Today’s installment goes to a recurring problem in appellate practice, yet one on which there is very little, if any, reported law: the answer brief which doesn’t actually “answer” the points on appeal, stated in the initial brief.  While one would think that such a problem would be one avoided by simple common sense, and a recognition of an analytic truth bordering on tautology, we hope to show that not only are such answer briefs arguably violative of applicable rules, but simply bad form and tactically foolish.

We begin with the premise that there are three types of briefs filed by the parties in any appeal: initial, answer, and reply (the exception being appeals in which a cross-appeal is taken), under Rule 9.210 (subsections b, c, and d, respectively).  The first two of those subsections state:

(Emphasis supplied).

Admittedly, the rule does not specify that the issues posed in an answer brief must correspond to the issues “presented” in the initial brief.   However, the rule presupposes some knowledge of how appeals work, and the history of appellate practice. Further, the conclusion that answer briefs must actually “answer” the issues in the initial brief is inherent in the name “answer brief.”  Appellees may in fact bring up their own issues—if they are also cross-appellants, as noted by the final clause quoted above.

Otherwise, an answer brief should answer the issues posed in the initial brief.  In our next installment, we’ll look at how and why, as well as an example taken from actual briefs filed in a Florida district court of appeal.

The post APPELLEES: What Part of “Answer Brief” Is It That You Don’t Understand? PART 1 appeared first on Luis E. Insignares, P.A..