Court Opinion

ID: 9566537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:40:42.946221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:23.607967
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Wheeler’s affidavit in response to MARTA’s motion for summary judgment was sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact and avoid summary judgment because it set forth her personal knowledge of specific facts and circumstances admissible in evidence that support the essential elements of her negligence action. The trial court erred by finding that the affidavit was insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact because it was “conclusory” and “self-serving.”
The affidavit was not insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact on the basis that it was “conclusory.”
[C]onclusory allegations by way of an affidavit, unsupported by specific allegations of fact, will not be sufficient to avoid summary judgment. . . . [Affidavits containing mere legal conclusions and allegations present no issues of fact on a motion for summary judgment. An affidavit in contravention of a motion for summary judgment must state more than mere conclusions; it must state specific adverse facts.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. App. 876, 879 (354 SE2d 204) (1987).
Moreover, Wheeler’s affidavit was not insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact merely because she is an interested party and her affidavit contained statements that were obviously self-serving. The affidavit of an interested party based on personal knowledge of specific facts admissible in evidence is sufficient to support or defeat *879summary judgment even though it serves the party’s self-interest. OCGA § 9-11-56; Keene v. Herstam, 225 Ga. App. 115, 116 (483 SE2d 335) (1997).
Decided March 17, 2010.
Jack O. Morse, for appellant.
Nicolle G. Holt, for appellee.