What if you appeal to a district court of appeal from an erroneous trial court order, and the appellate court affirms the order without giving you any explanation? You may wish to ask the Florida Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s order, but you generally need a written opinion before you can seek review by the Supreme Court. However, SSRGA succeeded in helping a new client who had been referred from another firm after receiving an affirmance without a written opinion. We will explain how it worked.
First, some background: when a district court of appeal affirms a trial court order, the appellate court can either write an opinion explaining its decision, or it can issue a per curiam affirmance (or “PCA”) stating “Affirmed” without any explanation. Appellate courts across Florida affirm thousands of orders and judgments each year. Most of these decisions are announced with a PCA. Given the high volume of cases, preparing written opinions for every case would delay the processing of appeals.
Appellate courts write opinions for affirmances only when a written explanation would make a substantial contribution to the law or when it is necessary to disclose conflicts with other courts’ decisions or to certify questions to the Florida Supreme Court. Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011, 1015–16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Appellate courts do “not wish to write additional opinions to merely repeat well-established principles.” Id. at 1016.
The only circumstance in which a district court of appeal is required to write an explanatory opinion is when the trial court’s order is reversed or quashed. However, many appellants who have sought to reverse a trial court order are disappointed to receive not only an affirmance of the order, but also a per curiam affirmance without any discussion of reasons why the order was upheld.
Not only can this outcome be disappointing, it also prevents the appellant from seeking further review by the Florida Supreme Court, which generally does not have jurisdiction to review a decision without a written opinion. However, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure allow an appellant to move for issuance of a written opinion after receiving a PCA. The rule requires that a motion for written opinion must explain how a written opinion would, among other things, provide “a legitimate basis for supreme court review.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a)(2)(D).
The new client came to us with a PCA in hand and wanted to try any available avenue to seek review in the Florida Supreme Court. We recommended a motion for issuance of written opinion. These motions are not often granted, but the SSRGA attorneys suggested a way to increase the chance of obtaining a useful result.
SSRGA’s motion not only argued that a written opinion would likely demonstrate an express and direct conflict with the opinion of another district court—which would be grounds for Supreme Court jurisdiction—but also suggested an alternative remedy that could qualify the client to seek Supreme Court review in that particular matter, which had an unusual feature.
The unique feature of that case was that it addressed an issue that the Florida Supreme Court was already in the process of reviewing. A precedential case that the district court relied on in issuing the PCA was under review at that time, and the Supreme Court was also reviewing a conflicting decision from another district court of appeal. Our attorneys recognized that this unique situation opened the door for an alternative, easier remedy—a “citation PCA”—to position the client to seek Supreme Court review.
A citation PCA is a special per curiam affirmance that not only says “Affirmed,” but also cites a case as legal precedent to justify the decision. In those rare instances where a citation PCA cites a precedential case that is currently under review in the Florida Supreme Court or has been quashed by it, the Supreme Court can grant jurisdiction to review the unwritten decision.
As such, SSRGA attorneys not only asked the district court of appeal to issue a full written opinion, but also suggested the easier, more palatable alternative of issuing a citation PCA that would likewise allow the client to seek review by the Florida Supreme Court. It seems likely that a motion for written opinion—standing alone—might well have been denied, as most such motions are. However, it was a successful strategy to include a request for an easier and quicker alternative remedy that would accomplish the desired result in that unique case.
The district court issued a citation PCA citing two cases that are currently under review in the Florida Supreme Court. This result provided jurisdictional grounds for the Florida Supreme Court to review the matter, and SSRGA filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to accept the case. We were glad to help the client achieve this positive outcome.