GENMAN CORP., ET AL.
v.
RICHARD RINELLA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-06-18
No. 2024-1075
Walsh, J., Emas, J., Fernandez, J., Miller, J.
2025 FL 5106 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

A trial court's judgment may be affirmed when it reaches the correct result, even if the reasoning is incorrect, provided the record contains any basis supporting the judgment.


Headnotes

[1] Under the 'tipsy coachman' doctrine, an appellate court may affirm a trial court judgment that reaches the correct result even if the trial court's reasoning is erroneous…

[2] When contractual provisions conflict, a specific provision dealing with a particular subject controls over a general provision dealing with the same subject.

Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The 'tipsy coachman' doctrine '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.'”

Court's statement of the governing legal standard for affirmance

Facts & Procedural History

Genman Corp. and others appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a dispute involving contractual interpretation.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
Miller

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1075 Lower Tribunal No. 19-35220-CA-01 ________________

Genman Corp., et al., Appellants,

vs.

Richard Rinella, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, PL, Howard D. DuBosar, Edward G. Guedes (Boca Raton), Harrison R. DuBosar, P.A., and Harrison

R. DuBosar, for appellants.

Shaw Lewenz, LLLP, Jordan A. Shaw, Zachary D. Ludens, and Lauren N. Palen (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

2

Affirmed. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jidy, 44 So. 3d 162, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine ‘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.’”) (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Idearc Media Corp. v. M.R. Friedman & G.A. Friedman, P.A., 985 So. 2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“When certain provisions of a contract conflict, ‘it is a general principle of contract interpretation that a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will control over a different provision dealing only generally with that same subject.’”) (quoting Kel Homes, LLC v. Burris, 933 So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)); Pardes v. Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“It is apodictic that, under contract law, the more specific contractual provision controls over the general provision.”); Paddock v. Bay Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (“All the various provisions of a contract must be so construed, if it can reasonably be done, as to give effect to each.”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw