Mutual Ins. Co. of New York v. Dublin Pub, Inc., 77901
| Decision Date | 30 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 77901,77901 |
| Citation | 378 S.E.2d 497,190 Ga.App. 94 |
| Parties | MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. DUBLIN PUB, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alston & Bird, Bernard Taylor, Atlanta, for appellant.
Michael J. Reily, Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellant, Mutual Insurance Company of New York, filed a dispossessory action against the appellee, Dublin Pub, Inc., which the trial court dismissed based on a finding that the appellant had consented to allow the appellee to remain on the premises pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement. This appeal followed.
The appellee leased the premises in question from Green's Corner Associates in 1984, pursuant to a ten-year lease agreement. The appellant subsequently became the assignee of the lease and, in February of 1987, brought the present action against the appellee seeking possession of the premises as well as past-due rent in the principal amount of $16,473.63. During the pendency of the action, counsel for both parties entered into settlement discussions which led to an agreement that the amount of past-due rent owed by the appellee, including interest, was $25,947.24. What transpired thereafter is the subject of the present dispute. The appellee's counsel maintained that the agreed upon sum was tendered by him and accepted by the appellant's counsel at a meeting held on April 1, 1987, with the understanding that the written settlement agreement which had been prepared by the appellant's counsel would thereafter be executed by the parties, and the dispossessory proceeding would be dismissed. The agreement was later executed by the appellee and mailed to the appellant's counsel for the appellant's signature. Believing that the matter had been settled, the appellee thereupon resumed making lease payments to the appellant. However, some 12 months later, counsel for the appellee received notice that the dispossessory action had not been dismissed and had been placed on a trial calendar. He thereupon filed a "Motion to Require Compliance With Settlement Agreement," requesting the dismissal of the action.
Counsel for the appellant conceded that the appellee's counsel had tendered to him the sum of $25,947.24 and that he in turn had submitted to the appellee's counsel a proposed settlement agreement. However, he maintained that at the time this transaction occurred he advised the appellee's counsel that his client had neither reviewed the document nor agreed to its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AQUA SUN INVESTMENTS, INC. v. Kendrick
...own any real estate in Florida which could have subjected her to personal jurisdiction in that state. See Mut. Ins. Co. &c. v. Dublin Pub, 190 Ga.App. 94, 95, 378 S.E.2d 497 (1989) (factual findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous). Because Aqua Sun did not prove the applicab......
-
CFUS PROPERTIES, INC. v. Thornton
...court's findings in a non-jury trial shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. OCGA § 9-11-52(a); Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Dublin Pub., 190 Ga.App. 94, 95, 378 S.E.2d 497 (1989). The "clearly erroneous" test is the "any evidence" rule. If there is any evidence to support the findings......
-
Northen v. FROLICK & ASSOCIATES
...giving weight to Northen's admitted perjury or to the inconsistencies in Northen's testimony. See Mutual Ins. Co. of New York v. Dublin Pub., 190 Ga.App. 94, 95, 378 S.E.2d 497 (1989) (findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous). However, Northen's contradictory testimo......
-
Hicks v. Evans
...transacted in South Carolina did not give rise to the underlying cause of action for malpractice. See Mut. Ins. Co. of New York v. Dublin Pub, 190 Ga.App. 94, 95, 378 S.E.2d 497 (1989) (factual findings will not be set aside unless clearly 2. Hicks contends that the trial court erred in fin......