Genman Corp. v. Richard Rinella

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Genman Corp. v. Richard Rinella

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 2025

Docket3D2024-1075

StatusPublished

This text of Genman Corp. v. Richard Rinella (Genman Corp. v. Richard Rinella) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Genman Corp. v. Richard Rinella, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1075 Lower Tribunal No. 19-35220-CA-01 ________________

Genman Corp., et al., Appellants,

vs.

Richard Rinella, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, PL, Howard D. DuBosar, Edward G. Guedes (Boca Raton), Harrison R. DuBosar, P.A., and Harrison R. DuBosar, for appellants.

Shaw Lewenz, LLLP, Jordan A. Shaw, Zachary D. Ludens, and Lauren N. Palen (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jidy, 44 So. 3d 162, 164 (Fla.

3d DCA 2010) (“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)) (internal

quotation marks omitted); Idearc Media Corp. v. M.R. Friedman & G.A.

Friedman, P.A., 985 So. 2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“When certain

provisions of a contract conflict, ‘it is a general principle of contract

interpretation that a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will

control over a different provision dealing only generally with that same

subject.’”) (quoting Kel Homes, LLC v. Burris, 933 So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2006)); Pardes v. Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)

(“It is apodictic that, under contract law, the more specific contractual

provision controls over the general provision.”); Paddock v. Bay Concrete

Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (“All the various

provisions of a contract must be so construed, if it can reasonably be done,

as to give effect to each.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI