Court Opinion

ID: 9846123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:35:11.773067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:33.665679
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Judge,
concurring specially. I agree with the judgment of affirmance, but see Hines v. Wingo, 120 Ga. App. 614 (3) (171 SE2d 905) relative to the practice obtaining in the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County.
I agree that the ground for opening the default to allow the filing of a counterclaim, as set out in the affidavit attached to the motion, that defendant was unaware of the provision of the CPA relative to compulsory counterclaims, was wholly insufficient. The record in Ga. Hwy. Express Co. v. Do-All Chemical Co., 118 Ga. App. 736 (165 SE2d 429) discloses that a default had been allowed to occur in an attachment proceeding because of ignorance of the provisions of Ga. L. 1962, p. 520, amending Code §8-601 so that the appearance date for the filing of the declaration is 30 days after the filing of the attachment. And compare Jordan v. Clark, 119 Ga. App. 18 (1) (165 SE2d 922).
There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to open the default.