Case ID: so2d_551/html/0567-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ANSTEAD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steve LARSON-JACKSON, Appellant, v. Nevelia NEAL, Appellee.
    No. 89-1208.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Oct. 18, 1989.
    Reconsideration Denied Dec. 1, 1989.
    Steve Larson-Jackson, Washington, D.C., pro se.
    J. Mark Maynor of Beverly & Freeman, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause is per curiam affirmed. See § 48.193(l)(h), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). This amended version of the statute was in effect at the time of the trial judge’s ruling. Apparently, the parties did not advise the trial judge of this amendment, which renders his decision correct albeit for the wrong reason. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

AFFIRMED.

LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., . concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting.

In'the trial court the appellee relied on provisions of the Florida jurisdictional scheme to secure jurisdiction over appellant that do not appear to apply properly. See Shammay v. Shammay, 491 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

The majority, in affirming, is relying on another provision of the Florida Statutes, not utilized below or addressed in the parties’ briefs. I would not invoke those provisions to affirm without giving the parties an opportunity to brief their application.