Court Opinion

ID: 9564025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:53:04.830711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:11.383088
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the opinion but believe it should be pointed out that the new rules approved by the Supreme Court modify somewhat our previous view that an oral hearing is required unless waived. In Premium Distrib. Co. v. Nat. Distrib. Co., 157 Ga. App. 666, 668-669 (278 SE2d 468) (1981), we stated and held: “Our reading of Code Ann. § 81A-156 reveals a clear legislative intent that a hearing be held at which oral argument may be made . . . The language [of the statute] . . . indicates strongly that a hearing is to be held for the benefit of the parties and for the benefit of the court ... We hold that Code Ann. § 81A-156 requires that a hearing date be set and a hearing conducted before a motion for summary judgment is granted. The failure of a trial court to do so is error.” Accord Hillis v. First Nat. Bank of Waynesboro, 168 Ga. App. 408 (309 SE2d 404) (1983); Harper v. Birmingham Trust Nat. Bank, 171 Ga. App. 618, 619 (320 SE2d 622) (1984) ; Sentry Ins. v. Echols, 174 Ga. App. 541 (1) (330 SE2d 725) (1985) . See also Hosch v. Pickett, 172 Ga. App. 13, 15 (2) (321 SE2d 777) (1984).
*483Decided June 24, 1986.
Phillip M. Eddings, Stephen L. Berry, for appellant.
Gerald E. Wilkerson, John J. Ossick, Jr., for appellee.