Jay Gleason Advertising Service, Inc. v. Gleason, A89A1566
| Decision Date | 08 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A1566,A89A1566 |
| Citation | 193 Ga.App. 445,388 S.E.2d 43 |
| Parties | JAY GLEASON ADVERTISING SERVICE, INC. v. GLEASON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Daniel W. Latimore, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Joseph Gardner III, for appellee.
Plaintiff Thomas W. Gleason sued defendant Jay Gleason Advertising Service, Inc., on a promissory note for $10,500. Defendant answered asserting the defenses of fraud and failure of consideration. After the deposition of the sole shareholder of defendant corporation was taken and defendant had responded to certain discovery requests, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant did not respond to the motion by affidavit or by brief of law. The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff and defendant appeals.
1. Defendant argues summary judgment was improper because the record does not reflect all the facts necessary in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to judgment. "When signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense." OCGA § 11-3-307(2). The evidence in the record shows the promissory note was duly executed and that defendant is in default. Thus, a prima facie right to judgment by plaintiff is established and the burden is on the defendant to establish an affirmative defense to plaintiff's claim. See Citizens Bank v. Wix, 154 Ga.App. 249, 267 S.E.2d 856 (1980).
2. Defendant also argues the evidence of record creates genuine issues of material fact. We disagree. We have examined the transcript of the deposition of defendant's sole shareholder and defendant's written responses to discovery requests and conclude that no genuine issue was raised in defense to plaintiff's claim on the promissory note. Generalized arguments amounting to mere conclusions have no probative value to pierce the facts presented by the movant for summary judgment. Booker v. Eddins, 183 Ga.App. 449, 359 S.E.2d 211 (1987).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hovendick v. Presidential Financial Corp.
...thereby creating a jury issue. Morey v. Brown Milling Co., 220 Ga.App. 256, 258, 469 S.E.2d 387 (1996); Jay Gleason Advertising Svc. v. Gleason, 193 Ga.App. 445, 388 S.E.2d 43 (1989) (decided under former Code section 11-3-307). Therefore, because appellants have introduced no evidence show......
-
Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. Turner Const. Co.
...have no probative value to pierce the facts presented by the movant for summary judgment. [Cit.]" Jay Gleason Advertising Svc. v. Gleason, 193 Ga.App. 445(2), 388 S.E.2d 43 (1989). "[W]here a plaintiff files '... a motion for summary judgment, and evidence is offered on the issue, if the pl......
-
FRT 2011-1 Trust v. Ehealthscreen, LLC
...that it was executed." Gentile v. Bower, 477 S.E.2d 130, 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Jay Gleason Advert. Serv., Inc. v. Gleason, 388 S.E.2d 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)). Where a claimant succeeds in demonstrating that a note is prima facie valid, the burden shifts to the obligor to establish......
-
FRT 2011-1 Trust v. Ehealthscreen, LLC
...that it was executed." Gentile v. Bower, 477 S.E.2d 130, 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Jay Gleason Advert. Serv., Inc. v. Gleason, 388 S.E.2d 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)). Where a claimant succeeds in demonstrating that a note is prima facie valid, the burden shifts to the obligor to establish......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - Bruce P. Brown, Jonathan R. Friedman, Michael R. Boorman, and Benjamin J. Vinson
...622 S.E.2d at 20. 69. Id. at 789, 622 S.E.2d at 20. 70. Id. at 788-89, 622 S.E.2d at 20 (quoting Jay Gleason Adver. Serv. v. Gleason, 193 Ga. App. 445, 445, 388 S.E.2d 43, 44 (1989)). 71. 273 Ga. App. 835, 616 S.E.2d 171 (2005). 72. Id. at 836, 616 S.E.2d at 172. 73. Id. at 838, 616 S.E.2d ......