What happens when the trial court’s reasoning falters on appeal? For appellees, alternative grounds for affirmance can save the day. 

Appellees must consider all possible bases for affirmance, including those not relied on by the trial court. By raising and briefing alternative grounds, appellees provide appellate courts with additional paths to uphold a decision. 

The case of Cetran v. Wethersfield highlights the importance of this strategy. In Cetran, the Wethersfield Town Council dismissed the plaintiff, James L. Cetran, from his position as chief of police. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the case on mootness grounds.  

On appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court, however, the defendant, the Town of Wethersfield, raised and briefed an alternative ground for affirmance: that the plaintiff’s administrative appeal was brought against the wrong party and therefore, was properly dismissed. 

The Appellate Court agreed and affirmed the judgment on this alternative basis. In its decision, the court emphasized three key points: 

1. The defendant properly raised the alternative ground for affirmance. 

2. The plaintiff opposed the alternative ground in his appellate brief, giving the court a fully developed record on the issue. 

3. The record was adequate for the court to review and resolve the alternative ground on its merits. 

Because the alternative ground provided a clear and sufficient basis to affirm, the Appellate Court did not need to address the plaintiff’s arguments about mootness. 

Lessons from Cetran 

The Cetran decision underscores two critical lessons for appellate advocacy: 

1. Always Review the Record for Alternative Grounds for Affirmance 

Appellees should thoroughly examine the record and the legal arguments to identify any viable alternative bases for affirmance. Even if the trial court’s reasoning is flawed, an appellate court can affirm on any ground supported by the record and applicable law. Raising and briefing these grounds ensures they are preserved for consideration. 

2. Strict Compliance with Statutory Requirements Is Essential 

Appellees should not only examine the trial court’s reasoning but also scrutinize procedural compliance. Jurisdictional defects or statutory violations can provide independent bases for affirmance, offering appellate courts clear paths to uphold decisions. 

This case underscores the critical role of adhering to statutory provisions in appeals, especially in administrative matters. In Cetran, the plaintiff’s failure to name the correct party—the Wethersfield Town Council, which had the authority to dismiss him—was a fatal jurisdictional defect. Under General Statutes § 7-278, strict compliance with procedural requirements is mandatory, and failure to meet these requirements results in dismissal of the appeal. 

Cetran illustrates that statutory requirements are more than procedural formalities—they can serve as alternative grounds for affirmance for appellees to raise. Here, the appellee successfully leveraged the plaintiff’s failure to comply with General Statutes § 7-278 to affirm the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. 

Conclusion 

Cetran v. Wethersfield reminds us that appellate advocacy often involves more than defending the trial court’s reasoning. By identifying, raising, and briefing alternative grounds for affirmance, appellees provide appellate courts with additional avenues to uphold favorable decisions. Furthermore, the case underscores the need for meticulous attention to statutory requirements in administrative appeals. A strategic and thorough approach can make the difference between success and failure on appeal. 

Read the full decision in Cetran v. Wethersfield here.