Court Opinion

ID: 9846102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:34:39.818555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:33.350756
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge,
dissenting in part. The covenant of the original lessee to pay broker’s commissions may be "like rent” but it is a payment to a third party, is not rent, is not a real covenant and does not pass with the lease merely by virtue of assignment. James Talcott, Inc. v. Roy D. Warren Commercial, Inc., 120 Ga. App. 544 (171 SE2d 907). R.B.M. of Atlanta, Inc., assignee of the original tenant, Alpha Enterprises, took the- lease assignment without expressly assuming the obligations of Alpha and quite possibly Alpha remains primarily liable for the covenant of payment of broker’s commissions. See Warehouses, Inc. v. Wetherbee, 203 Ga. 483, 490 (46 SE2d 894). But the assumption of the lease and course of dealing on the part of R.B.M. of Atlanta, Inc., would "ordinarily” render it liable under these facts. Adair v. Smith, 23 Ga. App. 290 (98 SE 224). My only disagreement with the majority opinion is that I consider it a question of fact rather than a question of law as to whether R.B.M. of Atlanta, Inc., assumed these obligations by implication, since it did not expressly do so. Compare National Bondholders Corp. v. Parris, 190 Ga. 513 *79(9 SE2d 741) and Alsobrook v. Taylor, 181 Ga. 10 (6) (181 SE 182) as to necessity of specific words importing a promise to pay the debt in order to create liability.
As Judge Evans so rightly said in Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co., 121 Ga. App. 131 (5) (173 SE2d 236): "Where, on consideration of a motion for summary judgment, it appears from the evidence that there remains a genuine issue as to any material fact, the moving party is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and the motion should be denied.”
I would reverse the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Judges Eberhardt and Quillian join me in this dissent.