Friend v. Rees
Friend v. Rees
Opinion of the Court
The appellant, Michael Friend, appeals an Oldham Circuit Court order entered September 20, 1984, dismissing his action against appellees, John D. Rees (Rees), Warden of the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) in LaGrange, Kentucky; Captain Philip Haag (Capt. Haag), also of KSR; and, Walter Powell (Powell), Chief Clerk at KSR. Appellant, who appears pro se, is a KSR inmate, having been confined since 1981.
The events leading to this appeal are disputed, but they appear to be as follows: Appellant claims he mailed a request for a copy of his financial records to Powell on December 8, 1982. The application was made pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act. KRS 61.870-884. Powell denies receiving this request. On February 16, 1983, appellant was summoned to the Chief Clerk’s Office to endorse an insurance company check in order that the check could be credited to his account in the inmate ledger. When appellant demanded a copy of his account card, Powell told him that although he could not furnish him a copy of the records, he could visually inspect the records and that an employee in the Chief Clerk’s Office would assist him, answering any questions he might have. Appellant claims he tried to furnish a written request for a copy of the records, but Powell refused it. When appellant tendered the request a second time, Capt. Haag grabbed the paper and roughly thrust it into appellant’s shirt pocket. (Capt. Haag states that appellant’s loud and unruly behavior prompted his/Haag’s actions that day.)
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that appellant was entitled to his records by complying with the reasonable charge of reproduction. Since the record is clear that he was offered his records upon payment of the ten cents per page copying fee, we seen no genuine issue to be resolved, and conclude the complaint was properly dismissed — albeit for the wrong reason. We are bound to affirm if the trial court reached the correct result but, in doing so, applied the wrong reasoning. See Keesee v. Smith, 289 Ky. 609, 159 S.W.2d 56 (1941).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Oldham Circuit Court is affirmed.
All concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.