Court Opinion

ID: 9790377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:52:22.173201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:29.262326
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
concurring and dissenting: I concur with the holding that the district court of Kansas had in personam jurisdiction over Willie Brown. I respectfully disagree, however, with the holding that the maintenance order should be set aside.
We have long held that a judgment of a district court is to be affirmed on appeal if it was proper, even though awarded for the *169wrong reason. Here, the district court was justified as a court of equity in making the award to Sarah Brown from a review of all the surrounding circumstances, even though the court termed the. award as “past due maintenance.” There was no previous maintenance order in this case. This was the first such order. There was no attempt to make the order relate back. I submit this is an award of future maintenance based on the court’s equitable consideration of all the circumstances involving the parties which naturally involved past conduct — not past maintenance.
1 Would affirm the district court and the Court of Appeals.