Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Starcher

Decision Date16 March 1979
Docket NumberNo. 57479,57479
Citation149 Ga.App. 402,254 S.E.2d 515
PartiesHOUSING AUTHORITY OF ATLANTA v. STARCHER et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Parks, Jackson & Howell, Lenwood A. Jackson, Atlanta, for appellant.

Stuart M. Neiman, Atlanta, for appellees.

WEBB, Presiding Judge.

The Housing Authority appeals from a jury verdict and judgment against it in the amount of $175,000 for damages to certain apartments occurring during the period it leased them from Starcher and other owners. We affirm.

1. Denial of the Authority's motion for summary judgment is moot and not now subject to review. "After verdict and judgment, it is too late to review a judgment denying a summary judgment for that judgment becomes moot when the court reviews the evidence upon the trial of the case. (Cits.)" Phillips v. Abel, 141 Ga.App. 291(1), 233 S.E.2d 384 (1977); Lanier Petroleum v. Hyde, 144 Ga.App. 441(1), 241 S.E.2d 62 (1978).

2. The Authority complains that testimony regarding the cost of replacing the apartments which were destroyed by its subtenants was irrelevant and improperly admitted. " 'An objection (to evidence) on the sole ground that it is irrelevant is not such an objection as would be reversible error to overrule.' (Cits.)" Associated Distributors v. Strozier, 144 Ga.App. 205(1(b)), 240 S.E.2d 761 (1977).

3. The Authority also objected to testimony of one of the owners as to value on the ground that he did not give the basis for his opinion of the market value of the property. This witness, in addition to being an owner, was qualified as an expert. Thus he was not required to give the facts upon which he based his opinion. Rowe v. City Council of Augusta, 119 Ga.App. 571(1), 168 S.E.2d 209 (1969); Rosenberg v. Mossman, 140 Ga.App. 694, 695(1), 231 S.E.2d 417 (1976).

4. At the end of plaintiffs-appellees' evidence the Authority moved for directed verdict, which was denied. It insists that appellees did not plead diminution in the market value of the property as a special item of damage and therefore could not recover upon that theory, citing Signal Oil etc. Co. v. Conway, 126 Ga.App. 711, 717(2), 191 S.E.2d 624 (1972). Since that case and those cited therein deal with pleading libel they are inapposite. Moreover, the damages asked for in Counts 2 and 4 constituted diminution in value: Count 2 claimed the loss of the present value of improvements which were in such bad condition at the termination of the lease they were demolished; Count Four alleged the cost of putting the premises back into the condition it was in when leased to be in excess of the value of improvements. Pleadings, including any doubts in their interpretation, should be construed in favor of the pleader. Cochran v. McCollum, 233 Ga. 104, 210 S.E.2d 13 (1974); Empire Banking Co. v. Martin, 133 Ga.App. 115, 120, 210 S.E.2d 237 (1974). Since the facts presented at trial supported these claims the trial court did not err in denying the motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bradley v. Godwin
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 1980
    ...210 S.E.2d 237 (1974); Mundy v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 106, 110(6), 232 S.E.2d 621 (1977); Housing Authority v. Starcher, 149 Ga.App. 402, 403(4), 254 S.E.2d 515 (1979); Wallace v. Bleakman, 131 Ga.App. 856, 857(3), 207 S.E.2d 254 We think, then, that under the Civil Practice Act ......
  • Manuel v. Fort Collins Newspapers, Inc.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1981
    ...& Indemnity Co., 372 F.2d 310 (10th Cir. 1967); Henslee v. Kennedy, 262 Ark. 198, 555 S.W.2d 937 (1977); Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Starcher, 149 Ga.App. 402, 254 S.E.2d 515 (1979); Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria v. Kurek, 27 Ill.App.3d 60, 325 N.E.2d 650 (1975); Bell v.......
  • Hines v. Good Housekeeping Shop, 62523
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1982
    ...it is irrelevant is not such an objection as would be reversible error to overrule." (Cits.)' [Cit.]" Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Starcher, 149 Ga.App. 402(2), 254 S.E.2d 515 (1979). 5. It was not error to admit four ledger cards into evidence when appellee's witness testified that they......
  • Georgia Ports Authority v. Mitsubishi Intern. Corp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1980
    ...119 Ga.App. 571(1), 168 S.E.2d 209 (1969); Rosenberg v. Mossman, 140 Ga.App. 694(1), 231 S.E.2d 417 (1976); Housing Auth. v. Starcher, 149 Ga.App. 402(3), 254 S.E.2d 515 (1979). 3. The award of interest cannot stand because of Mitsubishi's failure to comply with Code Ann. § 105-2016, which ......
  • 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