tipsy coachman doctrine in Florida

2026“Under the tipsy coachman doctrine, where the trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, an appellate court can affirm the decision only if there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling.” Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original)); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“The and that it could have prevented the accident is certainly “evidence tending to prove” negligence

2026Bd., 731 So. 2d 638 )); Jaworski v. State, 804 So. 2d 415, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), on reh’g, (Dec. 26, 2001) (“As an appellate court, however, we are obligated to entertain any basis to affirm the judgment under review, even one the appellee has failed to argue.”). 18 However, “[t]he key to the application of [the tipsy coachman doctrine] is that there must have been support for the alternative theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court.” Robertson, 829 So. 2d at 906-07 .

2026See, e.g., Featured Props., LLC v. BLKY, LLC, 65 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[W]e cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.” (quoting Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (internal alterations, quotations omitted))); Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, C.A., 260 So. 3d 1081, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) 7 Judge Wozniak asserts that “Robertson plainly stands for the rule that an appellate court cannot undertake a tipsy coachman analysis to affirm a tri

2026See, e.g., Featured Props., LLC v. BLKY, LLC, 65 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[W]e cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.” (quoting Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (internal alterations, quotations omitted))); Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, C.A., 260 So. 3d 1081, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) 7 Judge Wozniak asserts that “Robertson plainly stands for the rule that an appellate court cannot undertake a tipsy coachman analysis to affirm a tri

2026Bd., 731 So. 2d 638 )); Jaworski v. State, 804 So. 2d 415, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), on reh’g, (Dec. 26, 2001) (“As an appellate court, however, we are obligated to entertain any basis to affirm the judgment under review, even one the appellee has failed to argue.”). 18 However, “[t]he key to the application of [the tipsy coachman doctrine] is that there must have been support for the alternative theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court.” Robertson, 829 So. 2d at 906-07 .

2025While an issue not raised in a motion for summary judgment might not allow for application of the tipsy coachman doctrine if it is not otherwise "supported by the record," see id. at 644, the categorical prohibition against applying the doctrine to grounds not raised in the motion for summary judgment is inconsistent with the supreme court's discussion of the tipsy coachman doctrine in Radio Station WQBA.

2026“Under the tipsy coachman doctrine, where the trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, an appellate court can affirm the decision only if there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling.” Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original)); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“The and that it could have prevented the accident is certainly “evidence tending to prove” negligence

2024Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (“Under the tipsy coachman doctrine, where the trial court ‘reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons,’ an appellate court can affirm the decision only if ‘there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling.’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002))); 28 U.S.C. § 2410 (outlining exceptions to sovereign immunity in certain proceedings involving property owned, mortgaged, or liened by the United States).

2026Co. v. Levine, 837 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]he key to applying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must support the alternative theory or principle of law.

2022Co. v. Levine, 837 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2002) ("[T]he key to applying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must support the alternative theory or principle of law.").

2018As an initial matter, we note that the trial court expressly declined to address this argument, and this court "cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so." Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)); see also Bryant v. Fla. -4- Parole Comm'n, 965 So. 2d 825, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("We decline the Parole Commission's invitation to employ the 'tipsy coachman' rule . . . .

2018As an initial matter, we note that the trial court expressly declined to address this argument, and this court "cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so." Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc. , 230 So.3d 619 , 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Bueno v. Workman , 20 So.3d 993 , 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ); see also Bryant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n , 965 So.2d 825 , 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("We decline the Parole Commission's invitation to employ the 'tipsy coachman' rule ....

2026See, e.g., Featured Props., LLC v. BLKY, LLC, 65 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[W]e cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.” (quoting Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (internal alterations, quotations omitted))); Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, C.A., 260 So. 3d 1081, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) 7 Judge Wozniak asserts that “Robertson plainly stands for the rule that an appellate court cannot undertake a tipsy coachman analysis to affirm a tri

2026See, e.g., Featured Props., LLC v. BLKY, LLC, 65 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[W]e cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.” (quoting Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (internal alterations, quotations omitted))); Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, C.A., 260 So. 3d 1081, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) 7 Judge Wozniak asserts that “Robertson plainly stands for the rule that an appellate court cannot undertake a tipsy coachman analysis to affirm a tri

2025Co., 103 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (explaining that the tipsy coachman doctrine “permits an appellate court to affirm a trial court’s decision on a ground other than that raised below” if “there is support for the alternative theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court”) (cleaned up); Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113 , 115–16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (applying the tipsy coachman doctrine where statements that the trial court erroneously deemed “not hearsay” were nonetheless admissible under a hearsay exception).

2024Co., 103 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The tipsy coachman doctrine does not permit a reviewing court to reverse on an . . . unargued basis.”); Polyglycoat, 442 So. 2d at 960 (“This Court will not depart from its dispassionate role and become an advocate by second guessing counsel and advancing for him theories and defenses which counsel either intentionally or unintentionally has chosen not to mention.”); D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870, 888 (Fla. 2018) (Canady, C.J., dissenting) (“This requirement of specific argument and briefing is one of the most important concepts

2019Loan Tr., Series 2007-OA5 v. Nelson, 246 So. 3d 486, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (refusing to address a tipsy-coachman argument for affirmance of a summary judgment where the trial court explicitly declined to address the argument and it would be "inappropriate" for the appellate court to do so in the first instance); Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Correspondingly, 'we cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.' " (quoting Bueno v. Wo

2018As an initial matter, we note that the trial court expressly declined to address this argument, and this court "cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so." Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc. , 230 So.3d 619 , 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Bueno v. Workman , 20 So.3d 993 , 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ); see also Bryant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n , 965 So.2d 825 , 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("We decline the Parole Commission's invitation to employ the 'tipsy coachman' rule ....

2018Porter v. Porter, 913 So. 2d 691, 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (stating that “the tipsy coachman doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that reaches the right result, but for 24 the wrong reasons so long as there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Dade Cty.

2018Porter v. Porter, 913 So. 2d 691, 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (stating that “the tipsy coachman doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons so long as there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Dade Cty.

2022See Bakos v. Bakos, 950 So. 2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Ziegler v. Natera, 279 So. 3d 1240 , 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Hjortaas v. McCabe, 656 So. 2d 168, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Paris v. Paris, 412 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Flaherty v. Flaherty, 128 So. 3d 920, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Lutgert v. Lutgert, 338 So. 2d 1111, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also Garcia v. Soto, 337 So. 3d 355 , 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (Artau, J., dissenting) (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)) (“Bueno explained that ‘it would

2022See Delivorias v. Delivorias, 80 So. 3d 352, 353-55 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (distinguishing Bueno and “those cases in which the ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine was deemed inapplicable [because] the trial court failed to make findings of fact” on an issue, from cases in which the tipsy coachman doctrine should be applied because a factual finding was made on an issue “and competent substantial evidence in the record supports the result, but the trial court failed to explain its reasoning”).

2019Loan Tr., Series 2007-OA5 v. Nelson, 246 So. 3d 486, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (refusing to address a tipsy-coachman argument for affirmance of a summary judgment where the trial court explicitly declined to address the argument and it would be "inappropriate" for the appellate court to do so in the first instance); Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Correspondingly, 'we cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.' " (quoting Bueno v. Wo

2018We decline the invitation to apply the "right-for-the-wrong-reasons" doctrine because the trial court made no findings regarding this circumstance for terminating parental rights - including that the father materially breached his case plan - and it would not be appropriate for us, as an appellate court, to do so in the first instance based on this record. 2 See HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Nelson , 246 So.3d 486 , 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("As an initial matter, we note that the trial court expressly declined to address this argument, and this court cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where

2026Bd., 731 So. 2d 638 )); Jaworski v. State, 804 So. 2d 415, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), on reh’g, (Dec. 26, 2001) (“As an appellate court, however, we are obligated to entertain any basis to affirm the judgment under review, even one the appellee has failed to argue.”). 18 However, “[t]he key to the application of [the tipsy coachman doctrine] is that there must have been support for the alternative theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court.” Robertson, 829 So. 2d at 906-07 .

2006However, under the tipsy coachman doctrine, the trial court's suppression of the post- Miranda statements made by Pitts must be affirmed if the record before us establishes a proper basis for the trial court's ruling—even if the specific grounds articulated by the trial court were erroneous, see Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 , 906-07 (Fla.2002); Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644-45 (Fla.1999), and even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee, see Jaworski v. State, 804 So.2d 415, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

2026It is the appellant’s burden to show we must reverse, and he cannot meet that burden without overcoming all bases for affirmance.” (cleaned up)); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating that under the tipsy coachman doctrine, an appellate court should affirm the trial court “even if the specific grounds articulated by the trial court were erroneous” and “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee” (citations omitted)); State v. Sims, 110 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“An appellate court has authority to consider an argume

2026It is the appellant’s burden to show we must reverse, and he cannot meet that burden without overcoming all bases for affirmance.” (cleaned up)); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating that under the tipsy coachman doctrine, an appellate court should affirm the trial court “even if the specific grounds articulated by the trial court were erroneous” and “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee” (citations omitted)); State v. Sims, 110 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“An appellate court has authority to consider an argume

2026It is the appellant’s burden to show we must reverse, and he cannot meet that burden without overcoming all bases for affirmance.” (cleaned up)); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating that under the tipsy coachman doctrine, an appellate court should affirm the trial court “even if the specific grounds articulated by the trial court were erroneous” and “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee” (citations omitted)); State v. Sims, 110 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“An appellate court has authority to consider an argume

2026It is the appellant’s burden to show we must reverse, and he cannot meet that burden without overcoming all bases for affirmance.” (cleaned up)); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating that under the tipsy coachman doctrine, an appellate court should affirm the trial court “even if the specific grounds articulated by the trial court were erroneous” and “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee” (citations omitted)); State v. Sims, 110 So. 3d 113, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“An appellate court has authority to consider an argume

2022“Sitting as an appellate court, we are precluded from making factual findings ourselves in the first instance.” Featured Properties, LLC v. BLKY, LLC, 65 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Douglass v. Buford, 9 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

2011Instead, “[w]here ... orders do not contain sufficient findings of fact ..., appellate courts typically deem them incapable of meaningful review and they remand with directions to the issuing courts to make the necessary findings.” In re Doe, 932 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citation omitted); see also Douglass, 9 So.3d at 637 (quoting Doe for this proposition in a case involving the construction of a contract).

2019Servs., 948 So. 2d 54, 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that the "[t]ipsy [c]oachman" doctrine "does not rescue parties from their own inattention to important legal detail").

2013As that court noted, the tipsy coachman doctrine “does not rescue parties from their own inattention to important legal detail.” Id.

2019See Powell v. State, 120 So. 3d 577, 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("The tipsy coachman doctrine allows appellate courts to consider grounds for affirmance if the record supports doing so; it does not compel them to overlook deficient records and blaze new trails that even the tipsiest of coachmen could not have traversed."); E.K. v. Dep't of Children & Fam.

2019See Powell v. State, 120 So. 3d 577, 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (remarking that the tipsy coachman doctrine “does not compel [appellate courts] to overlook deficient records and blaze new trails”).

2018See Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ("[A]n appellate court cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so."); see, e.g., Tank Tech, Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, L.L.C., 244 So. 3d 383 , 392 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (declining to employ tipsy coachman doctrine to affirm final judgment based on argued affidavit deficiencies where "the trial court did not have the opportunity to make a factual finding regarding that issue"). -3- 1984)).

2018See Bueno v. Workman , 20 So.3d 993 , 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ("[A]n appellate court cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so."); see, e.g. , Tank Tech, Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, L.L.C. , 244 So.3d 383 , 392 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (declining to employ tipsy coachman doctrine to affirm final judgment based on argued affidavit deficiencies where "the trial court did not have the opportunity to make a factual finding regarding that issue").

2017See Butler v. Yusem, 3 So.3d 1185 , 1186 n.3 (Fla. 2009) ("The 'tipsy coachman’ doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that 'reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as 'there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’ " (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002))).

2010Butler seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Yusem v. Butler (Butler III), 10 So.3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with our decision in Butler v. Yusem (Butler II), 3 So.3d 1185 (Fla.2009), and our decision in Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002), regarding the proper application of the tipsy coachman doctrine.

2017See MacKenzie, 208 So. 3d at 793 n.3. 7

2017See MacKenzie, 208 So.3d at 793 n.3.

2010Robertson II, 829 So.2d at 906-07 ; see also State, Dep't of Revenue v. Morris, 736 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that while in some circumstances the tipsy coachman doctrine may apply, affirmance based on this doctrine must be supported by evidence in the record).

2010Robertson II, 829 So.2d at 906-07 ; see also State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Morris, 736 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that while in some circumstances the tipsy coachman doctrine may apply, affirmance based on this doctrine must be supported by evidence in the record).

2025Co., 103 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (explaining that the tipsy coachman doctrine “permits an appellate court to affirm a trial court’s decision on a ground other than that raised below” if “there is support for the alternative theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court”) (cleaned up); Taylor v. State, 146 So. 3d 113 , 115–16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (applying the tipsy coachman doctrine where statements that the trial court erroneously deemed “not hearsay” were nonetheless admissible under a hearsay exception).

2015See Taylor v. State, 146 So.3d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (explaining that, under the tipsy coachman doctrine, if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons, the ruling will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record).

2018Co., 476 So. 2d 1311, 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that “‘right for the wrong reason’ appellate maxim does not apply in summary judgment proceedings where 4 We therefore reverse the final summary judgment and involuntary dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. the issue was never raised in the motion for summary judgment”); Loranger v. State Dep’t of Transp., 448 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

2018See Loranger By & Through Loranger v. State, Dep't of Transp., 448 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (on rehearing) (rejecting appellee's argument that court should affirm because summary judgment was correct for the wrong reason because appellee raised new reason for the first time on appeal and court was "not certain precisely what legal and factual issues may arise if and when the trial court is presented with an appropriate pleading raising the issue"); see also Ambroglio v. McGuire, 247 So. 3d 73, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("It is reversible error to enter summary judgment on a ground not

2026“In the absence of support in the trial court record, the ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine does not apply.” Porter v. Porter, 913 So. 2d 691, 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Hankerson, 65 So. 3d at 505 (“A trial court’s ruling should be upheld if there is any legal basis in the record which supports the judgment.” (emphasis added)); Guglielmo v. DOC Zephyrhills C I/ Div. of Risk Mgmt., 418 So. 3d 656 , 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (“Although the ‘tipsy-coachman’ doctrine allows this Court to affirm a trial court judgment that is ‘right for the wrong reason,’ the record must support the theory or argument