Wheeler's, Inc. v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 16 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0966,A90A0966 |
| Citation | 196 Ga.App. 622,396 S.E.2d 790 |
| Parties | WHEELER'S, INC. v. WILSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Barry V. Smith, for appellant.
Duard R. McDonald, for appellee.
The particulars which gave rise to this lawsuit are fully set forth in Wilson v. Wheeler's, Inc., 190 Ga.App. 250, 378 S.E.2d 498 (1989). Wheeler's, a building supply store, had taken out a criminal warrant against Wilson for presenting an allegedly bad countercheck, and she was arrested and released on bond. The assistant solicitor ultimately recommended that the charge against her not be prosecuted. Wilson sued for malicious prosecution. This court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Wheeler's and remanded the case for resolution of the facts as to whether Wheeler's acted reasonably in prosecuting.
Wheeler's then filed in the trial court a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of insufficient service of process. Later, it amended the motion to demand dismissal on the merits and judgment in its favor on all remaining issues. Wheeler's also counterclaimed for special damages, costs, and attorney fees. We granted interlocutory appeal from an adverse ruling.
The issue posed by three enumerations of error, the disposition of which moots the fourth, is whether Wheeler's by its actions waived an alleged defect in service and thereby consented to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Roberts v. Bienert, 183 Ga.App. 751, 755(2), 360 S.E.2d 25 (1987), is the culmination of a line of cases which carve an exception to the general rule that "if there is a defect in service of process, 'any act by which one consents to the jurisdiction of the court constitutes a waiver [Cits.].' " Georgia Power Co. v. O'Bryant, 169 Ga.App. 491, 492, 313 S.E.2d 709 (1984), cited in Roberts, supra, 183 Ga.App. at 753, 360 S.E.2d 25. Stallings v. Stallings, 127 Ga. 464(6), 56 S.E. 469 (1906), stated the exception: "The rule that appearance and pleading waives irregularities in the process or its absence, and the service thereof, and the other rule which declares that if a defendant appear and plead to the merits, without pleading to the jurisdiction and without excepting thereto, he admits the jurisdiction of the court, have no application so as to effect a waiver where the defendant excepted to the service, moved to dismiss the case for want of service, and pleaded to the jurisdiction at the time of filing his defense."
Stallings was built on such precedents as Western, etc., R. Co. v. Pitts, 79 Ga. 532, 4 S.E. 921 (1887), and Cox v. Potts, 67 Ga. 521 (1881). Stallings has been consistently relied on as authority for the proposition that "pleading to the jurisdiction and ... excepting thereto" will vitiate any waiver that may otherwise be implied when the party also pleads to the merits. See, e.g., Shaheen v. Dunaway Drug Stores, 246 Ga. 790, 273 S.E.2d 158 (1980); Weems v. Weems, 225 Ga. 154, 166 S.E.2d 352 (1969); Barker v. Wilkinson, 222 Ga. 329, 149 S.E.2d 698 (1966); Milam v. Terrell, 214 Ga. 199, 104 S.E.2d 219 (1958); Gaddis v. Dyer Lumber Co., 168 Ga.App. 334, 308 S.E.2d 852 (1983).
This case comes within that class of cases acknowledged in Roberts where a party by its conduct waives a legal right. That principle was applied in Roberts and it was the court's opinion that defendant did not fall within its governance. The factors it considered were that Bienert had pleaded the issues of lack of service and insufficiency of service, that he had reasserted them in his motion for summary judgment, "document[ing] his intent that he did not waive them," and that the trial court had recognized and adhered to this affirmative assertion.
Here, although Wheeler's pleaded insufficient service of process in its answer, it did not move for a hearing on the issue until after the appeal of its motion for summary judgment on the merits was ruled on adversely to it by this Court. Wilson v. Wheeler's, supra. Defendant Wheeler's did not reassert it in its motion for summary judgment. Therefore it was not recognized as still ambient, and neither the court nor the opponent was put on notice that this waivable preliminary jurisdictional defense would be insisted on. Nor did this court have the issue before it when it labored over the case the first time. Even in its brief in this court, defendant characterized its motion only as one for partial summary judgment as to liability.
The acts and omissions to act of Wheeler's are " ' "so manifestly consistent with and indicative of an intention to voluntarily relinquish a then known particular right or benefit, that no other reasonable explanation of [its] conduct is possible." ' " Georgia Power Co. v. O'Bryant, supra. As the court highlighted in that case, in which the issue was whether defendant by its actions waived any defect in service and thus consented to the jurisdiction of the trial court, "any act by which one consents to the jurisdiction of the court constitutes a waiver." Id. 169 Ga.App. at 492, 313 S.E.2d 709.
The orderly disposition of cases demands adherence to this rule. This is especially true in light of the state's fundamental policy, expressed in its constitution, that the resolution of disputes is to be by a process that is "speedy, efficient and inexpensive." Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IX, Par. I. That policy is carried forward as the stated spirit of the Civil Practice Act: "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." OCGA § 9-11-1.
This two-party case was filed on July 23, 1987. Defendant's answer, filed in August, states as the second defense that "Process and service of process herein is insufficient at law." Defendant Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on the merits, filed the following April, did not mention this defense or allude to it in any way. Discovery, a number of briefs, and affidavits were filed over a period of several months. Never once in the record beyond the answer did defendant put forth, either in argument or in discovery, the issue of sufficiency of service. It acknowledges on appeal that it could have been pursued earlier, by motion. Whether it waited so as to allow the statute of limitation to expire before a ruling that service was insufficient is not shown. (The parties are in dispute over whether the two-year statute expired February 22, 1988, so that the cause would have been dead even before defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on it, or on August 24, 1988, so that pursuit of the issue at the time the motion for summary judgment was filed could have afforded the opportunity for new service if deemed necessary.)
The return of service is not even in that record. All of the litigation activity culminated on June 29, when the trial court granted the motion after "careful review" of the entire record.
As was fairly inevitable, plaintiff appealed the summary ending of her hotly-contested lawsuit. The record was copied and sent up, briefs were filed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exum v. Melton
...filing of counterclaim, where written motion to dismiss filed simultaneously with answer and counterclaim). 17. Wheeler's, Inc. v. Wilson, 196 Ga.App. 622, 396 S.E.2d 790 (1990), is physical precedent only because one judge concurred in the judgment only. Court of Appeals Rule 33(a). 18. Ga......
-
Stamps v. Bank South, N.A.
...of service of process. Roberts v. Bienert, 183 Ga.App. 751, 753-755, 360 S.E.2d 25 (1987); compare Wheeler's, Inc. v. Wilson, 196 Ga.App. 622, 396 S.E.2d 790 (1990). The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Bank on the basis that Stamps waived service of process an......
-
Long v. Bellamy
...Ga.App. 641, 643(3), 507 S.E.2d 823 (1998); Harrell v. Gomez, 174 Ga.App. 8, 10(3), 329 S.E.2d 302 (1985); Wheeler's, Inc. v. Wilson, 196 Ga. App. 622, 623, 396 S.E.2d 790 (1990) (physical precedent only). But Long raised her objections to service in her answer, in her motion to dismiss, an......
-
Oasis Goodtime Emporium v. CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL
...affirmative defense to the attention of the court at the proper time if he wishes to make an issue of it. Wheeler's, Inc. v. Wilson, 196 Ga.App. 622, 625, 396 S.E.2d 790 (1990) (physical precedent only). In Wheeler's, the defendant pleaded insufficient service of process in its Answer, but ......
-
The Emerging Bad Faith Cause of Action Takes on the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine - Robert R. Potter and Joan T.a. Gabel
...368. 48. 196 Ga. App. 618, 396 S.E.2d 787 (1990). 49. Id. at 619, 396 S.E.2d at 788. 50. Id. at 620, 396 S.E.2d at 789. 51. Id. at 622, 396 S.E.2d at 790. 52. Id. at 620-21, 396 S.E.2d at 789. 53. 215 Ga. App. 607, 451 S.E.2d 504 (1994). 54. Id. at 608, 451 S.E.2d at 506. 55. Id.,451S.E.2da......