of the mortgagee’s election to accelerate has been given”); see also New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Luxury Home Builders, Inc., 311 So.2d 160, 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)(noting that “while ac celeration can be obviated by a tender by the mortgagor (owner), made after a default or defaults, to pay all amounts due, in order for such a tender to be effective it must be made before an election to accelerate is made”). Although the evidence was conflicting as to whether Bare Necessities made its installment payments current before notice of acceleration was received, the trial court resolved this issue in the mortgagee’s favor. Since there is competent, substantial evidence to support this determination, we affirm on this point. See, e.g., Bryan v. Butterworth, 692 So.2d 878, 881 (Fla.1997)(<HOLDING>); Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 262
holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports holding that appellate court can uphold a trial courts ruling on any ground appearing in the record whether urged in the trial court or not holding that when competent substantial evidence supports a trial courts ruling the appellate court will not secondguess the trial court holding that where the record shows that competent substantial evidence supports the trial courts findings that the documents were exempt from disclosure said findings will not be second guessed