Denise Gillespie v. James McCombs, Laura Bruno, Inez Willis and Michael Willis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 DENISE GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. JAMES McCOMBS, LAURA BRUNO, INEZ WILLIS and MICHAEL WILLIS, Appellees. No. 4D12-2473 [June 4, 2014] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; James McCann, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-373-CA. Rafael A. Castro, III, Miami, for appellant. Virginia P. Sherlock of Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A., Stuart, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Although the court s March 15, 2012 order was improper, we affirm on the tipsy coachman doctrine, which 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. Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002). Had the judge considered the third amended complaint, it would nonetheless have been subject to dismissal with prejudice. See Barrett v. City of Margate, 743 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Affirmed. GROSS, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.