Grand Union Co. v. Edwards

Decision Date30 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. A95A0869,A95A0869
Citation217 Ga.App. 154,456 S.E.2d 736
PartiesGRAND UNION COMPANY v. EDWARDS.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Sullivan, Hall, Booth & Smith, Alexander H. Booth, Jeffrey T. Wise, Karl M. Braun, Atlanta, for appellant.

Scott F. Randolph, Atlanta, for appellee.

BLACKBURN, Judge.

Appellee/plaintiff, Diane Edwards, commenced this action against Grand Union Company f/k/a Big Star (Grand Union), to recover damages on the grounds that Grand Union had slandered her and wrongly and maliciously summoned certain arrest warrants against her alleging she had written and failed to honor four checks, and subjected her to severe emotional distress. The trial court denied Grand Union's motion for summary judgment and this interlocutory appeal followed.

The record shows that four checks, totaling $700, were cashed at a Grand Union store. The checks, drawn upon a Bank South account in Edwards' name and payable to her brother, Douglas Daniel, were returned to the store as written upon an account which Edwards had closed eight years earlier. In this regard, Edwards deposed that she had hidden the checks in a closet, accused her brother of stealing them, forging them, and negotiating them through a cashier in the store with whom he was friendly.

Grand Union twice sent Edwards notice by certified mail. The first such notice was returned to Grand Union unopened as non-deliverable. The second notice reached Edwards at a corrected address. Receiving no response in the ten days required by OCGA § 16-9-20, Grand Union caused an arrest warrant to be issued for Edwards' arrest. After its issuance, the manager of the store at which the checks had been cashed received a telephone call from James Hall, a man who identified himself as Edwards' former common-law husband. As Edwards listened in on another telephone while saying nothing, Hall explained that Edwards could not have issued the checks in question, as they had been stolen and forged. Edwards was later arrested; however, Grand Union voluntarily dropped the charges against Edwards at the preliminary hearing in light of Hall's explanation.

1. Grand Union argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment in that it was entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability under OCGA § 16-9-20 for giving notice of its holding a worthless check in a manner substantially in compliance with the form provided by subparagraph (a)(2)(B) thereof.

OCGA § 16-9-20(h)(1) pertinently provides that "[a]ny party holding a worthless instrument and giving notice in substantially similar form to that provided in subparagraph (a)(2)(B) of this Code section shall be immune from civil liability for the giving of such notice and for proceeding as required under the forms of such notice." (Emphasis supplied.)

Initially, we note that Grand Union went beyond what was statutorily required in the instant circumstances because OCGA § 16-9-20(h)(1) dispenses with any notice requirement where a bad check is written on a closed account. In an abundance of caution, Grand Union nonetheless noticed Edwards that it held specific checks drawn upon her account; that the checks had been returned as worthless; that Georgia law allowed her ten days from receipt of notice to tender payment thereon; and that failure to do so would authorize it to submit the checks and all other available information to a magistrate, district attorney, or solicitor for issuance of a criminal warrant or citation.

Only insofar as the notice did not advise Edwards that the failure to pay the specified amount within ten days would result in a presumption that the checks were presented for payment with the intent to defraud, did the notice given Edwards differ at all from that notice set out at subparagraph (a)(2)(B). We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Nicholl v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1999
    ...instrument [.] (Emphasis supplied.) See generally Tallman v. Hinton, 220 Ga.App. 23, 467 S.E.2d 596 (1996); Grand Union Co. v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 S.E.2d 736 (1995). Thus, the General Assembly provided immunity only against suit brought by the person who made, drew, uttered, execu......
  • Joseph v. Home Depot, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 2000
    ...and not to persons who were the victims of "`financial identity fraud.'" Id. at 38(2), 517 S.E.2d 561. But see Grand Union v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 S.E.2d 736 (1995) (immunity applied where exculpatory information was provided to the defendant after the arrest warrant 2. Joseph clai......
  • Jenkins v. Blue Moon Cycle, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2006
    ...case, Jenkins not only did not sign the check, his name was not even imprinted on it, unlike the plaintiffs in Grand Union Co. v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 S.E.2d 736 (1995), or Blankenship v. Home Depot, 182 Ga.App. 358, 359, 356 S.E.2d 61 (1987). Accordingly, the defendants in this ca......
  • Wimpey v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 1995
6 books & journal articles
  • 17 Bad Check Prosecutions
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2017 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...other hand, a sufficient letter offers the protection of civil immunity even when it is not required to be sent [Grand Union v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 SE2d 736 (1995)]. The statutory letter also demands payment of the "applicable service charge;" the maximum service charge allowed by......
  • 17 Bad Check Prosecutions
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2016 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...other hand, a sufficient letter offers the protection of civil immunity even when it is not required to be sent [Grand Union v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 SE2d 736 (1995)]. The statutory letter also demands payment of the "applicable service charge;" the maximum service charge allowed by......
  • 17 Bad Check Prosecutions
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2015 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...other hand, a sufficient letter offers the protection of civil immunity even when it is not required to be sent [Grand Union v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 SE2d 736 (1995)]. The statutory letter also demands payment of the "applicable service charge;" the maximum service charge allowed by......
  • 17 Deposit Account Fraud Prosecutions
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2022 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...other hand, a sufficient letter offers the protection of civil immunity even when it is not required to be sent [Grand Union v. Edwards, 217 Ga.App. 154, 456 SE2d 736 (1995)]. The statutory letter also demands payment of the "applicable service charge;" the maximum service charge allowed by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT