Court Opinion

ID: 9564128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:54:40.67926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:14.184553
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
concurring specially. Plaintiff recovered judgment of defendant, and then sought discovery as to what property defendant owned from which the judgment might be satisfied. The defendant did not answer the interrogatories, nor did he file objections to same. Plaintiff then sought an order to compel an answer to the interrogatories, and prayed that defendant be required to pay attorney fees to plaintiff in the discovery proceeding.
Defendant then filed response to the interrogatories, and refused to answer on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate him or work a forfeiture of his estate, and prayed that he not be required to answer, and that he not be required to pay attorney fees, alleging that he had offered a settlement to which plaintiff had not responded, and asserting that his failure to answer was not wilful.
The lower court rendered a judgment, after hearing the matter, and held that defendant was not required to answer for the reasons he had alleged but that he would be required to pay plaintiff $150 as attorney fees. Defendant appeals.
1. The lower court had the power to deny plaintiffs motion to compel defendant’s answer to the interrogatories. When the Civil Practice Act was enacted in 1966, discovery was dealt with rather extensively, but nothing therein repealed the discovery law as set forth in the former statute, in Code § 38-1204, which had been in existence since 1889 (Ga. L. 1889, p. 87). In 1955 this discovery law was amended to permit discovery from defendants in fi. fa. as to what property they owned which might be subject to payment of the outstanding judgment. Code Ann. § 38-1201 (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 577, 578; 1959, pp. 425, 443). In 1959, supra, it was provided that such discovery might be had "in accordance with the Provisions of Chapter 38-21.” Discovery as to the assets of a defendant in fi.fa. was upheld in Bradley v. Coach & Six Restaurants, Inc., 112 Ga. App. 278 (145 SE2d 55). But, of course, the discovery authorized by the General Assembly in 1959 was subject to all existing statutes which were not specifically or by implication repealed *641thereby. The existing statutes provide that upon timely and proper objection, a party may not be required to testify as to matters which might tend to incriminate him, or subject him to a penalty, or a forfeiture, or work a forfeiture of his estate, or bring infamy or disgrace on his family. See Code §§ 38-417, 38-1102, 38-1205. To have answered the interrogatories as desired by plaintiff would have forfeited defendant’s estate to plaintiff, and that was the whole object of the discovery proceeding. Townsend v. Northcutt, 121 Ga. App. 230 (173 SE2d 470).
2. But the defendant ignored the interrogatories and it was not until motion to compel answers was filed by plaintiff that he finally responded and objected to being required to answer in a way that might tend to incriminate him or work a forfeiture of his estate. Attorney fees are sought under the provisions of Code Ann. § 81A-137, post. It is true that the discovery was sought under Code Ann. § 38-1201, as amended, but that statute expressly provided that said discovery would be "in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 38-21.” Chapter 38-21 was repealed by the Civil Practice Act in 1966, but its provisions were re-written into Code Ann. §§ 81A-126 through 81A-137 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 650; 1967, pp. 226, 235; 1970, p. 157; 1972, pp. 510, 530). Code Ann. § 81A-137 (a4), supra, authorizes the court to require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the moving parties reasonable expenses, "if the motion is granted.” Here the dilatory party waited until the motion was filed to compel him to answer, and then filed his response before the court had the opportunity to pass upon the motion. The response was thus made here because of the motion to compel such response, and simply because it was made before the judge could pass upon the motion will not relieve the delinquent party from paying the moving party the expense provided for in the above statute. There has been a substantial compliance with the statute and the lower court’s judgment in requiring payment of attorney fees is therefore properly affirmed.