Smith v. General Finance Corp. of Georgia, 54225
| Decision Date | 07 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 54225,No. 1,54225,1 |
| Citation | 143 Ga.App. 390,238 S.E.2d 694 |
| Parties | Mary Lue SMITH v. GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF GEORGIA |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph H. King, Jr., Kendric E. Smith, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis N. Jones, Atlanta, for appellee.
Kenneth P. McDuffie, Macon, for amicus curiae.
Plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages for the wrongful repossession of her car by defendant who had financed its purchase for plaintiff. Plaintiff prayed for "$3500 actual damages, . . . ." Defendant answered denying the material allegations of the complaint and counterclaimed for the balance due of $632.24 after repossession and sale of the vehicle under the security agreement and for attorney fees. At the close of plaintiff's case defendant moved for and was granted a directed verdict as to plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no competent proof of damages. At the conclusion of defendant's case with regard to its counterclaim, the court granted its motion for a directed verdict. A judgment was entered accordingly. Held :
1. The motion for directed verdict with respect to the main claim was based solely on the ground of failure of proof of plaintiff's damages. Therefore, in order to sustain this grant, there must be a complete absence of any competent evidence on this issue. Development Corp. v. Berndt, 131 Ga.App. 277, 205 S.E.2d 868. It is obvious from the transcript that plaintiff's claim for $3500 actual damages is based wholly on the question of value of the 1972 Cadillac that plaintiff claims was wrongfully repossessed. The plaintiff testified that she paid $10,520.00 for the vehicle; that she used it to go back and forth to work; that she did not take any trips in it; that at the time of repossession in October 1975 the car was in perfect condition and had a brand new set of tires on it. She then testified in her opinion that when repossessed, the Cadillac was worth $3500. This was competent evidence of value as the plaintiff stated reasons for the opinion. See Code §§ 38-1708 and 38-1709; Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga.App. 328, 147 S.E.2d 782; Taber Pontiac v. Osborne, 116 Ga.App. 274, 157 S.E.2d 33. Thus, there was a jury issue presented as to actual damages and it was error to grant defendant's motion for directed verdict as to plaintiff's claim.
2. The evidence as regards defendant's counterclaim is undisputed. It was shown that after repossession and sale of plaintiff's car a balance due in the amount of $632.24 was shown. In arriving at this figure, plaintiff was given credit for $100.58 for refund of credit life and credit accident and sickness insurance premiums which were included in the security agreement. This insurance was canceled by defendant approximately during the 14th month of the 30 month term of the contract. The defendant's employee testified that this insurance premium...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canal Ins. Co. v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co.
...evidence adduced. We find no error. Cf. B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679(4), 307 S.E.2d 262 (1983); Smith v. Gen. Fin. Corp., 143 Ga.App. 390(1), 238 S.E.2d 694 (1977). 4. Canal contends that the Bank cannot recover because no valid assignment of the policy occurred. Canal relies u......
-
Hutto v. Shedd, 73688
...no basis for the jury's consideration of value. See Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga.App. 328, 147 S.E.2d 782. See also Smith v. Gen. Fin. Corp., 143 Ga.App. 390, 391, 238 S.E.2d 694. The true measure of damages under the facts of this case is the difference between the value of the house as it shoul......
-
Ricker v. Hopkins Chevrolet, Inc., 56405
...considered to be "very special cars for a limited number of people." Therefore we think that here, as in Smith v. General Fin. Corp., 143 Ga.App. 390(1), 238 S.E.2d 694 (1977), where the plaintiff's claim for damages was based solely on her opinion of the value of her Cadillac, there was a ......
-
M.K. Developers, Inc. v. McCall
...Georgia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 175 Ga.App. 850, 852(2), 334 S.E.2d 733 (1985). See also Smith v. Gen. Fin. Corp. of Ga., 143 Ga.App. 390, 391(1), 238 S.E.2d 694 (1977). 3. Appellant also enumerates as error the denial of its motion for directed verdict as to attorney's There is ......