“ ‘Summary judgment is proper only if (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, viewing every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment has been entered and (2) the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Hardey v. Shell, 144 So.3d 668, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quoting Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So.3d 864, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). We review a final summary judgment de novo. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). We first note that the Medical Center contends that because the Mays sue of the Mays’ failure to file a reply before the trial court. Thus, it cannot make a tipsy coachman argument on that basis here. See Fitzsimmons v. State, 935 So.2d 125, 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). On the merits then, the issue is whether the
holding that where state failed to raise alternative argument below and thus defense did not have an opportunity to respond it would be improper to rely on the tipsy eoachman doctrine to affirm the trial courts ruling holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond holding that government lost right to raise lack of expectation of privacy argument on appeal when it failed to raise argument below holding that the supreme court will not address an argument on appeal if a party has failed to obtain a ruling below