Morgan v. Wachovia Bank, NA
Decision Date | 11 March 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A99A0071.,A99A0071. |
Citation | 514 S.E.2d 239,237 Ga. App. 257 |
Parties | MORGAN v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gibson, Deal & Fletcher, William A. Fletcher, Jr., Norcross, for appellant.
Mann, Bracken, Layng & Knezo, M. Douglas Mann, Stephen J. Knezo, Atlanta, for appellee.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
Wachovia Bank, N.A. ("Wachovia") instituted an action for debt collection against Raymond D. Morgan for the past due balance under a motor vehicle installment sales contract. Morgan appeals the judgment entered on the pleadings.
In its single-page unverified complaint, Wachovia asserted that Morgan "is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $13,592.88, plus interest of $1,118.99, plus interest on said principal at the rate of 8.450% per annum from July 10, 1997, plus attorney's fees on a contract, copy of which is attached, marked Exhibit `A,' and made a part of this petition." Morgan filed the following handwritten pro se response: At the bottom of his response was typed: "WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT DEMANDS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH ALL COST CAST TO PLAINTIFF." Morgan did not subsequently timely file an amended answer or any responsive pleading.
About two months later, Wachovia sought judgment on the pleadings without a hearing pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12(c). With no further response from Morgan occurring during the interim, the trial court entered judgment in the specific amounts that Wachovia had sought. The judgment entered on February 23, 1998, ordered Morgan to pay $13,592.88 principal, $1,118.99 interest, $1,381.44 for attorney fees and $85 in court costs. On March 2, 1998, Morgan filed a response to Wachovia's motion for judgment on the pleadings or alternatively a motion to set aside the judgment. Held:
1. Morgan contends that the trial court erred by finding that his answer was not legally sufficient.
Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court considered Morgan's answer as defective when it granted judgment on the pleadings. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Morgan's answer did not deny any of the allegations or assert any defense. Averments in a pleading to which a response is required, as here, are admitted when not denied. Termplan, Inc. v. Joseph, 151 Ga. App. 689, 690, 261 S.E.2d 433 (1979). All defendants, including pro se defendants, are charged with the duty of pleading affirmative defenses. OCGA § 9-11-8(c). Affirmative defenses not raised by answer, or amendment or by timely motion are waived. Rimes Tractor &c. v. Agricredit Acceptance Corp., 216 Ga.App. 249, 250-251, 454 S.E.2d 564 (1995); Security Ins. Co. &c. v. Gill, 141 Ga.App. 324, 326, 233 S.E.2d 278 (1977) ( ).
2. Morgan asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the judgment because Wachovia failed to prove the damages were, in fact, liquidated damages.
It is undisputed that the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings not default judgment. For purposes of an OCGA § 9-11-12(c) motion, "all well-pleaded material allegations of the opposing party's pleading are to be taken as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false." Pressley v. Maxwell, 242 Ga. 360, 249 S.E.2d 49 (1978). Here, as noted above, Morgan's answer did not appear to deny any material allegation. Compare Jones v. Kim, 189 Ga.App. 5, 6(2), 374 S.E.2d 820 (1988).
The contract attached to Wachovia's complaint required Morgan to make 65 monthly payments of $399.80 beginning June 23, 1996, and obligated Morgan, in the event of default, to pay reasonable attorney fees and the expenses of litigation as well as the unpaid balance of the contract. However, Wachovia offered no testimony or any documentation explaining its method of calculating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Wood, Inc.
...defenses not raised by answer, or amendment, or by timely motion are waived." (Citations omitted.) Morgan v. Wachovia Bank, 237 Ga.App. 257, 257–258(1), 514 S.E.2d 239 (1999).1 Additionally, an insurer is not required to promptly rescind a policy and return the premium before seeking a decl......
- Brown v. State
-
Myers v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
...(2010) ).9 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Alexander, 305 Ga.App. at 643, 700 S.E.2d 640 (quoting Morgan v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 237 Ga.App. 257, 258(2), 514 S.E.2d 239 (1999) ...
-
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Albert, A00A2039.
...reversed. ANDREWS, P.J., and ELLINGTON, J., concur. 1. OCGA § 9-11-8(b). 2. See id. 3. OCGA § 9-11-8(d); Morgan v. Wachovia Bank, 237 Ga.App. 257(1), 514 S.E.2d 239 (1999). 4. See id. 5. See id.; Howard v. Bank South, 209 Ga.App. 407, 409(1), 433 S.E.2d 625 (1993) (ruling that judgment on t......
-
Commercial Law - Robert A. Weber, Jr.
...as it is practically a boilerplate provision in most sophisticated agreements. 106. 235 Ga. App. 333, 508 S.E.2d 750 (1998). 107. 237 Ga. App. 257, 514 s.e.2d 239 (1999). 108. Id. at 258, 514 s.e.2d at 241. 109. Id. Plaintiff did not seek default judgment, but rather judgment on the pleadin......