liability for necessaries is deemed rather a benefit than a disadvantage to him.” Id. (citations omitted). ¶20. Here, Becky has conceded the checks Jimmy wrote to Frances were used for Frances’s benefit. While Frances lacked the mental capacity to make a contract .with Jimmy to pay him back, the law recognizes she was not disadvantaged by the liability for her nursing care. So according to Talbert, the. law imposed an obligation on Frances’s part to repay .Jimmy the $85,000 he expended to pay for needed care. See id. II. Untimely Assertion of Right ¶ 21. That said, we agree with the chancellor that Brett’s assertion of Jimmy’s right was untimely — but for a different reason. See Methodist Hosp. of Hattiesburg, Inc. v. Richardson, 909 So.2d 1066, 1070(7) (Miss.2005) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). ¶22. In their briefs, Becky and Brett have
holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding that appellate court may affirm ruling where trial court reached right result for wrong reason as long as alternate basis for affirmance was presented to trial court and no further factual findings are necessary recognizing an appellate court may affirm a trial courts decision that reached the right result regardless of the trial courts reasoning holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court