Larson-Jackson v. Neal

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Larson-Jackson v. Neal, 551 So. 2d 567 (1989)
14 Fla. L. Weekly 2473; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5810; 1989 WL 120837
Anstead, Glickstein, Letts

Larson-Jackson v. Neal

Opinion of the Court

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.

*568LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., . concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissenting 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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Steve LARSON-JACKSON v. Nevelia NEAL
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published