Gillespie v. McCombs
139 So. 3d 489, 2014 WL 2480264, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8502
Opinion
Although the court’s March 15, 2012 order was improper, we affirm on the tipsy coachman doctrine, which “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.’ ” Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002). Had the judge considered the third amended complaint, it would nonetheless have been subject to dismissal with prejudice. See Barrett v. City of Margate, 743 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gillespie v. McCombs, 139 So. 3d 489, 2014 WL 2480264, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8502 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).
139 So. 3d 489 (Gillespie v. McCombs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Barrett v. City of Margate
743 So. 2d 1160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)