Mahone v. Sherman

• Decision Date: 14 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 76205,76205
• Citation: 370 S.E.2d 806,187 Ga.App. 540
• Parties: MAHONE v. SHERMAN et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 806

370 S.E.2d 806

187 Ga.App. 540

MAHONE v. SHERMAN et al.

No. 76205.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 14, 1988.

Herald J.A. Alexander, Atlanta, for appellant.

Jeffrey F. Leasendale, Richard G. Greer, Atlanta, for appellees.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Johnnie Mahone (plaintiff) brought an action against defendants Sherman and Guffie seeking damages which allegedly arose after defendant Guffie "crashed" a vehicle, owned by defendant Sherman, into plaintiff Mahone's building. Defendant Guffie did not respond to the complaint and a default judgment was subsequently entered against her. Defendant Sherman denied the material allegations of the complaint and later filed a motion for summary judgment.

The undisputed facts show that Sherman sold a "1978 Plymouth Sapporo automobile" to Guffie in exchange for $1,000. Sherman allowed Guffie to test drive the automobile overnight and on April 16, 1985, defendant Guffie accepted the automobile, gave defendant Sherman a down payment and promised to pay the remaining balance in installments. At that time, Sherman signed the transfer portion of the title certificate over to her but retained possession of the automobile's title until she paid the entire purchase price. Sherman had maintained a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance on the vehicle before the sale and, according to his deposition testimony, he maintained the insurance policy after the sale to protect himself from liability in the event Guffie was involved in a collision.

On June 9, 1985, Guffie lost control of the Plymouth automobile she had purchased from Sherman and collided into a building owned by plaintiff. Shortly after the collision, Guffie paid Sherman the remaining balance for the vehicle and Sherman gave her the automobile's certificate of title.

The trial court granted defendant Sherman's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed. Held:

1. The contention that this appeal should be dismissed because plaintiff entered a voluntary dismissal of the action sub judice after judgment was entered and after plaintiff filed his notice of appeal is without merit. " 'It has been held that the plaintiff's right to dismiss can not be exercised after a verdict or a finding by the judge which is equivalent thereto has been reached ... Merchants' Bank v. Rawls, 7 Ga. 191; Peeples v. Root, 48 Ga. 592; Cherry v. Building & Loan Assn., 55 Ga. 19; Meador v. Bank, 56 Ga. 605(4); Brunswick Grocery Co. v. Railroad Co., 106 Ga. 272 (32 SE 92). The principle at the foundation of these decisions is that after a party has taken the chances of litigation and knows what is the actual result reached in the suit by the tribunal which is to pass upon it, he can not, by exercising his right of voluntary dismissal, deprive the opposite party of the victory thus gained.' Peoples Bank of Talbotton v. Exchange Bank of Macon, 119 Ga. 366, 368 (46 SE 416)." Cooper v. Rosser, 233 Ga. 388(1), 389, 211 S.E.2d 303. Further, since plaintiff's voluntary dismissal was filed in the trial court after the notice of appeal, it is a nullity and will not be considered on appeal. See Dalton American, etc., Stop v. ADBE Distrib. Co., 146 Ga.App. 8, 11(4), 245 S.E.2d 346.

2. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in finding that defendant Sherman was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the collision and was therefore not responsible for the consequences of defendant Guffie's collision. In this vein, plaintiff argues that a genuine issue of material fact remains with regard to defendant Sherman's ownership of the vehicle and that this disputed fact relates to whether defendant Sherman negligently entrusted his vehicle to defendant Guffie and whether defendant Sherman was liable as a joint tortfeasor for failing to maintain automobile liability insurance on the vehicle as is required by Georgia law.

Assuming, without deciding, that defendant Sherman was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the collision, we find the trial court properly granted defendant Sherman's motion for summary judgment. (See American Mut., etc., Ins. Co. v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 149 Ga.App. 280, 281 (2, 3) 253...