Court Opinion

ID: 9625787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:51:10.515261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:15.152336
License: Public Domain

Stolz, Judge,
concurring in the dissent. I concur in the dissent and offer the following for consideration in addition to the reasons expressed therein.
1. It is axiomatic and elementary that the plaintiffs’ complaint is controlled by the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609; Code Ann. Title 81A) and that the complaint is required only to give notice of the pleaders’ claim. It is not necessary that a complaint set out a "cause of action,” it is only required to "state a claim.” It is equally axiomatic and elementary that a complaint is construed most strongly in favor of sustaining it, rather than most strongly against the pleader, as was the former rule. Until or unless the issues are narrowed for trial, a plaintiff can offer any evidence, under any theory that can be inferred from his complaint.
In the instant case, the plaintiffs’ original complaint sought purely equitable relief in the form of an injunction (from in anywise alienating the property in question and any proceeding to confirm the sale). By amendment of Feb. 20, 1970, the plaintiffs, after a substantial allegation of facts, sought to add a party defendant and that the sale to Stubbs be set aside and annulled. On August 18, 1970, the plaintiffs again amended their complaint, alleging a conspiracy by all defendants for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiffs and the concealment from the plaintiffs of Pope’s default and the subsequent foreclosure of the security *293deed. The August 18, 1970 amendment also affirmatively alleged personal knowledge of the above by defendant Hugh Summer, a duty to inform plaintiff and active concealment of the information. This amendment, in addition to the relief previously sought, in the alternative prayed for (1) the difference between the fair market value of the land and the price for which Stubbs purchased same at the foreclosure sale, (2) a money judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally, for $165,000 plus interest from the date of foreclosure, and in addition to all other relief, (3) a joint and several judgment against all defendants for $250,000 punitive damages, plus reasonable attorney fees. On March 1, 1972, after the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered but before the remittitur was returned and made the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiffs again amended their complaint, striking the original complaint and all amendments thereto, and substituted a new complaint. The March 1, 1972, or "new complaint” set out essentially the same facts as contained in the original complaint and amendments, except that only Hugh Summer and Summer-Minter and Associates, Inc. are retained as defendants and damages are sought based on Summer’s alleged false statement to Hicks that he (Summer) would advise the plaintiffs of the foreclosure, that it was unnecessary for him to do so, but that Summer then failed to so advise plaintiffs, resulting in the damages alleged in the amendment.
The gist of the amendment of August 18, 1970 was a conspiracy by all defendants (including Summer) to defraud the plaintiffs and the concealment from the plaintiffs of Pope’s default and the subsequent foreclosure of the security deed. This amendment sought general money damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Thus, the issue squarely before the Supreme Court was an actionable tort, and not the conspiracy. A conspiracy, in and of itself, amounts to no more than the development of a plan. If the plan remains only a plan and is not put in operation, it is not actionable. However, when the plan developed by the conspiracy is put into effect, the tort that is committed thereby and the resulting damages, are actionable. Vandhitch v. Alverson, 52 Ga. App. 308, 310 (1) (183 SE 105) and cit. The plaintiffs’ amendment of August 18, 1970 certainly raised the issue of concealment of the foreclosure. The last amendment of March 1, 1972 did no more than particularize the method and manner of such concealment. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue as to any tortious act committed by the defendants when it decided that the plaintiffs *294were not entitled to recover under any theory. The Supreme Court would most certainly have affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment if it had found that the defendants committed any tortious act against the plaintiffs, even though there was no conspiracy.
The allegations of the plaintiffs’ amendment of March 1, 1972 present absolutely nothing new. The facts alleged were in evidence before the Supreme Court and were specifically passed upon. See Summer-Minter & Assoc. v. Giordano, 228 Ga. 86, 89 (184 SE2d 152). The judgment of the Supreme Court became the law of the case and this court is bound thereby.
2. There is yet another reason for this dissent. The law favors an end to litigation. If the majority rule is adopted, every reversal by an appellate court of a trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment, could be made meaningless by an amendment to the pleadings prior to the judgment’s being taken on the remittitur. If such is allowed, the result will become an empty game whereby lawyers further delay and impede the judicial process and further congest already overcrowded dockets. At some point, we must address ourselves to the responsible resolution of legal disputes, rather than have the judicial courtroom process continue to be a mere arena for attorneys to exhibit the prowess of their mental gymnastics. I believe this case brings this court to that point.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judges Hall and Eberhardt concur in what is stated herein.