Manzanares v. City of Brookhaven
Decision Date | 15 October 2019 |
Docket Number | A19A1276 |
Citation | 834 S.E.2d 358,352 Ga.App. 293 |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | MANZANARES v. CITY OF BROOKHAVEN. |
Craig T. Jones ; Wood & Craig, J. Blair Craig II ; Castro Law, Daniel F. Castro, for appellant. Lokey Mobley & Doyle, G. Melton Mobley, for appellee.
Bernardina Manzanares appeals from the trial court's order dismissing her complaint against the City of Brookhaven based upon her failure to comply with the ante litem notice requirement in OCGA § 36-33-5. She contends: (1) that the first notice she provided to the City satisfied the statutory requirements, and (2) that her untimely amended notice should relate back to the date of her first timely notice. For the reasons explained below, we disagree and affirm.
On November 2, 2017, Manzanares filed a complaint against the City seeking to recover damages for her injuries in the accident; she voluntarily dismissed this complaint without prejudice on December 18, 2017. The following day and over two years after the accident, Manzanares sent a second ante litem notice letter to the City "in order to revise the amount of Plaintiff's claim based on her current medical status." The second notice stated "that the value of her claim is the City's full insurance policy limits of $1 million." Her renewal complaint, filed on December 27, 2017, asserts the second notice was an "amendment" and "relates back to the date of the original notice."
The City of Brookhaven filed a motion to dismiss the renewal complaint based upon Manzanares’ failure to comply with the ante litem notice statute, OCGA § 36-33-5. The trial court granted the motion based upon two conclusions: (1) the original notice was deficient for failing to state the specific amount of monetary damages being sought from the City; and (2) Manzanares could not cure this deficiency by voluntarily dismissing her first complaint, sending a second, more specific ante litem notice more than six months after the accident, and then filing a renewal complaint.
1. Manzanares contends that her first ante litem notice satisfied the requirements of OCGA § 36-33-5 based upon the concept of substantial compliance. We disagree.
This Code section provides:
Subsection (e) of this Code section was added by the General Assembly in 2014, with no changes made to subsection (b). Ga. L. 2014, p. 125, § 1. Manzanares argues that we should read the requirement in subsection (e) for a "specific amount of monetary damages" together with the statement in subsection (b) that the "extent of the injury" be stated "as nearly as practicable" to conclude that the first notice she provided substantially complied with the statute.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Owens v. City of Greenville , 290 Ga. 557, 561-562 (4), 722 S.E.2d 755 (2012).
In Harrell , supra, 346 Ga. App. 635, 816 S.E.2d 738,1 this Court addressed, for the first time, subsection (e)’s requirement that a notice state the "specific amount of monetary damages being sought." We concluded that, "[e]ven if only substantial compliance is required for subsection (e), ... a notice does not substantially comply with subsection (e) unless a specific amount is given that would constitute an offer that could be accepted by the municipality." Id. at 637-638 (1), 816 S.E.2d 738. We reasoned that "subsection (e) directly implies" that the amount of the monetary damages being sought constitutes an offer that can be accepted by the municipality, "thereby creating a binding settlement." Id. Because the notice provided by the plaintiff in Harrell , "did not include any specific amount of monetary damages being sought from [the city] that could constitute an offer of compromise," we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of her suit. Id. at 638 (1), 816 S.E.2d 738. See also Wright v. City of Greensboro , 350 Ga. App. 685, 692 (1) (c), 830 S.E.2d 228 (2019) ( ).
(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) 350 Ga. App. at 689-690 (1), 830 S.E.2d 228.
While the ante litem notice at issue here states a number, it fails to state a specific amount of monetary damages sought . Instead, it indicates that the value of the claim is some unknown number above $250,000 and makes no statement with regard to the amount being sought . An unknown number above $250,000 is too indefinite to constitute a binding offer of settlement. Accordingly, based upon the standard articulated by this Court in Harrell , we affirm the trial court's conclusion that Manzanares’ first ante litem notice did not comply with OCGA § 36-33-5 (e).
2. Manzanares argues in the alternative that because she amended her original notice before the City acted upon it, the amended notice relates back to the date of her original notice. In support of this argument, she relies upon subsections (c) and (d) of OCGA § 36-33-5, which provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brandenburg v. City of Vidalia
...to the plaintiff with any doubts resolved in the plaintiff's favor.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Manzanares v. City of Brookhaven , 352 Ga. App. 293, 834 S.E.2d 358 (2019) ; see also Intercontinental Svcs. of Delaware v. Kent , 343 Ga. App. 567, 568, 807 S.E.2d 485 (2017) ("where, as ......
-
Brandenburg v. City of Vidalia
...a specific amount is given that would constitute an offer that could be accepted by the municipality." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 296 see also OCGA § 36-33-5 (e) ("The amount of monetary damages set forth in [the ante litem notice] shall constitute an offer of compromise.").......
-
City of Lafayette v. Chandler
...S.E.2d 385.10 See Pickens v. City of Waco , 352 Ga. App. 37, 41 (1), 833 S.E.2d 713 (2019).11 See Manzanares v. City of Brookhaven , 352 Ga. App. 293, 294-297 (1), 834 S.E.2d 358 (2019) ; Pickens , 352 Ga. App. at 41-42 (1), 833 S.E.2d 713 ; Wright v. City of Greensboro , 350 Ga. App. 685, ......
-
City of Norcross v. Johnson
...to the plaintiff with any doubts resolved in the plaintiff's favor.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Manzanares v. City of Brookhaven , 352 Ga. App. 293, 834 S.E.2d 358 (2019). So viewed, the scant record reveals that Johnson sustained injuries when a City police officer turned left from ......