Court Opinion

ID: 9617115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:52:14.169059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:06.017439
License: Public Domain

Bowles, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion in this case. I feel that the result will add to the onerous burden of pleadings which was intended to be minimized by the adoption of the Civil Practice Act.
*516Section 9 (c) of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-109 (c)) is identical to the federal rule pertaining to this same subject matter. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9 (c). The rule simply permits the plaintiff to allege in general terms that all conditions precedent have been performed. It requires a defendant in denial of performance or occurrence to plead specifically and with particularity. The rule is simple. The requirement placed on the defendant is simple.
Because the Act is patterned after the federal rules, and this particular section duplicates the federal rule, federal decisions construing this provision should be given great weight in the interpretation of the Georgia Act. As the Court of Appeals said in Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga. App. 1, 4 (126 SE2d 442) (1962), "The Summary Judgment Act of 1959 is substantially identical with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Rule 56. Therefore, it is appropriate that we resort to 'Federal Cases’ as to its construction.” See also E. Freeman Leverett, Comments on the Georgia Civil Practice Act of 1966, 3 Ga. State B. J., 295 (1967). The federal cases, including those cited in the majority opinion, hold that where the plaintiff has generally pleaded that all conditions precedent had been met, the defendant cannot generally deny that allegation. If he does so, he will be deemed to have admitted the allegation as being true. 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1304, p. 432 (1969); Ginsburg v. Ins. Co. of North America, 427 F2d 1318 (6th Cir. 1970); Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bowman, 313 F2d 381, 387 (10th Cir. 1963); Weir v. United States, 310 F2d 149, 155-56 (8th Cir. 1962). State courts with similar rules which have followed the federal rule include Clary v. Alexander County Bd. of Ed., 286 N. C. 525 (212 SE2d 160) (1975); Henschel v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 178 NW2d 409, 418 (S. Ct. Iowa 1970); Treasure State Industries v. Leigland, 151 Mont. 288 (443 P2d 22) (1969). Thus, under this procedure the issues are narrowed from the outset, as a portion of the burden of pleading specifically or affirmatively is placed upon the defendant. The burden of proof is not shifted but *517remains on the plaintiff if properly challenged.1,2
This was the interpretation of the trial judge and of the Court of Appeals. Now the majority says that this is "contrary to the intent of the Civil Practice Act” and writes its own rule. I am not able to thus interpret the intent of the legislature. Indeed, the spirit and intent of good faith pleading required under § 81A-108 (b) of the Civil Practice Act would not permit a defendant to deny all of an averment of a complaint when a portion is true. Consolidated Pecan Sales Co. v. Savannah Bank &c. Co., 122 Ga. App. 536, 539 (4) (177 SE2d 808) (1970); Stuckey’s Carriage Inn v. Phillips, 122 Ga. App. 681 (4) (178 SE2d 543) (1970). Honesty in pleading is the objective. Honesty in pleading is required. Honesty in pleading is not met when a general denial is made to a pleading which can be admitted in part by pleading specifically and with particularity.
This result makes a simple rule complicated. The majority opinion readily admits that the claimant-plaintiff can require the defending party to comply with the rule but adds that he must make a motion in order to get him to do so. Why add the requirements of a *518motion, a response of the defendant, and possibly a court hearing to a case when the contentions of the parties can be applied to the pleadings as initially presented? If an error is made amendment is available. The result is that we have one rule in the federal system and a totally different rule in the state system. Pray tell me what this contributes toward making the rules of civil procedure simple or uniform.3
I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice Marshall joins in this dissent.

Failure to properly plead to allegations within the knowledge of the defendant in other instances will be considered as an admission of the allegation. J. D. Jewell, Inc. v. Hancock, 226 Ga. 480 (5) (175 SE2d 847) (1970). See also North Georgia Production Credit Assn. v. Vandergrift, 239 Ga. 755 at 762-763 (238 SE2d 869) (1977).

If the plaintiff fails to allege performance of conditions precedent, matters normally put into issue by a specific denial need not be asserted as affirmative defenses in order to be preserved. 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1304, p. 432; Royal McBee Corp. v. Bryant, 217 A2d 603, 607 (D.C. Ct. App. 1966); Inman v. Clyde Hall Drilling Co., 369 P2d 498 (Alaska S. Ct. 1962) 4 ALR3d 430. The result in such instances would be logical because the plaintiff or claimant has not seen fit to plead that conditions precedent have been met, and thus, such conditions must be proven.

I have not covered in this dissent any mention of the applicability of Rule 15 (b) to this case although it is included as a "furthermore” to bolster the result of the majority opinion. This point was not presented to the Court of Appeals in the motion for rehearing of their opinion, nor was it included in the petition for certiorari filed to this court. Under our own rules we should not consider this point. Rules of the Supreme Court XVIII, Rule 36 (h).