longstanding principle of Florida appellate practice— an appellate court is required to affirm if the trial court reached“ the right result, but for the wrong reasons.” 1 Indeed, an appellee can even raise unpreserved arguments in seeking an affirmance. 2 But this comes with an important caveat. For the doctrine to apply,“ there must have been support for the alternative theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court.” 3
The Sixth District Court of Appeal’ s opinion in Caballero- Quinones v. Wilder 4 illustrates how this caveat applies to discretionary decisions. After rejecting the trial judge’ s stated reasons for excluding deposition testimony at trial, the court turned to the appellee’ s alternative argument that the testimony was inadmissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes. 5 The Sixth District concluded it could not apply the tipsy-coachman doctrine to a“ discretionary decision” the trial judge never made. 6 This is because discretion calls for an exercise in judgment,
tipsycoachMandoctrine’ sLiMits: discretionarygrounds
Appellate Practice Section Co-Chairs: DimitriPeteves – Creed & Gowdy, P. A. & AlisonPreston – BrannockBerman & Seiderand the appellate court cannot presuppose how the judge would have decided. 7 Nor can the appellate court make that call itself, as the trial judge is“ uniquely positioned” to weigh the various factors informing the decision. 8
In a footnote, the Sixth District implied it could have affirmed the ruling if admitting the evidence under section 90.403“ would in fact have been an abuse of discretion.” 9 But the court found that the trial judge would have had discretion to admit the evidence, which precluded an affirmance. 10
Wilder demonstrates both the breadth and the limitations of the tipsy-coachman doctrine. The doctrine applies whenever an appellate court can discern the“ right result,” whether because the issue is purely legal or because the trial judge could only reach one result without committing an abuse of discretion. But in the usual case, discretion implies a range of acceptable outcomes, so the court cannot say what the“ right result” is. 11 Thus, Florida practitioners face a high bar in applying the
tipsy-coachman doctrine to discretionary grounds. n
1
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644( Fla. 1999). 2
Id. at 645.
3
Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 907( Fla. 2002).
4
Caballero-Quinones v. Wilder, 435 So. 3d 129( Fla. 6th DCA 2026).
5
See Wilder, 435 So. 3d at 138.
6
Id. at 138 – 44.
7
See id. at 141.
9
Wilder, 435 So. 3d at 141 n. 6.
10
Id.
11
See, e. g., id. at 141(“[ T ] he nature of discretion itself is such that there may be cases in which a trial court could choose to admit or exclude an item of evidence under Rule 403, and either decision would be within its discretion.”).
Author: Brandon J. Tyler – Cole, Scott & Kissane, P. A.
Interested in attending upcoming CLEs at the HCBA? Check out our Calendar of Events at www. hillsbar. com.
1 8 N O V- D E C 2 0 2 6 | H C B A L A W Y E R