Northside Bldg. Supply Co. v. Foures
| Decision Date | 19 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1064,A91A1064 |
| Citation | 411 S.E.2d 87,201 Ga.App. 259 |
| Parties | NORTHSIDE BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY v. FOURES et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richardson, Chenggis & Constantinides, Platon P. Constantinides, George G. Chenggis, Atlanta, for appellant.
Frankel, Hardwick, Tanenbaum, Fink & Clark, Martha J. Kuckleburg, Atlanta, for appellees.
This court granted plaintiff's application for interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and vacating its previous grant of summary judgment.
Plaintiff Northside Building Supply Company filed this suit against Joanne S. Foures and Charles M. Foures based upon personal guaranties they allegedly gave as part of an application for credit by Country Hill Properties, Inc. It also filed a complaint against Country Hill Properties, Inc. and obtained a default judgment on the amount it claimed was due on the account. After the application for credit was executed, the Foureses were divorced. Defendant Joanne S. Foures answered the complaint and denied she is bound as a guarantor for Country Hill Properties, Inc. Defendant Charles M. Foures filed no answer, apparently because he has filed for bankruptcy. Thus, the motion for summary judgment was filed only against defendant Joanne S. Foures.
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment because it filed a supporting affidavit of its president in support of its motion; whereas defendant failed to file a counter-affidavit or submit any evidence in support of her contentions, thereby failing to show a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Barlow v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 196 Ga.App. 822, 823, 397 S.E.2d 170 (1990). Weldon v. Del Taco Corp., 194 Ga.App. 174, 390 S.E.2d 87 (1990). When deciding whether the moving party has made a prima facie showing, the court must consider all "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Legacy Communities Grp., Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
...(1997) (accord); Ellis v. Curtis–Toledo, Inc., 204 Ga.App. 704, 705(2), 420 S.E.2d 756 (1992) (accord); Northside Bldg. Supply v. Foures, 201 Ga.App. 259, 259–260, 411 S.E.2d 87 (1991) (accord). 5. As the Supreme Court explained, the requirement under the Statute of Frauds that a guaranty m......
-
Hadsock v. J.H. Harvey Co., Inc.
...of any genuine issue of fact, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party." Northside Bldg. Supply Co. v. Foures, 201 Ga.App. 259, 411 S.E.2d 87 (1991). Construed most strongly against the movant, the record contains evidence that Harvey knew the night deposit involved ......
-
Capital Color Printing, Inc. v. Ahern
...S.E.2d 756 (1992) (noting that the guaranty agreement "left blank" the name of the principal debtor); Northside Bldg. Supply Co. v. Foures, 201 Ga.App. 259, 259-260, 411 S.E.2d 87 (1991) (same); Builder's Supply Corp. v. Taylor, 164 Ga.App. 127, 296 S.E.2d 417 (1982) (affirming a directed v......
-
Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Coleman
...is fatal). See Ellis v. Curtis-Toledo, Inc., 204 Ga.App. 704, 705(2), 420 S.E.2d 756 (1992) and Northside Bldg. Supply Co. v. Foures, 201 Ga.App. 259, 260, 411 S.E.2d 87 (1991). Even where the intent of the parties is manifestly obvious, where the name of the principal debtor is omitted fro......