[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

The abuse of discretion standard requires an appellate court to affirm the trial court’s ruling “unless no reasonable person would adopt the trial court’s view.” May v. State, 326 So.3d 188, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) citing Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 372 (Fla. 2008). See also Lewis v. Juliano, 242 So. 3d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). This is known as “the reasonableness test.” Kaye v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “This test holds that the appellant must show clear error by the trial court in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment.” Id.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The complete explanation for this Standard;
• The standard of review on appeal; and
• The citations to the most court cases citing and/or explaining the Standard.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

The abuse of discretion standard requires an appellate court to affirm the trial court’s ruling “unless no reasonable person would adopt the trial court’s view.” May v. State, 326 So.3d 188, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) citing Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 372 (Fla. 2008). See also Lewis v. Juliano, 242 So. 3d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). This is known as “the reasonableness test.” Kaye v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “This test holds that the appellant must show clear error by the trial court in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment.” Id.

If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gore, 2022 WL 1099431, *5 (Fla. 4th DCA. Apr. 13, 2022); M.J.G. Graves, 332 So. 3d 1008, 1010, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Florida’s Supreme Court defined judicial discretion as the following:

“Judicial discretion is defined as ‘[t]he power exercised by courts to determine questions to which no strict rule of law is applicable but which, from their nature, and the circumstances of the case, are controlled by the personal judgment of the court.’” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1997, 1202 (Fla. 1980) (internal citations omitted).

The Court explained “[o]ur trial judges are granted this discretionary power because it is impossible to establish strict rules of law for every conceivable situation which could arise in the course of a domestic relation proceeding. The trial judge can ordinarily best determine what is appropriate and just because only he can personally observe the participants and events of the trial.” Id. (emphasis added). Because the trial court is best positioned as a fact finder, “‘the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are supported by competent, substantial evidence.’” Glob. Lab Partners, LLC v. Patroni Enters., LLC, 327 So. 3d 453, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).

---

---

2 Issues And Considerations

(1) “The trial court’s discretionary power is subject only to the test of reasonableness, but that test requires a determination of whether there is logic and justification for the result. The trial courts’ discretionary power was never intended to be exercised in accordance with whim or caprice of the judge nor in an inconsistent manner. Judges dealing with cases essentially alike should reach the same result.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980).

(2) “A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling was based on an ‘erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” Healthcare Underwriters Grp., Inc. v. Sanford, 337 So. 3d 32, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

(3) “The trial court is in the best position to weigh the equities involved, and [its] exercise of discretion will be overruled only upon showing of abuse.” Dohnal v. Syndicated Offices Sys., 529 So. 2d 267, 269 (Fla. 1988)

(4) “[W]hen a new trial is ordered, the abuse of discretion test becomes applicable on appellate review. The mere showing that there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” Brown v. Est. of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 496 (Fla. Aug. 26, 1999). See also Lafayette v. Moody, 316 So. 3d 708, 713 (4th DCA 2021).

(5) “‘The standard of review for an award of attorney’s fees, whether based on contract or statute, is abuse of discretion.’” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pro. Med. Grp., Inc., 322 So. 3d 1232, 1232 (3d DCA 2021).

(6) “‘The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence.’” E.g., Devalon v. Sutton, 2022 WL 2962081, *1 (Fla. 4th DCA July 27, 2022).

(7) “‘The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is abuse of discretion.’” Getts v. State, 313 So. 3d 964, 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

(8) “When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”) Escobar v. Marino, 2022 WL 2232019, *1 (Fla. 3d DCA June 22, 2022).

(9) “A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence [is reviewed] for abuse of discretion.” Frasch v. State, 279 So. 3d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

[/MM_Access_Decision]