[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

The standard on appeal for “pure question[s] of law” is de novo.” Rando v. Gov’t Emp.s Ins. Co., 39 So. 3d 244, 247 (Fla. 2010).  “‘Courts have traditionally defined ‘de novo review’ to mean ‘that the whole process before the district court would start from scratch, as if the proceedings [below] had never occurred.’” Bartow HMA, Inc. v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 46, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (internal citations omitted). When applying this standard of review, the “higher court ‘make[s] its own determination as to the correct principle of law that should have been applied to a particular set of facts.’” Physicians Med. Centrs. v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins.  Co., 335 So. 3d 1284, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Philip J. Padovano, 2 Florida Practice § 19:3 Appellate Practice (2022 ed.)). 

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 standard on appeal for “pure question[s] of law” is de novo.” Rando v. Gov’t Emp.s Ins. Co., 39 So. 3d 244, 247 (Fla. 2010).  “‘Courts have traditionally defined ‘de novo review’ to mean ‘that the whole process before the district court would start from scratch, as if the proceedings [below] had never occurred.’” Bartow HMA, Inc. v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 46, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (internal citations omitted). When applying this standard of review, the “higher court ‘make[s] its own determination as to the correct principle of law that should have been applied to a particular set of facts.’” Physicians Med. Centrs. v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins.  Co., 335 So. 3d 1284, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Philip J. Padovano, 2 Florida Practice § 19:3 Appellate Practice (2022 ed.)).

“Although a trial court’s conclusions of law are not entitled to deference, its findings of facts and determinations of credibility are still entitled to deference because of the trial court’s superior vantage point of having been present during the entire trial.” Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243, 246 (Fla. 2013)

---

Supreme Court: Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243, 246 (Fla. 2013);  Grim v. State, 971 So. 2d 85, 93 (Fla. 2007) (“On appeal, we defer to factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but review legal conclusions de novo.”)

First District: All S. Subcontractors, Inc. v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., 206 So. 3d 77, 78 (Fla. 1st DCA. 2016);  Dixon v. City of Jacksonville, 774 So. 2d 763, 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Second District: Smith v. Frontier Commc’n Intern., Inc., 805 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (discussing standard of review on appeal for a summary judgment order);  Health Options, Inc. v. Kabeller, 932 So. 2d 416, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Third District: Pena v. Rodriguez, 273 So. 3d 237, 239-40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019);  Ocean Club Cmty. Ass’n Inc. v. Curtis, 935 So. 2d 513, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Fourth District: Bartow HMA, Inc. v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., 325 So. 3d 46, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Emmit v. First Transit, Inc., 300 So. 3d 225, 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Cnty. of Volusia v. Consol. Pre-Stressed Concrete, Inc., 653 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1995); Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners’ Ass’n Inc., 910 So. 2d 381, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

---

2 Issues And Considerations

(1) “It is well established that the construction of statutes, ordinances, contracts, or other written instruments is a question of law that is reviewable de novo, unless their meaning is ambiguous . . . even if the meaning of a statute or a writing is complicated, this does not necessarily render it ‘ambiguous.’” Dixon v. City of Jacksonville, 774 So. 2d 763, 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). See also Cal-Maine Foods/Broadspire v. Howard, 225 So. 3d 898, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“statutory construction [is] a question of law.”).

(2) Appellate courts review questions of law de novo. When determining if there is a question of law, one must consider “[if] the facts are essentially undisputed . . . [if so] the legal effect of the evidence will be a question of law.” Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty., 460 So. 2d 879, 882 (Fla. 1984).

(3) “‘[C]ontract[s] are construed as a matter of law.’” Therefore, they are reviewed de novo by the appellate courts. Reilly v. Reilly, 94 So. 3d 693, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

(4) Appellate courts “review a judgment on the pleadings de novo.” g., Ripple v. CBS Corp., 2022 WL 945776, *5 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 30, 2022).

(5) “A trial court’s ‘determination of whether multiple claims within a lawsuit are separate and distinct is a matter of law to be reviewed de novo.’” Ocean Club Cmty. Ass’n Inc. v. Curtis, 935 So. 2d 513, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

(6) Appellate courts “review an order granting summary judgment . . . de novo.” O’ Donnell v. W.F. Taylor Co., Inc., 292 So. 3d 785, 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

[/MM_Access_Decision]