Not a Foregone Conclusion: The Importance of Advocating for a Favorable Remand Instruction in a Civil Appeal from a Final Judgment

You won the appeal for your client, but the trial judge didn’t give the outcome you expected. Even though the appellate court didn’t order a new trial, the trial judge made the same decision using the correct burden of proof. This outcome could have been prevented by paying more attention to advocating for a specific instruction to the trial judge on what to do next. In the future, it’s important to focus on this when appealing a case to avoid a similar situation. In a recent foreclosure case, the appellate court ruled that the trial court made a mistake in allowing the bank to amend its complaint during trial. The court initially ordered a new trial, but later changed its decision and instructed the trial court to dismiss the case in favor of the homeowner. One judge disagreed, saying that the majority’s decision sets a new standard for how appeals should be handled and unfairly penalizes the bank. The case raised important points, but the Florida Supreme Court did not review it. In the case of Green Emerald Homes, the Second District Court reversed a foreclosure judgment because the bank didn’t provide enough proof of the amount due. The court said that without evidence of a modification to the loan, it couldn’t determine the amount owed. The court ordered a new trial instead of giving the bank another chance to prove its case. One judge disagreed with this decision and thought the case should only go back for further proceedings on the damages issue. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with a previous case, Morales v. Fifth Third Bank, and reversed a trial court decision based on the same reasoning. The court’s decision on remand instructions can make a big difference in the outcome of a case, and advocating for specific remand instructions is important for both the party appealing the decision and the party defending it. This could ultimately determine the final outcome of the case, regardless of the issues addressed in the appeal. In cases like Tracey, the lawyer for the person who lost in court (the appellee) has to be careful when arguing for a new trial because it could end up making things worse for their client. On the other hand, the lawyer for the person who won in court (the appellant) has to make a strong argument for what they want on appeal, like getting the case dismissed instead of having a new trial. This is important because it could make a big difference in whether their client ultimately wins or loses. If there was a mistake in a trial that only affected one part of the case, the appellant’s lawyer should focus on asking for a new trial for that part and any other parts that are closely connected. For example, if the mistake was about the amount of money awarded, the lawyer should ask for a new trial about who was at fault too, because they’re related. If the mistake isn’t fixed, it could hurt the appellant in the new trial. When a lawyer goes to appeal a case, they can never be sure if they will win or lose. It’s important for the lawyer to think about what the next steps will be if they do lose. They should try to argue for a new trial or for the court to only look at certain parts of the case again. This way, they can try to minimize the impact of losing for their client. Even though the court has some freedom to decide what to do if they send the case back to the trial court, lawyers can still do their best to make sure their client has the best chance for a fair outcome.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/not-a-foregone-conclusion-the-importance-of-advocating-for-a-favorable-remand-instruction-in-a-civil-appeal-from-a-final-judgment/