Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Woelper
Decision Date | 23 February 1998 |
Docket Number | No. S97G1364.,S97G1364. |
Citation | 498 S.E.2d 255,269 Ga. 109 |
Parties | PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS, INC. v. WOELPER et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
George L. Barron, Jr., Garlan Leah Barron, Barron & Barron, College Park, for Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc.
John B. Lyle, Marietta, for George Woelper et al.
Pursuant to OCGA §§ 23-3-60 et al., George and Barbara Woelper filed a petition seeking to quiet title to an alleged underground easement by implication running beneath land belonging to Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. (Piedmont). The special master's report concluded that the Woelpers were not entitled to relief, because their complaint contained no description of the land and did not, therefore, comply with the requirements of OCGA § 23-3-62(b). The trial court adopted the special master's report and, on appeal, we affirmed. Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc., 266 Ga. 472, 467 S.E.2d 517 (1996). Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the Woelpers then filed this action and included a description of the property in their petition. Compare Tootle v. Player, 225 Ga. 431, 432(2), 169 S.E.2d 340 (1969) ( ). Piedmont moved for summary judgment based upon the defense of res judicata. The trial court granted Piedmont's motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc., 226 Ga.App. 337, 487 S.E.2d 5 (1997). According to the Court of Appeals, res judicata was not a viable defense because the Woelpers' first action was not adjudicated on the merits, but on technical grounds. We granted certiorari in order to determine what constitutes an "adjudication on the merits" for res judicata purposes.
As the wording of this statute intimates, an "adjudication on the merits" does not require "
Gamble v. Gamble, 204 Ga. 82, 88-89(1), 48 S.E.2d 540 (1948). See also OCGA § 9-12-40. Thus, it is only where the merits were not and could not have been determined under a proper presentation and management of the case that res judicata is not a viable defense. If, pursuant to an appropriate handling of the case, the merits were or could have been determined, then the defense is valid. Compare Tootle v. Player, supra at 432(2), 169 S.E.2d 340 ( ).
The Woelpers' first action was not terminated by the grant of a dilatory plea, a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or any other ruling which precluded a consideration of the merits of their claim. Compare National Heritage Corp. v. Mt. Olive Mem. Gardens, Inc., 244 Ga. 240, 260 S.E.2d 1 (1979) ( ); O'Kelley v. Alexander, 225 Ga. 32, 165 S.E.2d 648 (1969) ( ). The action was heard by a special master who had "complete jurisdiction within the scope of the pleadings" to determine the Woelpers' claim. OCGA § 23-3-66. "Without submitting any questions of fact to a jury or requesting additional evidence, the special master concluded that the Woelpers were not entitled to the requested easement." Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc., supra at 473(2), 467 S.E.2d 517. Upon receipt of the special master's award, the trial court issued a decree "which, when recorded, shall operate to bind the land affected according to the tenor thereof and shall be conclusive upon and against all persons named therein, known or unknown." OCGA § 23-3-67. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court, citing the Woelpers'"complete lack of diligence" in complying with OCGA § 23-3-62(b), as well as their failure to provide a transcript of the hearing before the special master which might have shown that the "easement was established through other evidence....." Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc., supra at 473(1), 474(3), 467 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cmty. State Bank v. Strong
...then the defense is valid.Smith v. AirTouch Cellular of Ga., Inc., 244 Ga.App. 71, 534 S.E.2d 832, 836 (2000) (quoting Piedmont Cotton, 498 S.E.2d at 256).31 Thus, it is clear that even if “on the merits” adjudication is a prerequisite to collateral estoppel, such a requirement is satisfied......
-
FULTON COUNTY TAX COM'R v. General Motors
...case, the merits were or could have been determined, then [res judicata] is valid." (Emphasis in original.) Piedmont Cotton Mills v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109, 110, 498 S.E.2d 255 (1998); see also Gamble v. Gamble, 204 Ga. 82, 88-89(1), 48 S.E.2d 540 "Collateral estoppel precludes the re-adjudic......
-
A&M Hospitalities LLC v. Alimchandani
...567, 569 (2), 631 S.E.2d 769 (2006), Bennett v. Cotton , 244 Ga. App. 784, 785 (1), 536 S.E.2d 802 (2000), Piedmont Cotton Mills v. Woelper , 269 Ga. 109, 110, 498 S.E.2d 255 (1998).23 See Yates Paving , 287 Ga. App. at 805 (2), 652 S.E.2d 851 ("The doctrine of res judicata applies to arbit......
-
Dillard-Winecoff v. IBF INCOME FUND
...presentation and management of the case that res judicata is not a viable defense." (Emphasis in original.) Piedmont Cotton Mills v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109, 110, 498 S.E.2d 255 (1998). We were presented with a similar issue in Moore v. Bank of Fitzgerald, 225 Ga.App. 122, 483 S.E.2d 135 (1997......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Marcia Mccrory Ernst, Joseph L. Cooley, John Chadwick Torri, and Victor A. Ellis
...256 Ga. App. 260, 261, 568 S.E.2d 130, 131 (2002)). 410. Id. at 569-70, 631 S.E.2d at 772 (citing Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109, 110, 498 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1998)). 411. Id. at 570, 631 S.E.2d at 772. 412. Id. 413. Id. 414. Id. (quoting Mahan, 256 Ga. App. at 261, 568 S.......
-
Construction Law - Frank O. Brown, Jr.
...Id. (quoting Boozer v. Higdon, 252 Ga. 276, 277, 313 S.E.2d 100, 102 (1984)). 138. Id. (quoting Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109, 110, 498 S.E.2d 255. , 256 (1998)). 139. Id. at 806, 653 S.E.2d at 854. 140. Id. 141. Id., 653 S.E.2d at 854-55. 142. Id. 143. Id. at 807, 653......