Sawgrass Builders, Inc. v. Key
| Decision Date | 18 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1972,A93A1972 |
| Citation | 441 S.E.2d 99,212 Ga.App. 138 |
| Parties | SAWGRASS BUILDERS, INC. v. KEY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Andersen, Davidson & Tate, Thomas T. Tate and William M. Ray II, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
McCullough & Payne, Michael D. Payne, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellees Ralph B. Key and Plantation Builders, Inc. brought suit against appellant Sawgrass Builders, Inc. (Sawgrass), alleging that appellant breached an agreement with appellees involving the purchase and residential development of certain real estate. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, and Sawgrass appeals.
1. In its answer Sawgrass asserted, among other things, that appellees lacked standing to bring the present action because the contract sued upon had been assigned by appellees to a third party, C & S Real Estate Services, Inc. OCGA § 9-11-17(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." Appellees do not dispute that Sawgrass asserted such a defense. Instead they argue that defense was met by the affidavit of Ralph Key. We have searched the entire record, including the Key affidavit, in vain for any evidence or bare assertion inconsistent with Sawgrass's real-party-in-interest defense. The record as a whole reveals that Sawgrass and the appellees were the original contracting parties, nothing more. The question raised by appellant's pleading, and subsequently on appeal, is whether appellees currently have the right they seek to enforce despite an alleged assignment of the underlying contract to C & S Real Estate Services prior to the commencement of this action. See generally Allman v. Hope, 200 Ga.App. 137, 407 S.E.2d 107 (1991); Rigdon v. Walker Sales, etc., 161 Ga.App. 459, 462(2f), 288 S.E.2d 711 (1982).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." OCGA § 9-11-56(c). Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45, 195 S.E.2d 429 (1973).
Appellees have failed to present any evidence establishing their status as the current...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenstein v. Bank of the Ozarks. Cep-Ten Mile Resorts, LLC
...to the original lenders, Farmers and Merchants Community Bank and First Choice Community Bank 1874. See Sawgrass Builders v. Key, 212 Ga.App. 138(1), 441 S.E.2d 99 (1994) (reversing grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs in breach of contract action, to which defendants asserted real-party......
-
Lane v. Tift County Hosp. Authority
...the opposing party would have the trial burden." Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45, 195 S.E.2d 429 (1973); see also Sawgrass Builders v. Key, 212 Ga.App. 138, 441 S.E.2d 99 (1994); Huntington v. Fishman, 212 Ga.App. 27, 29-31, 441 S.E.2d 444 (1994). Appellant pled that the x-rays showed no fractur......
-
Jaycee Atlanta Dev., LLC v. Providence Bank
...arguments lack merit. 1. Pointing out that only “current holders of an interest in the contract” may sue on it, Sawgrass Builders v. Key, 212 Ga.App. 138(1), 441 S.E.2d 99 (1994), the defendants assert that Providence failed to show that it has an interest in the loan agreements. But there ......
-
Bogart v. Wis. Inst. for Torah Study
...“any evidence establishing their status as the current holders of an interest in the contract at issue.” Sawgrass Builders, Inc. v. Key, 212 Ga.App. 138(1), 441 S.E.2d 99 (1994). Here, the Institute provided some evidence that it was the real party in interest when it produced and authentic......