Accordingly, the trial court’s interpretation of the effects of a specialty contractor hiring licensed subcontractors was not crucial to the result reached, and we will affirm a grant of summary judgment if it is right for any reason, whether stated or unstated. See Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Electric Membership Corp. , 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3), 441 S.E.2d 524 (1994) ("It is the grant itself that is to be reviewed for error, and not the analysis employed."); see also Luong v. Tran , 280 Ga. App. 15, 17 (2), 633 S.E.2d 797 (2006). We, therefore, find no reversible error.
[Cit.]" Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter EMC, 212 Ga.App. 242, 243(3), 441 S.E.2d 524 (1994). Accordingly, if the tax deed is void for lack of a sufficient description, then the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees was correct regardless of any reason proffered by the trial court.
[Cit.]" Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter EMC, 212 Ga. App. 242, 243(3) ( 441 S.E.2d 524) (1994). "[A] trial court does not sit as the trier of fact, but `review(s) the evidence and determine(s) whether a prima facie case has been proven by the movant.
[Cit.]" Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter EMC, 212 Ga. App. 242, 243(3) ( 441 S.E.2d 524) (1994). "An appellate court in reviewing a lower court decision will look to the basic question, which is whether or not the judgment is valid as a matter of law; the reasons contained in the judgments are not controlling. [Cit.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment awarding title to WW3 subject to BNY Mellon’s security deed.See generally Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3), 441 S.E.2d 524 (1994) ("A grant of summary judgment must be affirmed if right for any reason, whether stated or unstated. It is the grant itself that is to be reviewed for error, and not the analysis employed."); Stephen A. Wheat Trust v. Sparks, 325 Ga. App. 673, 679 (4), n. 8, 754 S.E.2d 640 (2014) ("We will affirm the grant of summary judgment if it is right for any reason.").
[Cit.]" Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3) ( 441 SE2d 524) (1994). 3. The defendants' contention that the trial court erred in denying their motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel is moot in light of the foregoing.
(Citations omitted.) Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3) ( 441 SE2d 524) (1994). Mindful of these principles, we turn to the record here.
Pretermitting whether, as alleged by the Perrys, the trial court erred in describing their negligence claim as unsupported by the facts, the grant of summary judgment to State Farm must be affirmed if right for any reason. See Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3) ( 441 SE2d 524) (1994). RUFFIN, Presiding Judge.[fn1] [fn1] The original opinion issued in these cases was authored by then-Presiding Judge John H. Ruffin, Jr., who retired from this Court on December 31, 2008. His successor, Judge Sara L. Doyle, authorized the substitution.
" (Citations omitted.) Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3) ( 441 SE2d 524) (1994). So viewed, the record reveals the following relevant facts.
(Citations omitted.) Albany Oil Mill v. Sumter Elec. Membership Corp., 212 Ga. App. 242, 243 (3) ( 441 SE2d 524) (1994). (b) Triple Net also contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on its fraud and declaratory judgment claims.