Harris failed to show prejudice. Harris filed a postjudgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the May 30, 2008, judgment, but she did not present any argument as to how she had been prejudiced by the transformation of the injunction hearing into a trial on the merits. In her brief on appeal, Harris has also failed to show prejudice by indicating what addi oth that Harris had abandoned the premises and that she had surrendered the lease. Harris makes no argument in her initial brief that the circuit court erred in finding that she had surrendered the lease. Because the judgment of the circuit court would be justified under either theory, I see no need to address the merits of Harris’s abandonment argument. See Kellis v. Estate of Schnatz, 983 So.2d 408, 412-13 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, I concur in the decision not to
holding that when trial court found two alternate independent and sufficient grounds for voiding realestate contract this court would not review alleged error regarding first ground when trial courts judgment could be affirmed on second ground which appellant did not address holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by record holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground holding if one ground proves dispositive then this court need not address the remaining grounds relied on by a trial court when it granted summary judgment holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record