Cofield v. Halpern Enters., Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. A12A0554.,A12A0554.
• Citation: 316 Ga.App. 582,12 FCDR 2200,730 S.E.2d 63
• Parties: COFIELD v. HALPERN ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

316 Ga.App. 582
730 S.E.2d 63
12 FCDR 2200

COFIELD
v.
HALPERN ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.

No. A12A0554.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 3, 2012.

Joseph N. Harden, for Janice Cofield.

Bruce A. Taylor Jr., Douglas Kevin Burrell, Atlanta, for Halpern Enterprises, Inc., et al.

[730 S.E.2d 64]

PHIPPS, Presiding Judge.

[316 Ga.App. 582]Janice Cofield filed a complaint for damages against Halpern Enterprises, Inc., Halpern Properties, LLC, Halpern Management Company, LLC, and other unnamed parties (collectively “Halpern”) for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell while walking on property owned and/or maintained by Halpern. On the issue of [316 Ga.App. 583]punitive damages, Halpern moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Cofield appeals.

Cofield contends that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to Halpern because: (1) the court conducted a hearing on Halpern's motion for summary judgment despite its failure to give “clear notice” to the parties of a hearing date; (2) Halpern failed to support its motion for summary judgment because deposition transcripts upon which Halpern relied had not been filed with the court prior to the court's grant of the motion; and (3) the court prevented her from filing deposition transcripts just prior to argument on the day of the hearing. Because the trial court failed to give the parties written notice of the summary judgment hearing, we reverse.

A motion for summary judgment is a vehicle for disposing of a controversy without the necessity of a trial. It is, as the description shows, a summary disposition of the issues in order to efficiently resolve litigation. Nevertheless, due process requires that the respondent not be surprised; rather, that he be given reasonable opportunity to refute the movant's showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact.¹

“It is error to grant a motion for summary judgment without affording the opposite side the time provided [by law] or without giving notice or the opportunity to be heard.” ² Oral notice of a motion for summary judgment hearing is insufficient under OCGA § 9–11–6(d).³

OCGA § 9–11–6(d) pertinently provides that “[a] written motion, other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof shall be served not later than five days before the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by this chapter or by order of the court.” “Service of notice pursuant to OCGA § 9–11–6(d) is controlled...