Simmons v. Brady

Decision Date04 October 2001
Docket NumberNo. A01A1412.,A01A1412.
Citation555 S.E.2d 94,251 Ga. App. 717
PartiesSIMMONS v. BRADY et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Stephen M. Worrall, Marietta, for appellant.

Perrotta & Cahn, Anthony N. Perrotta, Brian R. Cahn, Cartersville, for appellee.

BARNES, Judge.

After learning he was not the father of Karen Brady's child, for whom he had paid more than five years of child support, John Simmons sued Brady, asserting eight causes of action. He appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Brady on seven of the eight counts. Because the trial court failed to give Simmons notice and opportunity to present evidence on the converted motion for summary judgment, we vacate the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

1. The standard used to evaluate a summary judgment is whether a movant has shown that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent, warrant judgment as a matter of law. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991). The standard to determine a motion to dismiss is quite different, however; the court must accept the plaintiff's claims as true and determine whether the complaint states a cause of action. Mooney v. Mooney, 235 Ga.App. 117, 508 S.E.2d 766 (1998).

While the trial court may, on its own motion, convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, it must insure that the respondent to the motion has a "full and final opportunity" to controvert the assertions against him. Sumner v. Dept. of Human Resources, 225 Ga.App. 91, 93(2), 483 S.E.2d 602 (1997). This opportunity consists of notice that the motion will be converted and an opportunity to submit evidence and be heard within 30 days. OCGA §§ 9-11-12(b); 9-11-56; Bays v. River Oaks Constr., 244 Ga.App. 401, 402-403(1), 535 S.E.2d 543 (2000).

In this case, the record shows that Brady filed a verified answer denying everything Simmons alleged in his complaint. She then filed a motion, titled a motion to dismiss, on numerous grounds: failure to state a claim, violation of public policy, waiver and release, res judicata, statute of limitations, unclean hands, and laches. Attached to the motion were an uncertified copy of the parties' divorce complaint, a certified copy of the order modifying Simmons' visitation rights, an affidavit from a geneticist who concluded that Simmons was not the child's father based on DNA analysis, and an uncertified copy of the final adoption order that terminated Simmons' parental rights to the child. Nowhere in the motion to dismiss did Brady argue the merits of Simmons' fraud or false swearing claims.

Simmons responded to the motion with his affidavit, verifying the allegations in his 46-page complaint and stating that he was not aware Brady had sexual relations with anyone else during their relationship or that she had "promiscuous tendencies."1 If he had been aware of these things, Simmons said, he would have sought a paternity test. Simmons also included with his motion an uncertified notice from the Child Support Recovery Unit in which Brady averred she had no sex with anyone but Simmons within 90 days before or after her conception, as well as a transcript of the adoption proceedings.

The trial court converted Brady's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and, "[a]fter considering the entire case file, briefs and argument of counsel," granted summary judgment to Brady on all counts except the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to Count 1, the fraud count, after reciting the essential elements of an action for fraud and deceit, the court held:

Taking the "facts" as alleged by the Defendant as being true the claimed cause of the action for fraud is without merit, and is hereby dismissed. The Court is not considering conclusions, opinions and innuendo contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint.

As a matter of law, the Court determines that at the time the Defendant made a claim that the child in question was that of the Plaintiff, she did not know the claim was false; and the Plaintiff did not reasonably rely on such a claim. The Plaintiff had equal ability with the Defendant to ascertain the parentage of the child. He could have obtained an HLA test or DNA test to establish the child's paternity. He knew the Defendant was an "exotic dancer," had just participated in an illicit relationship with another man and had had six or seven abortions. This should have put him on notice that she was promiscuous and that there was a real possibility that he was not the child's father. He chose to ignore the facts and was not reasonable in relying on the Defendant's statements.

The trial court then held that, because Simmons cannot prove fraud, Brady was entitled to summary judgment on the claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, fraudulent and negligent breach of contract, and rescission of contract by fraud. The trial court did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Anderson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-cv-4091-TWT-ECS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 6 Agosto 2012
    ...could reinstate his mortgage by speaking with Ms. Balentine, because he knew by that time that the statement was false.10 Simmons v. Brady, 251 Ga. App. 717, 719 (2001) (where plaintiff was "on notice" of a fact that directly contradicted the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation, trial co......
  • Pliva, Inc. v. Dement
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 20 Noviembre 2015
    ...the appropriate standard of care for purposes of a common law negligence claim).30 Division 3, supra.31 Simmons v. Brady, 251 Ga.App. 717, 718(1), 555 S.E.2d 94 (2001) ; see Ikomoni v. Bank of America, 330 Ga.App. 776, 769 S.E.2d 527 (2015).32 Ikomoni, supra.33 See id. at 778, 769 S.E.2d 52......
  • Thomas v. Gregory
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 1 Mayo 2015
    ...judgment, we are required to remand so that Thomas may be given fair notice and an opportunity to respond. See Simmons v. Brady, 251 Ga.App. 717, 718(1), 555 S.E.2d 94 (2001) (“This opportunity consists of notice that the motion will be converted and an opportunity to submit evidence and be......
  • Lynn v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 1 Marzo 2016
    ...that they could "prevent foreclosure" because they knew by that time that foreclosure had already occurred. See Simmons v. Brady, 555 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) (where plaintiff was "on notice" of a fact that directly contradicted the alleged misrepresentation, trial court properly found......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT