Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | INC,LINCOLN-MERCUR,No. 65613,65613 |
| Parties | PUGH v. FRANK JACKSON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William A. Dinges, Decatur, for appellant.
Robert U. Wright, Warren W. Wills, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant Pugh commenced an action for malicious use of process against Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment for the latter, and Pugh appeals.
On July 21, 1977, appellant traded a 1973 Lincoln Continental to appellee for a Jeep Cherokee vehicle. In the course of the exchange, he signed an odometer disclosure form, representing the mileage on the 1973 Lincoln to be 20,165. Appellee sold the car to another customer and subsequently discovered from the Georgia Office of Consumer Affairs that the actual mileage on the vehicle at the time of the exchange had been between 60,000 and 80,000. It then sued both Pugh and the previous owner of the vehicle, Thomas Sanford, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation of the vehicle's mileage and a violation of the Odometer Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1981 et seq. The claim against Sanford went into default, while the claims against appellant were tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict in his favor as to the alleged Odometer Disclosure Act violation and a directed verdict in his favor on the count alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Appellant subsequently initiated the present proceedings in the Superior Court of Fulton County. Held:
OCGA § 9-11-56(c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156) allows summary judgment only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the evidence shows that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, "on motion for summary judgment by a party on whom the burden of proof does not lie on the trial of the case, all the evidence must be construed against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion..." State Farm Mut., etc., Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 130 Ga.App. 187, 202 S.E.2d 551 (1973); Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551, 181 S.E.2d 866 (1971).
"To recover for malicious use of process, the following requisite elements must be shown: (1) prosecution of a civil action with malice; (2) such prosecution was without probable cause; (3) a termination of the proceedings in favor of the defendant; and (4) the prosecution of the process caused: (a) arrest of the person; (b) a seizure of his property; or (c) other special damage." Pair v. Sou. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 149 Ga.App. 149, 253 S.E.2d 828 (1979). For appellant to prevail against appellee's motion for summary judgment, a genuine issue of fact as to each of the above elements had to have existed.
Appellant contends that his attorney fees and expenses incurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acker v. Jenkins
... ... Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, 165 Ga.App. 292 (300 SE2d ... ...
-
Edmonds v. Bates
...be taken as true. Jordan v. Atlanta Neighborhood Housing Svc., 171 Ga. 467, 468, 320 S.E.2d 215 (1984); Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, 165 Ga.App. 292, 300 S.E.2d 227 (1983). In considering summary judgment, the court is limited to determining whether there is a genuine issue regard......
-
Sun v. Langston
...as to such damages, Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, etc., 167 Ga.App. 411(2), 306 S.E.2d 340 (1983); Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, 165 Ga.App. 292, 300 S.E.2d 227 (1983). Since the appellant pled no facts which would suggest the existence of a valid cause of action, his complaint wa......
-
Georgia Intern. Life Ins. Co. v. Huckabee
...be construed against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion--here, plaintiff-appellees. Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, 165 Ga.App. 292, 300 S.E.2d 227 (1983). The requirements of this section must be strictly followed by the trial court when considering a motion fo......