Ultima Real Estate Investments v. Saddler

• Citation: 237 Ga. App. 635,516 S.E.2d 360
• Decision Date: 13 April 1999
• Docket Number: No. A99A0064.,A99A0064.
• Parties: ULTIMA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC et al. v. SADDLER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

516 S.E.2d 360

237 Ga. App. 635

ULTIMA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC et al. v. SADDLER.

No. A99A0064.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 13, 1999.

Fred B. Wachter, Marietta, for appellants.

S. Robert Hahn, Jr., Norcross, for appellee.

BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge.

We granted this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court's denial of the defendants', Ultima Real Estate Investments (Ultima) and J.C. Mervine, motion for summary judgment. Bobby Saddler brought the underlying complaint asserting slander pursuant to OCGA § 51-5-4(a)(3) and breach of contract against the defendants.

When reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Further, the standards applicable to motions for summary judgment are announced in Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 [(1991)]. When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court should construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. [Additionally,] [o]n motions for summary judgment, the court cannot resolve the facts or reconcile the issues.

( Citations omitted.) Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ga.App. 695, 696-697(1), 490 S.E.2d 150 (1997).

The record reveals that Ultima hired Sadd-Co Properties, Inc. to perform interior finishing services at 1624 Virginia Avenue. Sadd-Co is owned by Bobby Saddler's wife and son. After a dispute arose over the work and the charges therefor, Saddler, in his individual capacity, brought the underlying action pursuant to an oral assignment of the breach of contract cause of action. Saddler alleged Mervine made false statements to third parties regarding his business dealings with the intent to injure his business reputation. Specifically, Saddler alleged that Mervine told other tenants of the building where Saddler was doing business that Saddler did not know what he was doing and that he had intentionally underbid the job costs. Saddler also sought damages for breach of contract.

1. Saddler's cause of action for slander against Mervine is based on OCGA § 51-5-4(a)(3) which provides: "Slander or oral defamation consists in ... [m]aking charges against another in reference to his trade, office, or profession, calculated to injure him therein." Mervine contends that he is entitled to summary judgment because Saddler admitted that he did not have a trade, office, or profession. Although Saddler stated in his deposition that his wife and son owned Sadd-Co and that he had not been employed in the interior finishing business in the last five years, documents in the record indicate that Saddler submitted proposals and lien...