was the subject of the enforcement proceedings.” Ingrahm, 711 So.2d at 1346. The trial court also found that “[i]n th , argues that based upon the “tipsy coachman” doctrine, this court should nonetheless affirm as the trial court was right for the wrong reason. The former husband argues that dismissal was proper because the former wife’s motion for rehearing was pending in the Duval Circuit Court when she filed her Complaint in Miami-Dade County. The former husband’s reliance on the “tipsy coachman” doctrine is, however, misplaced, as the issue of the former wife’s Duval County motion for rehearing was not included in the record before the trial court. See Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002)(quoting Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 645 (Fla.1999))(<HOLDING>); State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Rochell v.
holding that a trial court order reaching the right result with erroneous or incomplete reasoning can be affirmed under the tipsy coachman doctrine so long as the alternative ruling is supported by the record before the trial court holding that where the trial court reaches a correct disposition this court can affirm on any basis 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 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 the tipsy coachman rule permits an appellate court to affirm a trial court order on the basis of an alternative theory which was not asserted in the court below