Alexander v. H. S. I. Management, Inc., 60089
| Decision Date | 27 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60089,60089 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. H. S. I. MANAGEMENT, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John S. Graettinger, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Sam Johnson, Jonesboro, for appellee.
The appellee rental management corporation sued Alexander for back rent, cleaning costs, and damage allegedly done to the apartment during the defendant's stay there. She filed a pro se answer to the action denying indebtedness. An affidavit for the plaintiff swears that the defendant was mailed an envelope containing both interrogatories and requests for admission. An affidavit for the defendant swears that the envelope contained only interrogatories. These were turned over to the attorney subsequently employed.
No answers having been filed to the requests for admission, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendant moved to permit withdrawal of the default admissions and a late filing of answers to the requests, which answers denied liability for rent, cleaning costs, and damages. The court denied the defendant's motions and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. Held :
We reverse. In Cielock v. Munn, 244 Ga. 810, 262 S.E.2d 114 (1979), the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed a judgment of the trial court in which, as in this case, the plaintiff filed requests for admission against the defendant; the defendant, without benefit of counsel, failed to answer; the plaintiff moved to withdraw the default resulting from failure to answer the requests and tendered answers denying the matters requested to be admitted, and the trial court thereafter declined to open the default and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Cielock was followed by Moore Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. Stack, 153 Ga.App. 215, 264 S.E.2d 725 (1980), which held that the allowance of a motion to withdraw the admissions resulting from the failure to answer the requests should be decided by a determination of whether the preservation of the merits of the action would be subserved thereby. Upon a determination that such will be the case the burden shifts to the opposite party to satisfy the court that depriving him of the resulting default judgment will prejudice him in maintaining his action on the merits. "Furthermore, this court has held that depriving a party of a judgment by default 'is not the kind of prejudice envisioned by the Act.' " Id. p. 219, 264 S.E.2d p. 727. In Moore, etc. as here it appears by affidavit that the plaintiff's attorney mailed out interrogatories and requests for admission in the same envelope, and the recipient denied that anything except the interrogatories was in the envelope...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. City Wide Cab, Inc., A92A1014
...a case does not constitute the type of prejudice needed to warrant denial of a motion to withdraw admissions. Alexander v. H.S.I. Mgmt., 155 Ga.App. 116, 117, 270 S.E.2d 325 (1980). Similarly, we are not persuaded by appellant's contention that appellee lulled her into a false sense of secu......
-
Bailey v. Chase Third Century Leasing Co., Inc.
...has not shown how withdrawal of the admissions will prejudice it in maintaining its actions on the merits. See Alexander v. H.S.I. Mgmt., 155 Ga.App. 116, 270 S.E.2d 325. Merely being deprived of judgment or being forced to go to trial is not such prejudice as will prevent withdrawal of adm......
-
Battle v. Strother
...is not prejudiced in trying the merits of the case, which is the question at issue." (Emphasis in original.) Alexander v. H.S.I. Mgt., 155 Ga.App. 116, 117, 270 S.E.2d 325 (1980). "[W]hether to allow responses to a request for admissions after the statutory time for [answering] has passed i......
-
City of Atlanta v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 60691
...Partnership v. Stack, 153 Ga.App. 215, 219, 264 S.E.2d 725; Young v. Brown, 154 Ga.App. 452, 268 S.E.2d 729; Alexander v. H. S. I. Management, Inc., 155 Ga.App. 116, 270 S.E.2d 325. This is therefore essentially a 2 prong test both of which must be met although the burden is on the responde......