Warren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1090, 1098 (Fla.2005) (Pariente, C.J., specially concurring). The lower courts have proceeded here in keeping with the teaching that “where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” United States ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 408, 29 S.Ct. 527, 53 L.Ed. 836 (1909). Denying the petition would obviate the need to decide substantial constitutional questions raised in the answer brief, questions which today’s decision resolves against the respondent without any discussion. See Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). I respectfully
holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record holding that a trial courts ruling on a motion for new trial will be upheld if it is correct on any applicable legal theory even if the court articulated an invalid basis holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling holding that 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  holding summary judgment must be upheld if it is proper on any grounds