Case Name: SUPRO CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Appellant, v. Joe BRIDWELL and Dorothy Bridwell, and John Westfall and Amy Westfall, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-02-28
Citations: 361 So. 2d 734
Docket Number: No. 77-800
Parties: SUPRO CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Appellant, v. Joe BRIDWELL and Dorothy Bridwell, and John Westfall and Amy Westfall, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 361
Pages: 734–735

Head Matter:
SUPRO CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Appellant, v. Joe BRIDWELL and Dorothy Bridwell, and John Westfall and Amy Westfall, his wife, Appellees.
No. 77-800.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 28, 1978.
Rush, Marshall, Bergstrom & Robison, Orlando, for appellant.
Joseph Padawer, Maitland and Calvin J. Faucett, Orlando, for appellees.

Opinion:
MOORE, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order vacating a final judgment entered upon a non-jury trial at which the appellees failed to appear.
The non-jury trial was conducted on February 14, 1977 and final judgment was entered for the plaintiff-appellant on the same day. Ten days later, the defendants-appellees, John Westfall and Amy Westfall, his wife filed their motion to set aside the final judgment alleging a meritorious defense and excusable neglect on the part of their attorney whose affidavit indicated his file had been misplaced due to moving his official residence. In his order vacating the final judgment and granting a new trial, the trial court found the conduct of the attorney to be "gross and without justification," but in recognizing the penalty which would be imposed upon the defendants by not vacating the final judgment, he proceeded to grant such relief.
Rule 1.540(b) provides relief to a party from a final judgment where there has been mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), we held that the entry of a default judgment upon failure of counsel to appear at a hearing on a motion for default judgment because he had failed to properly note the hearing on his calendar was mistake or inadvertent or excusable neglect.
Within ten days from the entry of the final judgment in the case sub judice, the appellees moved to set aside the final judgment. That motion was grounded upon the failure of counsel to appear at the trial because his file had been misplaced due to moving his official residence. We find that this constitutes excusable neglect.
If the trial court's conclusion can be supported on any theory, we must affirm notwithstanding his failure to use the proper reasoning. See State Plant Board v. Smith, 110 So.2d 401 (Fla.1959).
Accordingly, the order under review is hereby
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.