Case ID: so3d_139/html/0489-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Denise GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. James McCOMBS, Laura Bruno, Inez Willis and Michael Willis, Appellees.
    No. 4D12-2473.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 4, 2014.
    Rafael A. Castro, III, Miami, for appellant.
    Virginia P. Sherlock of Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A., Stuart, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

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.

GROSS, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.