Hughes v. Montgomery Contracting Co., Inc., 77768
Decision Date | 10 January 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 77768,77768 |
Citation | 377 S.E.2d 723,189 Ga.App. 814 |
Parties | HUGHES v. MONTGOMERY CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ben Swain McElmurray, Jr., Augusta, for appellant.
Fulcher, Hagler, Reed, Obenshain, Hanks & Harper, and John I. Harper, Augusta, for appellee.
The appellant filed suit against the appellee on February 3, 1988, to recover damages arising from an automobile collision which was alleged to have occurred on June 18, 1985. The complaint alleged that the statute of limitation for filing the action had been tolled by OCGA § 9-3-90 because the appellant had been incarcerated for a period of time following the accident. The appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on April 13, 1988, pointing out that by virtue of a 1984 amendment to OCGA § 9-3-90, imprisonment no longer operates to toll the limitation period for filing a lawsuit. See Ga.L.1984, p. 580 § 1.
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was initially set for May 13, 1988, but was rescheduled for May 26 at the appellant's request. When the appellant did not appear at the rescheduled hearing, the trial court announced that the motion for summary judgment would be granted and asked the appellee to draw an order. On June 2, 1988, the appellee submitted such an order, but on that same day the appellant amended his complaint to allege that the statute of limitation had been tolled pursuant to OCGA § 9-3-90(a) ( ), due to mental disability on his part. An order granting the motion for summary judgment was ultimately entered on July 22, 1988, following a hearing held on June 27, 1988. The appellant contends on appeal that the appellee failed to pierce the allegations of his amended complaint with regard to the tolling of the limitation period and that the grant of summary judgment was consequently improper. The appellee contends that the grant of the motion was authorized based on the appellant's failure to file a timely response to it, in accordance with Rule 6.2 of the Uniform Rules of the Superior Court. Held:
West v. Nodvin, 183 Ga.App. 645, 646(1), 359 S.E.2d 729 (1987). Accord Spikes v. Citizens State Bank, 179 Ga.App. 479(1), 347 S.E.2d 310 (1986). However, McGivern v. First Capital Income...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milk v. Total Pay and Hr Solutions, Inc.
...does not automatically follow that the motion should be granted." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hughes v. Montgomery Contracting Co., 189 Ga.App. 814, 815, 377 S.E.2d 723 (1989). The burden remains "on the movant to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that [it] i......
-
Sherman v. Thomas-Lane Am. Legion Post 597
...Ga. 834, 835, 573 S.E.2d 369 (2002).Even so, there is no such thing as a default summary judgment. Hughes v. Montgomery Contracting Co., Inc., 189 Ga.App. 814, 815, 377 S.E.2d 723 (1989). It is clear that the trial court did not render such. By failing to respond timely, as the trial court ......
-
Hudson v. Windholz
...McGivern v. First Capital Income Properties Ltd., 188 Ga.App. 716, 717(1), 373 S.E.2d 817 (1988). See also Hughes v. Montgomery Contracting Co., 189 ga.app. 814, 377 S.E.2d 723 (1989). 2. Defendant also contends this appeal must be dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a Se......
-
Mitchell v. Hamilton, A97A1983
...argument. We disagree, as Mitchell did raise the issue in her oral argument before the trial court. See Hughes v. Montgomery Contracting Co., 189 Ga.App. 814, 815, 377 S.E.2d 723 (1989). Moreover, Hamilton's attorney acknowledged at the motion hearing that the child's claim for pain and suf......