Leach v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 68268
| Decision Date | 06 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68268,68268 |
| Citation | 172 Ga.App. 785,324 S.E.2d 494 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LEACH v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY. |
Alexander J. Repasky, Atlanta, for appellant.
Gregory T. Presmanes, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the dismissal with prejudice of a civil action. The order dismissing the case reads as follows: "The above case having come on regularly for trial on August 15, 1983, after having been published as provided by law, and no appearance having been made, the plaintiff's complaint in the above action is hereby ordered and adjudged, dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41(b) upon motion duly made by counsel of record for the defendant at the call of said case for trial." Held:
Previously, under former Code Ann. § 81A-141(b) (now OCGA § 9-11-41(b), effective November 1, 1982), a dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was discretionary and was subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. Spyropoulos v. John Linard Estate, 243 Ga. 518, 519, 255 S.E.2d 40 (1979).
However, on November 1, 1982, OCGA § 9-11-41(b) became effective and applies to the case sub judice. In pertinent part, that Code section provides that: "For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with this chapter or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him ... The effect of dismissals shall be as follows: (1) A dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits; and (2) Any other dismissal under this subsection and any dismissal not provided for in this Code section, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue or for lack of an indispensable party, does operate as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court in its order for dismissal specifies otherwise." (Emphasis supplied.) Since a dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits, it follows that such a dismissal cannot be with prejudice. See generally Trice v. Howard, 234 Ga. 189, 214 S.E.2d 907 (1975), which applied former Code Ann. § 81A-141(b) applicable at that point in time.
In the case at bar, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice "for want of prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41(b)." On and after November 1, 1982, when OCGA § 9-11-41(b) became effective, a dismissal with prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute is not authorized and the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff's action.
Judgment reversed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
On motion for rehearing Aetna contends that we have overlooked our decision in Lankford v. Karkotsky, 171 Ga.App. 283, (319 S.E.2d 117), and that that decision is inconsistent with our holding in the case sub judice. In the first sentence of the second paragraph in Lankford we state that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallick v. Period Homes, Ltd.
...19. Supra, 273 Ga. at 329, 540 S.E.2d 611. 20. 247 Ga.App. 102, 105(1)(a), 543 S.E.2d 411 (2001). 21. See Leach v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co., 172 Ga.App. 785, 786, 324 S.E.2d 494 (1984) (on motion for rehearing), aff'd, Aetna Cas. &c. Co. v. Leach, 254 Ga. 265, 330 S.E.2d 596 (1985). 22. See Chand......
-
York Rite Bodies of Freemasonry of Savannah v. Board of Equalization, A90A0719
... ... 713(1a), 337 S.E.2d 386 (1985). See Leach v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 172 Ga.App. 785, ... ...
-
Lloyd v. Whitworth
...Peachtree Winfrey Assoc. v. Gwinnett County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 197 Ga.App. 226, 398 S.E.2d 253 (1990); Leach v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 172 Ga.App. 785, 324 S.E.2d 494 (1984), aff'd 254 Ga. 265, 330 S.E.2d 596 Because of our conclusion with respect to this enumeration, there is no need to......
-
Rutledge v. Northbank Liquor Store, Inc.
...a dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits. In Leach v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 172 Ga.App. 785, 324 S.E.2d 494 (1984), we held that since under OCGA § 9-11-41(b) a dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute does not ope......