Court Opinion

ID: 9606196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:06.038931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:33.857207
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellee cemetery says it is “extremely surprised” at the holding in Division 3, inasmuch as evidence of desecration of the grave was never given, and inasmuch as the Gallettas in court said their only issue was fraud and never informed anybody they were claiming desecration.
The appellee makes many misstatements of fact. The desecration issue was raised by evidence no fewer than six times during the plaintiffs’ presentation, including by cross-examination of the cemetery’s president, who admitted that an 80,000 pound concrete truck would probably crush a vault. The matter of desecration occupies some 34 pages of trial transcript, at least. Furthermore, the cemetery in its appeal brief conceded that after the trial court denied its motion in limine to keep out evidence of people walking on graves and building material being placed on graves, “the Gallettas offered such evidence.”
It is misleading for the appellee cemetery to contend as fact that in 25 transcript pages of discussion about “plaintiffs’ theories,” the plaintiffs never “informed the court . . . that their theory . . . was actually desecration. . . . The appellant never mentioned or even hinted at the issue of desecration during this argument [which] centered on whether the appellants’ [sic] had proved rescission and fraud.” If appellee’s counsel had realized that desecration was an issue, he would have certainly addressed it in his argument on the appellee’s motion for directed verdict.
Having made an issue of desecration in the pleadings, having won the right to admit evidence of it, and having admitted the evidence without pertinent objection, this was all the informing plaintiffs needed to do to pursue their claim for desecration. This “surprise” appellee professes on appeal appears nowhere in the record below, not even when the plaintiffs offered their pre-trial amendment; but having instead sat mutely observing the plaintiffs put the issue in evidence, the appellee is bound to know it better than anybody, and cannot possibly claim surprise.
The discussion appellee refers to, where plaintiffs allegedly made a “judicial admission” that they were claiming only fraud, occurred during the hour of argument on appellee’s motion for directed verdict based solely on the fraud count. The point was whether plaintiffs had, or had made, a claim for fraud or a claim for breach of contract (since they had not rescinded the contract). The plaintiffs stated their claim *27was for fraud; this was the only thing discussed because this was the only ground upon which the appellee had moved for directed verdict. It was not up to plaintiffs to hint or mention grave desecration during this argument about fraud and rescission. Desecration was raised in the pleadings and in the evidence many times; if the appellee believed, as it now claims, that nevertheless the plaintiffs had waived or abandoned the issue by having omitted to put it in the pre-trial order, then it was up to the appellee to object to it and move for directed verdict on the desecration issue.
Decided November 4, 1987
Rehearing denied November 20, 1987
Stephen R. Yekel, for appellants.
Stanley M. Karsman, David R. Smith, for appellee.
It appears the appellee was so taken up with the fraud issue that it failed to notice when desecration evidence was offered, which may be why it failed to object. But then, if when the plaintiff-appellants first raised evidence of desecration, the appellee had objected on grounds the issue was not in the pre-trial order, the plaintiffs, having put it in their complaint, would have moved to correct that oversight, and clearly there would have been no reason then not to conform the pretrial order under § 9-11-16. By thus seizing the tricky advantage of not objecting, the appellee is bound by its effect, which was to allow the issue to be tried, which under the mandatory provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (b) would have operated to conform the pre-trial order even if the issue never had been raised in the complaint.
The remainder of the appellee’s motion merely repeats the questions already decided in the opinion, and disputes the case authority in a manner similar to its description of the proceedings.

Motion for rehearing denied.