Court Opinion

ID: 9583653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:40:51.583984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:29.612281
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
1. The majority has concluded that defendants were not in default because their “motion for special appearance to contest jurisdiction” included a general denial. I do not agree.
In order to represent a general denial, the pleader must in good faith intend to controvert all averments of the complaint. OCGA § 9-*41410-8 (b). Upon an examination of the defendants’ motion, the only language which could conceivably support such a claim is as follows: “The Defendant’s [sic] have not breached any contract nor committed any tort within the State of Georgia.” This language is directed only to the defendants’ motion contesting the trial court’s jurisdiction over the defendants. It cannot in good faith be construed as a general denial of all the allegations contained in the plaintiffs complaint. Nowhere in the motion did the defendants deny intentionally concealing the defect in the bathtub. See Cato Oil & Grease Co. v. Lewis, 250 Ga. 24, 26 (3) (295 SE2d 527); and 35 Mer. L. Rev. 334.
2. The defendants argue that the trial court’s refusal to open default was erroneous. In its order the trial court held: “As to the Defendants’ oral motion wherein the Defendants were seeking to allow the defaults to be opened, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to show providential cause or excusable neglect and, furthermore, the Defendants have failed to show facts to support a discretionary determination by this Court that the default should be opened. Defendants’ oral motion to open default is denied.” I have examined the record and would find that it is void of any showing of excusable neglect or providential cause which prevented defendants from timely filing an answer or opening default as a matter of right. See 35 Mer. L. Rev. 334-336. Therefore, I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to open default. See Cato Oil & Grease Co. v. Lewis, 250 Ga. 24, 26 (4), supra. Compare Houston v. Lowes of Savannah, Inc., 136 Ga. App. 781 (222 SE2d 209).
3. The defendants argue that they are entitled to have the default judgment set aside because the trial court entered default prior to ruling on their pending motion for summary judgment.
In its order the trial court held that “[a]s the Defendants’ answers have been stricken and both Defendants are in default, this Court would not be authorized to consider the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”
I recognize that “it is error to grant a motion for a default judgment prior to ruling on a timely, pending motion ... for summary judgment.” See Cato Oil & Grease Co. v. Lewis, 250 Ga. 24, 25 (2), supra. However, in the case sub judice, no pending motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the defendants’ default. Consequently, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the defendants’ untimely motion for summary judgment. See generally Braselton Bros. v. Better Maid Dairy Prods., 110 Ga. App. 515 (139 SE2d 124). I would hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to rule on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
4. In the defendants’ final enumeration of error and in all of the enumerations of error raised by the plaintiff in his cross-appeal, the *415parties question the validity of that part of the trial court’s order entering “partial summary judgment” as to liability. In this regard, the trial court limited the defendants’ liability to actual damages finding that the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint were insufficient to authorize an award of punitive damages or attorney fees. I do not agree.
Decided December 5, 1985
Rehearing dismissed December 20, 1985.
Robert S. Devins, for appellants.
John W. Gibson, Michael J. King, for appellee.
In cases involving default judgment, punitive damages and attorney fees may properly be submitted to the jury as additional elements of damages when the complaint states sufficient facts to sustain an action for fraud (tortious conduct). Clark v. Aenchbacher, 143 Ga. App. 282, 284 (1), 285 (2) (238 SE2d 442); Hulsey Pool Co. v. Troutman, 167 Ga. App. 192, 193 (2) (306 SE2d 83). See Stroud v. Elias, 247 Ga. 191 (275 SE2d 46).
In the case sub judice, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendants deliberately concealed a material defect in the subject property in order to induce the plaintiff to enter into the sales contract. These allegations are sufficient to sustain an action for fraud. “ ‘Concealment of material facts may amount to fraud . . . where the concealment is of intrinsic qualities of the article which the other party by the exercise of ordinary prudence and caution could not discover . . . and misrepresentation may be perpetuated by acts as well as words, and by artifices designed to mislead.’ Batey v. Stone, 127 Ga. App. 81, 82 (192 SE2d 528) (1972).” Clark v. Aenchbacher, 143 Ga. App. 282, 284 (1), supra.
Since the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to sustain an action for fraud, I would hold that the trial court erred in limiting the defendants’ liability to actual damages. Consequently, I would direct the trial court to additionally enter default against the defendants with regard to liability for punitive damages and attorney fees.
For the above stated reasons I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Pope concurs in this dissent and that Judge Carley concurs in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of this dissent.