Court Opinion

ID: 9571683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:13.912411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:48.259588
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee so as to establish a special lien in a specific amount against the real property owned by appellant. It *349is clear that the grant of summary judgment was error because, in the words of the majority, the contractor’s testimony “was at least sufficient to create a genuine factual issue as to the amount of the lien ...” However, I cannot agree with the majority’s enunciation as to the minimum amount of the special lien to which appellee will be entitled. Since the case is being reversed because of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, any determination of the amount of lien to which the appellee is entitled must be made on the basis of the evidence introduced at a trial on the merits. “On a trial of the lien foreclosure we apprehend that [the Taverrites] will have ample opportunity to show what payments [they] made under the construction contract with [Campbell], and how the money was disbursed by him, and that the plaintiff will likewise have ample opportunity to question or to disprove the claimed payments, and that the jury will be able to determine with certainty the amount for which plaintiff is entitled to foreclose its lien.” Bowen v. Kicklighter, 124 Ga. App. 82, 85 (183 SE2d 10) (1971).
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen joins in this special concurrence.