Perryman v. Georgia Power Co., 72745
| Decision Date | 10 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 72745,72745 |
| Parties | PERRYMAN v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Patricia Perryman, pro se.
Charley G. Morris, East Point, for appellee.
Georgia Power Company filed suit against Perryman on an account for the principal sum of $546.19 plus $43.70 interest and court costs in the amount of $28. Perryman, pro se, answered the suit maintaining that the utility had already been awarded the amount sought through a claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. The power company filed a request for production of documents, first interrogatories, a request for admissions which included admissions that Perryman was indebted to the company for the amount pled in the complaint, and a motion for summary judgment. Defendant's sole response to these pleadings was to file a "Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment," though the court had not yet issued an order on the motion. Approximately two months later, the trial court did grant the motion for summary judgment, expressly finding that Perryman had failed to timely respond to the request for admissions or to move to answer them thereafter, so that as a matter of law she was liable to the utility for the sums.
Perryman then filed a "Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Summary Judgment," again asserting satisfaction of the claim through bankruptcy. Defendant failed to appear or answer ready to proceed at the calendar call for hearing of her motion. The court dismissed the motion and awarded the company attorney fees for having to defend it.
Perryman appealed from the dismissal, but we are compelled to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
1. As we have noted, the substance of Perryman's complaint before the trial court as well as presently before this court is that summary judgment was improperly granted to the utility because the debt was not owing due to satisfaction or discharge in bankruptcy.
Perryman chose to denominate her motion as one to vacate and set aside the summary judgment, see OCGA § 9-11-60(d), but and therefore the present notice of appeal was not timely filed. Miller v. Bank of the South, 177 Ga.App. 42, 43(1), 338 S.E.2d 436 (1985).
2. Even if Perryman had timely filed her notice of appeal from the grant of summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MMT Enterprises, Inc. v. Cullars
...v. Hegwood, 169 Ga.App. 547, 314 S.E.2d 122; Littlejohn v. Tower Assoc., 163 Ga.App. 37, 38, 293 S.E.2d 33; and see Perryman v. Ga. Power Co., 180 Ga.App. 259, 348 S.E.2d 762 and Bartlett v. Hembree, 177 Ga.App. 253, 339 S.E.2d 388, appellant contends that although a motion to set aside is ......
-
Potomac Leasing Co., Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 72578
... ... No. 72578 ... Court of Appeals of Georgia ... Sept. 10, 1986 ... [180 Ga.App. 259] James A. Glenn, ... ...
-
Hall & Sosebee Trucking Co., Inc. v. Smith
...OCGA § 9-11-60(e), disregarding the label of appellant's motion and looking to its substance, see generally Perryman v. Ga. Power Co., 180 Ga.App. 259(1), 348 S.E.2d 762 (1986), appellant's motion was actually one to set aside the judgment for fraud, which is governed by OCGA § 9-11-60(d)(2......
-
Boyle v. State
...185 Ga.App. 203, 363 S.E.2d 639; Rich v. McDonald Car etc. Leasing, Inc., 180 Ga.App. 613(1), 349 S.E.2d 832; Perryman v. Ga. Power Co., 180 Ga.App. 259, 260(2), 348 S.E.2d 762. Also, OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8) mandates that an appeal from a denial of a motion to set aside a judgment be brought as......