wrong reason doctrine in Virginia

2025We do not hesitate to uphold a decision of the trial court for a different reason, but “cases are only proper for application of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine when the evidence in the record supports the new argument on appeal, and the development of additional facts is not necessary.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 579 (2010).

2025Under the right result for the wrong reason doctrine, “it is the settled rule that how[ever] erroneous . . . may be the reasons of the court for its judgment upon the face of the judgment itself, if the judgment be right, it will not be disturbed on account of those reasons.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 579 (2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Schultz v. Schultz, 51 Va. (10 Gratt.) 358 , 384 (1853)).

2025Accordingly, even if the trial court erred in suggesting that the contract needed an express prohibition on false invoicing, its ultimate finding that ADO did not breach was not plainly wrong.14 Under Carpenter, bad faith must be clearly and distinctly proven—an evidentiary burden Frykman did not meet. 99 Va. at 293 . 14 “In instances where a trial court’s decision is correct, but its reasoning is incorrect, and the record supports the correct reason, we uphold the judgment pursuant to the right result for the wrong reason doctrine.” Haynes v. Haggerty, 291 Va. 301, 305 (2016).

2025Accordingly, even if the trial court erred in suggesting that the contract needed an express prohibition on false invoicing, its ultimate finding that ADO did not breach was not plainly wrong.14 Under Carpenter, bad faith must be clearly and distinctly proven—an evidentiary burden Frykman did not meet. 99 Va. at 293 . 14 “In instances where a trial court’s decision is correct, but its reasoning is incorrect, and the record supports the correct reason, we uphold the judgment pursuant to the right result for the wrong reason doctrine.” Haynes v. Haggerty, 291 Va. 301, 305 (2016).

2020“Under the right result for the wrong reason doctrine, ‘it is the settled rule that how[ever] erroneous . . . may be the reasons of the court for its judgment upon the face of the judgment itself, if the judgment be right, it will not be disturbed on account of the reasons.’” Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 579 (2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Schultz v. Schultz, 51 Va. (10 Gratt.) 358 , 384 (1853)). “[W]hen considering whether the ‘right result for the wrong reason’ doctrine should be applied, the standard of review is whether the record demonstrates that all evidence necessary t

2015The Supreme Court of Virginia has explained that " '[f]ailure to make the argument before the trial court is not the proper focus of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine.’ ” Banks v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 612, 617 , 701 S.E.2d 437, 440 (2010) (quoting Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580 , 701 S.E.2d 431, 436 (2010)).

2025“Under the right result for the wrong reason doctrine, ‘it is the settled rule that how[ever] erroneous . . . may be the reasons of the court for its judgment upon the face of the judgment itself, if the judgment be right, it will not be disturbed on account of the reasons.’” Miller & Rhoads Bldg., LLC v. City of Richmond, - 10 - 292 Va. 537, 542 (2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 579 (2010)).

2025“In instances where a trial court’s decision is correct, but its reasoning is incorrect, and the record supports the correct reason, we uphold the judgment pursuant to the right result for the wrong reason doctrine.” Keil v. O’Sullivan, 81 Va. App. 695 , 725 n.11 (2024) (quoting Miller & Rhoads Bldg., L.L.C. v. City of Richmond, 292 Va. 537, 542 (2016)).

2012“We do not hesitate, in a proper case, where the correct conclusion has been reached but the wrong reason given, to sustain the result and assign the right ground.” Eason v. Eason, 204 Va. 347, 352 , 131 S.E.2d 280, 283 (1963), quoted with approval in Banks v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 612, 617 , 701 S.E.2d 437, 440 (2010). “[T]he proper focus of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine” is “[c]onsideration of the facts in the record and whether additional factual presentation is necessary to resolve the [alternative ground].” Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580 , 701 S.E.2d 431, 436 (20

2012“We do not hesitate, in a proper case, where the correct conclusion has been reached but the wrong reason given, to sustain the result and assign the right ground.” Eason v. Eason, 204 Va. 347, 352 , 131 S.E.2d 280, 283 (1963), quoted with approval in Banks v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 612, 617 , 701 S.E.2d 437, 440 (2010). “[T]he proper focus of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine” is “[c]onsideration of the facts in the record and whether additional factual presentation is necessary to resolve the [alternative ground].” Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580 , 701 S.E.2d 431, 436 (20

2016See Rives v. Commonwealth , 284 Va. 1 , 3, 726 S.E.2d 248 , 250 (2012) (applying the right result for the wrong reason doctrine to a case where the only issue was one of pure statutory interpretation).

2016See Rives v. Commonwealth , 284 Va. 1 , 3, 726 S.E.2d 248 , 250 (2012) (applying the right result for the wrong reason doctrine to a case where the only issue was one of pure statutory interpretation).

2015See Deerfield v. City of Hampton, 283 Va. 759, 767 , 724 S.E.2d 724, 728 (2012) (applying the right result for the wrong reason doctrine).

2015See Deerfield v. City of Hampton, 283 Va. 759, 767 , 724 S.E.2d 724, 728 (2012) (applying the right result for the wrong reason doctrine).

2023The majority appears to assert that by weighing the probative value versus prejudicial impact ourselves on appeal to consider whether the trial court reached the right result for the wrong 25 The majority cites Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008), for the proposition that “the Court of Appeals should not have engaged in its own balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect, but should have remanded to the trial court to perform this balancing.” However, the Court of Appeals’ error in that case was “in concluding that the District Court applied a per s

2023The majority appears to assert that by weighing the probative value versus prejudicial impact ourselves on appeal to consider whether the trial court reached the right result for the wrong 25 The majority cites Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008), for the proposition that “the Court of Appeals should not have engaged in its own balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect, but should have remanded to the trial court to perform this balancing.” However, the Court of Appeals’ error in that case was “in concluding that the District Court applied a per s

2023As the Supreme Court observed in Sateren v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc., 234 Va. 303, 306 (1987), where the contested verdict is based on erroneous principles, the appellate court may decline to utilize the right for the wrong reason doctrine where we believe the victim of the error is “entitled to another day in court and to have his case tried according to correct principles, win or lose.” This is such a case.

2023As the Supreme Court observed in Sateren v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc., 234 Va. 303, 306 (1987), where the contested verdict is based on erroneous principles, the appellate court may decline to utilize the right for the wrong reason doctrine where we believe the victim of the error is “entitled to another day in court and to have his case tried according to correct principles, win or lose.” This is such a case.

2023“The absence of any balancing analysis or factual findings resolving the competing versions of the underlying whipping incident,” the majority continues, “makes application of the right for the wrong reason doctrine problematic here.”23 As an initial matter, I note that “[t]he trial court is presumed to know and correctly apply the law ‘absent clear evidence to the contrary in the record.’” Rainey v. Rainey, 74 Va. App. 359 , 377 (2022) (quoting Milam v. Milam, 65 Va. App. 439, 466 (2015)).

2023“The absence of any balancing analysis or factual findings resolving the competing versions of the underlying whipping incident,” the majority continues, “makes application of the right for the wrong reason doctrine problematic here.”23 As an initial matter, I note that “[t]he trial court is presumed to know and correctly apply the law ‘absent clear evidence to the contrary in the record.’” Rainey v. Rainey, 74 Va. App. 359 , 377 (2022) (quoting Milam v. Milam, 65 Va. App. 439, 466 (2015)).

2023See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 705, 714 (2008); Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 632 (1994) (evidence of prior acts of sexual violence was 7 The parameters of the right for the wrong reason doctrine have shifted over the years.

2023See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 705, 714 (2008); Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 632 (1994) (evidence of prior acts of sexual violence was 7 The parameters of the right for the wrong reason doctrine have shifted over the years.

2023See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 705, 714 (2008); Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 632 (1994) (evidence of prior acts of sexual violence was 7 The parameters of the right for the wrong reason doctrine have shifted over the years.

2023See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 705, 714 (2008); Morse v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 627, 632 (1994) (evidence of prior acts of sexual violence was 7 The parameters of the right for the wrong reason doctrine have shifted over the years.

2023The right for the wrong reason doctrine should not be applied where “the record on appeal does not fully support the trial court’s decision.” Obregon v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 582 , 590-91 (2022) (emphasis added); Knight, 61 Va. App. at 309 (rejecting right for the wrong reason analysis where additional factfinding is required).

2023The right for the wrong reason doctrine should not be applied where “the record on appeal does not fully support the trial court’s decision.” Obregon v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. App. 582 , 590-91 (2022) (emphasis added); Knight, 61 Va. App. at 309 (rejecting right for the wrong reason analysis where additional factfinding is required).

2021Notably, the right result for a different reason doctrine applies “in cases . . . in which we express no view on the correctness of the lower court’s rationale.” Rickman v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 531, 542 (2017) (emphasis added).

2019“Though often called the right-result-wrong-reason doctrine, the underlying idea is better described as the right-result-different-reason doctrine in cases, such as this one, in which we express no view on the correctness of the lower court’s rationale.” Rickman, 294 Va. at 542 . “[C]ases are only proper for application of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine when the evidence in the record supports the new argument on appeal, and the development of additional facts is not necessary.” Perry, 280 Va. at 579 ; see also Spinner v. Commonwealth, - 10 - ___ Va. ___, ___ (May 30, 2019) (“T

2025As the Game Place decision notes: “The agreement, though . . . void as to the term and the interest in lands sought to be created, regulates the relations of the parties to it in other respects upon which the tenancy exists, and may be resorted to [in order] to determine their rights and duties . . . .” 295 Va. at 414 (first alteration in original) (quoting Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N.Y. 180, 184 (1877)). 11 “The ‘right result for the wrong reason’ doctrine has been a part of the law of Virginia for well over a century.” Spinner v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 384 , 391 (2019).

2025As the Game Place decision notes: “The agreement, though . . . void as to the term and the interest in lands sought to be created, regulates the relations of the parties to it in other respects upon which the tenancy exists, and may be resorted to [in order] to determine their rights and duties . . . .” 295 Va. at 414 (first alteration in original) (quoting Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N.Y. 180, 184 (1877)). 11 “The ‘right result for the wrong reason’ doctrine has been a part of the law of Virginia for well over a century.” Spinner v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 384 , 391 (2019).

2025Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 502 (1954) (holding the outward expression of intention, rather than subjective belief of intention, creates a legally binding contract).13 Tenants raise several alternative reasons for upholding the trial court’s ruling under the right for the wrong reason doctrine.

2024It is true that we have recognized an “emergency aid exception” to warrantless searches of a home, permitting an officer to enter and investigate contingent on “an [officer having an] objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone in the residence needs immediate aid.” McCarthy v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 630 , 642 (2021) (citing Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009) (per curiam)).

2019“When the trial court has reached the correct result for the 2 “Although not binding precedent, unpublished opinions can be cited and considered for their persuasive value.” Otey v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 346, 351 (2012). -6- wrong reason, but the record supports the right reason, ‘we will assign the correct reason and affirm that result.’” Id. at 580 (quoting Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179, 191 (2000)).

2019As such, the right result for the wrong reason doctrine is proper “when the evidence in the record supports the new argument on appeal, and the development of additional facts is not necessary.” Id. at 579 (citing Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 105 , 115 (2009)).

2019“When the trial court has reached the correct result for the 2 “Although not binding precedent, unpublished opinions can be cited and considered for their persuasive value.” Otey v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 346, 351 (2012). -6- wrong reason, but the record supports the right reason, ‘we will assign the correct reason and affirm that result.’” Id. at 580 (quoting Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179, 191 (2000)).

2019“When the trial court has reached the correct result for the 2 “Although not binding precedent, unpublished opinions can be cited and considered for their persuasive value.” Otey v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 346, 351 (2012). -6- wrong reason, but the record supports the right reason, ‘we will assign the correct reason and affirm that result.’” Id. at 580 (quoting Mitchem v. Counts, 259 Va. 179, 191 (2000)).

2018Evid. 2:702(a)(ii). “[T]he trial judge must determine whether the subject matter of the testimony is beyond a lay person’s common knowledge and whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 423 , 505 S.E.2d 380, 386 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 600 , 686 S.E.2d 710, 723 (2009) (“‘Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns matters not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury’ such that it may assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence presented.”

2018Evid. 2:702(a)(ii). “[T]he trial judge must determine whether the subject matter of the testimony is beyond a lay person’s common knowledge and whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 423 , 505 S.E.2d 380, 386 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 600 , 686 S.E.2d 710, 723 (2009) (“‘Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns matters not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury’ such that it may assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence presented.”

2018Evid. 2:702(a)(ii). “[T]he trial judge must determine whether the subject matter of the testimony is beyond a lay person’s common knowledge and whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 423 , 505 S.E.2d 380, 386 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 600 , 686 S.E.2d 710, 723 (2009) (“‘Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns matters not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury’ such that it may assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence presented.”

2018Evid. 2:702(a)(ii). “[T]he trial judge must determine whether the subject matter of the testimony is beyond a lay person’s common knowledge and whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 423 , 505 S.E.2d 380, 386 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 600 , 686 S.E.2d 710, 723 (2009) (“‘Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns matters not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury’ such that it may assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence presented.”

2018Evid. 2:702(a)(ii). “[T]he trial judge must determine whether the subject matter of the testimony is beyond a lay person’s common knowledge and whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 423 , 505 S.E.2d 380, 386 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 600 , 686 S.E.2d 710, 723 (2009) (“‘Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns matters not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury’ such that it may assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence presented.”

2018Evid. 2:702(a)(ii). “[T]he trial judge must determine whether the subject matter of the testimony is beyond a lay person’s common knowledge and whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 411, 423 , 505 S.E.2d 380, 386 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Dowdy v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 577, 600 , 686 S.E.2d 710, 723 (2009) (“‘Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns matters not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury’ such that it may assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence presented.”