Jr. Mills Const. v. Trichinotis
Decision Date | 27 September 1996 |
Docket Number | No. A96A2150,A96A2150 |
Citation | 223 Ga.App. 19,477 S.E.2d 141 |
Parties | JR. MILLS CONSTRUCTION v. TRICHINOTIS. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Diane M. Zimmerman, Warner Robins, for Appellant.
Sonya C. Popken, for Appellee.
Appellant Jr. Mills Construction filed suit in March 1995 against appellee John Trichinotis in the Magistrate Court of Houston County. Appellant claimed that appellee owed him $1,745.78 toward payment for an additional bedroom he was building onto appellee's home. Appellee counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that appellant had not completed the construction properly and listing specific examples of poor workmanship and related damages. The magistrate dismissed appellant's suit and found in favor of appellee on the counterclaim, awarding him $1,000 in damages, plus interest.
Appellant appealed to the State Court of Houston County; a mediation conference was held on January 25, 1996. However, prior to the conference, appellee sent a letter to appellant on January 15, 1996, listing additional damages that were caused by appellant's poor construction and offering a settlement in the amount of $4,500. The settlement was declined, and, at the bench trial on February 29, 1996, appellee attempted to introduce evidence of the additional damages; appellant objected. At the judge's request, the parties submitted briefs on the admissibility of the new evidence, and the state court determined that, because the trial was de novo, the evidence of additional damages was admissible. The state court then found for appellee on appellant's complaint and awarded appellee damages in the amount of $1,997 on the counterclaim.
In the only enumeration of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing appellee to present evidence of new damages, because appellee did not formally amend his pleadings prior to trial or at trial to incorporate the new claims. However, the evidence relating to additional damages was properly admitted under either of two theories, as outlined below, as long as the ultimate claim for damages does not exceed the jurisdictional limitations of the magistrate court.
Following appellant's appeal to the state court, but prior to the bench trial, appellee sent a demand letter to appellant regarding additional damages that had been discovered since the original counterclaim was filed. Therefore, under the liberal notice pleading provisions of the Civil Practice Act, OCGA §§ 9-11-8, 9-11-9(g), appellant had notice that appellee planned to present evidence of additional damages related to the faulty construction that was the focus of the counterclaim. See DeKalb County v. Ga. Paperstock Co., 226 Ga. 369, 174 S.E.2d 884 (1970). The appellant, therefore, had 45 days to prepare a defense to the new claims and was not prejudiced by the admission of such evidence.
Further, OCGA § 9-11-15(b) states that (Emphasis supplied.) See also Gresham v. White Repair &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fulton Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Nat. Biscuit
...was authorized to enter its valuation determination and judgment in the amount so proven. See, e.g., Jr. Mills Constr. v. Trichinotis, 223 Ga.App. 19, 19-21, 477 S.E.2d 141 (1996) (ruling that when a claim is appealed to a state or superior court for a de novo investigation, "[e]ither party......
-
Giles v. Vastakis, A03A1819.
...and superior courts, on de novo appeals, have only the jurisdiction possessed by the magistrate court." Jr. Mills Constr. v. Trichinotis, 223 Ga.App. 19, 21, 477 S.E.2d 141 (1996); Goodman v. Little, 213 Ga. 178, 179, 97 S.E.2d 567 (1957); Knowles v. Knowles, 125 Ga.App. 642, 645(1), 188 S.......
- State v. Kampplain, A96A1664
-
Simmons v. Pilkenton, A97A2510
...so because, upon such review, the superior court possessed the same jurisdiction as the magistrate court. Jr. Mills Constr. v. Trichinotis, 223 Ga.App. 19, 21, 477 S.E.2d 141 (1996). Accordingly, we find no merit to defendant's first enumeration of 2. There is merit to defendant's second an......
-
1 Small Claim Cases
...though the evidence may authorize more damages (whether same true for liquidated claims unclear). [191 Ga.App. 196, 381 SE2d 142 (1989); 223 Ga.App. 19, 447 SE2d 141 (1996)]. On appeal, jurisdiction would now have no monetary limit [OCGA 5-330]. On the other hand, the court may instead tran......
-
1 Small Claim Cases
...though the evidence may authorize more damages (whether same true for liquidated claims unclear). [191 Ga.App. 196, 381 SE2d 142 (1989); 223 Ga.App. 19, 447 SE2d 141 (1996)]. On appeal, jurisdiction would now have no monetary limit [OCGA 5-330]. On the other hand, the court may instead tran......
-
1 Small Claim Cases
...though the evidence may authorize more damages (whether same true for liquidated claims unclear). [191 Ga.App. 196, 381 SE2d 142 (1989); 223 Ga.App. 19, 447 SE2d 141 (1996)]. On appeal, jurisdiction would now have no monetary limit [OCGA 5-330]. On the other hand, the court may instead tran......
-
1 Small Claim Cases
...though the evidence may authorize more damages (whether same true for liquidated claims unclear). [191 Ga.App. 196, 381 SE2d 142 (1989); 223 Ga.App. 19, 447 SE2d 141 (1996)]. On appeal, jurisdiction would now have no monetary limit [OCGA 5-330]. On the other hand, the court may instead tran......