Scott v. Morris Brown College

• Decision Date: 03 November 1982
• Docket Number: No. 64847,64847
• Citation: 297 S.E.2d 45,164 Ga.App. 264
• Parties: SCOTT et al. v. MORRIS BROWN COLLEGE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 45

297 S.E.2d 45

164 Ga.App. 264

SCOTT et al. v. MORRIS BROWN COLLEGE.

No. 64847.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 3, 1982.

Harry Rand, Atlanta, for appellants.

Palmer H. Ansley, Atlanta, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs here appeal the trial court's denial of their motion to vacate and set aside the judgment dismissing their complaint on the ground of willful failure to answer interrogatories. Plaintiffs assert, as they did below, that they never received notice of the rule nisi setting down the date and time for hearing on defendant's motion to compel answers to interrogatories or to dismiss. Held:

1. "A motion to set aside must be predicated upon some nonamendable defect which does appear on the face of the record or pleadings, or ... upon lack of jurisdiction ...." Code Ann. § 81A-160(d) (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 662; 1967, pp. 226, 239, 240; 1974, p. 1138) [CPA § 60]. Plaintiffs' sole claim in the case sub judice is lack of notice. Under Code Ann. § 81A-160(d), supra, the burden is thus upon them to show lack of notice on the face of the record. Brown v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 245 Ga. 515, 518, 265 S.E.2d 791; C. & S. National Bank v. Burden, 145 Ga.App. 402, 404(2), 244 S.E.2d 244. See Anderson v. Fulton National Bank, 146 Ga.App. 155, 156, 245 S.E.2d 860). See also Davis and Shulman, Ga.Prac. & Proc. 278, § 18-2 (4th Ed.).

The record clearly shows that plaintiffs' attorney was served notice. A "Certificate of Service" is stamped on the rule nisi, signed by the attorney for defendant, certifying that he served plaintiffs' attorney via the mail. Service via mail is an authorized means of service and proof of such service may be made by the certificate of an attorney. Code Ann. § 81A-105(b) (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 615; 1967, pp. 226, 229) [CPA § 5]. Thus, the record contradicts plaintiffs' claim and it would only be by going behind the face of the record that any merits of the claim could be reached. This is impermissible under a motion to set aside. Code Ann. § 81A-160(d), supra; C. & S. National Bank v. Burden, 145 Ga.App. 402, 404(2), 244 S.E.2d 244, supra; Northern Freight Lines, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, 121 Ga.App. 786, 787, 175 S.E.2d 104, affd. 227 Ga. 581, 182 S.E.2d 110.

Plaintiffs' claim is in actuality one of "some extrinsic defect which does not appear on the face of the record or pleadings," and therefore the proper means of attack is a motion for new trial. Code Ann. § 81A-160(c) (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 662; 1967, pp. 226, 239, 240; 1974, p. 1138) [CPA § 60]. A trial court is authorized to consider a motion, filed as a motion to set aside, as an extraordinary motion for new trial. Hancock v. Oates, 244 Ga. 175, 177, 259 S.E.2d 437; Vaughan v. Car Tapes, Inc., 135 Ga.App. 178, 180(3), 217 S.E.2d 436; Newman v. Greer, 131 Ga.App. 128, 129-130, 205 S.E.2d 486.

We find that the trial court in the case sub judice in effect ruled on plaintiffs' motion as if it were one for new trial. The court did not predicate its order on a finding of no nonamendable defect appearing on the face of the record. Rather, the court expressly found that plaintiffs had notice of the hearing and then ruled that the failure to answer the interrogatories was willful and deliberate. Thus, the trial court reached the merits of plaintiffs' claim and ruled adversely to them. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and therefore we will not disturb them. Code Ann. § 81A-152(a) (Ga.L.1969, pp. 645, 646; 1970, pp. 170, 171) [CPA § 52].

2. Both parties raise and argue the issue of whether the practice of the State Court of Fulton County, pursuant to its local rule 22, of utilizing a motions calendar (published in most cases) to provide notice of hearing dates, is sufficient notice under the Civil Practice Act. In light of our conclusion that plaintiffs received notice of the rule nisi through the mail (see Division 1, supra), we need not address this issue. In this regard, however, see generally cases under Code Ann. § 81A-140(c) (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 653; 1967, pp. 226, 245; 1968, pp. 1104, 1108; 1976, p. 1677) [CPA § 40] (trial calendars): Brown v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 245 Ga. 515, 518-519, 265 S.E.2d 791, supra; Spyropoulus v. John Linard Estate, 243 Ga. 518, 255 S.E.2d 40; Touchton v. Stewart, 229 Ga. 303, 190 S.E.2d 912; Wilkes v. Ricks, 126 Ga.App. 266, 190 S.E.2d 603. See also Newell Road Builders, Inc. v. Ramirez, 126 Ga.App. 850, 853, 192 S.E.2d 184, overruling Barber v. Canal Insurance Company, 119 Ga.App. 738, 168 S.E.2d 868. Furthermore, the motion calendar is not part of the record. It was only vaguely presented as an issue in plaintiffs' brief in support of the motion to set aside, not raised as an issue at the motion hearing and not addressed by the trial court. For these additional reasons as well, we will not consider the issue. See generally Touchton...