Lightsey v. Nalley Equipment Leasing, Ltd., A93A0278
| Decision Date | 16 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A0278,A93A0278 |
| Citation | 209 Ga.App. 73,432 S.E.2d 673 |
| Parties | LIGHTSEY v. NALLEY EQUIPMENT LEASING, LTD. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Duffy & Feemster, Dwight T. Feemster, Ronald K. Thompson, Savannah, for appellant.
Hines & Head, Thomas G. Whatley, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
In this action for breach of a lease guaranty, appellant appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and granting appellee's motion for summary judgment.
South Carolina Express, Inc. ("SCE"), a now defunct corporation, leased six trucks from appellee. Appellant, president and sole shareholder of SCE, traveled to appellee's offices in DeKalb County, Georgia to execute the lease agreement as well as a lease guaranty in which he personally guaranteed SCE's obligation. The lease guaranty stated: The lease itself contained a similar provision consenting to jurisdiction in Fulton or DeKalb County, Georgia, in addition to a disclaimer of all warranties printed in large letters. Appellant also signed a document entitled "Equipment Acceptance Acknowledgement," in which he stated that the trucks had been delivered in good condition and were unconditionally accepted. When SCE and appellant defaulted, appellee repossessed the trucks, sold them, and sued SCE and appellant in the Superior Court of DeKalb County for the deficiency between the amount owed on the lease agreement and the proceeds of the sale. Appellant asserted defenses based on lack of personal jurisdiction and failure of consideration. The trial court rejected these defenses and granted summary judgment for appellee. This appeal followed.
1. Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because he is a resident of South Carolina and did not transact any business in Georgia. See OCGA § 9-10-91(1). This argument is without merit. Although the extent to which the agreements were negotiated in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perton v. Motel Properties, Inc.
...not only in warranty but also in tort. Benford v. RDL, Inc., 223 Ga.App. 800, 479 S.E.2d 110 (1996); Lightsey v. Nalley Equip. Leasing, 209 Ga.App. 73, 432 S.E.2d 673 (1993); Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Shields, 199 Ga.App. 89, 403 S.E.2d 891 (1991); Petroziello v. U.S. Leasing Corp., etc......
-
Apparel Resources Intern., Ltd. v. Amersig Southeast, Inc.
...jurisdiction over them. In finding it had jurisdiction over Apparel Resources, the trial court relied on Lightsey v. Nalley Equip. Leasing, Ltd., 209 Ga.App. 73, 432 S.E.2d 673 (1993), where this court held that "contractual clauses providing advance consent to the jurisdiction of a court a......
-
Carbo v. Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp.
...when provision provided suit may be brought in New York in addition to any other proper forum); Lightsey v. Nalley Equip. &c., 209 Ga.App. 73, 74(1), 432 S.E.2d 673 (1993) (guarantor consented to jurisdiction in certain Georgia courts). Cf. Iero v. Mohawk Finishing Products, 243 Ga.App. 670......
-
Floyd v. Gore
...S.E.2d 77 (1997); see generally Ashworth v. Busby, 272 Ga. 228, 229, 526 S.E.2d 570 (2000). 20. Compare Lightsey v. Nalley Equip. Leasing, 209 Ga.App. 73, 74(1), 432 S.E.2d 673 (1993). ...
-
Personal Jurisdiction in Georgia Over Claims Arising from Business Conducted Over the Internet
...399-9500 or shardy@fh2.com. Endnotes 1. O.C.G.A. 9-10-90, et seq. (2005). 2. Id. 9-10-91(1)-(3). 3. Lightsey v. Nalley Equip. Leasing, 209 Ga. App. 73, 74, 432 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1993) (execution in Georgia constitutes transacting business); Genesis Research Inst. v. Roxbury Press, 247 Ga. Ap......