Court Opinion

ID: 9583058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:34:30.4329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:09.254883
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the conclusions reached in Divisions 1,3,4 and 5 of the majority opinion. However, I cannot believe that the failure to admit the lease assignment constitutes reversible error.
The lease assignment provides: “Agreement made this 11th day of December, 1978, by and between W. M. & E. R. McFarland (hereinafter referred to as Tenant), and F. P. Plaza, Inc., and its agent, Candler & Griffith (hereinafter referred to as Landlord) . . .
“1. F. P. Plaza, Inc. hereby agrees and consents to the assumption of a certain Lease entered into on the 28th day of March, 1965 ... by Yong Ho Kim, as assignee for the property.
“2. That Yong Ho Kim agrees to pay rents called for by the said lease and to abide by the conditions thereof and to fully perform all obligations to be performed by the Tenant of said Lease.
“3. That W. M. & E. R. McFarland will remain responsible for any default during the original term and extension of lease.” Appellants contend that their refusal to sign the lease assignment was not motivated by a fraudulent intent, but was an exercise of their “sound business discretion.” They contend that “appellants had never promised or suggested that they would remain liable on the extension of the original lease.” The lease assignment “would have obligated the appellants to remain responsible for any default...” “Unfortunately,” appellants argue, “the jury never got a chance to see the document . . .”
While the jury may not have seen the document, they unquestionably were aware of its contents. Particularly noteworthy is the testimony of appellant William McFarland: “Q. I show you an instrument denoted Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 8 which denotes itself as a lease assignment. Do you recognize that as an instrument that was presented to you sometime after the closing as to the assignment of this lease? A. Yes, sir, Q. And at that time, did you refuse to sign it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did you refuse to sign it, Mr. McFarland? A. Because that would put us liable for five more years in case Mr. Kim didn’t operate, or closed the place up.” It is apparent that the jury was informed of the assertedly objectionable portion of the lease assignment. At no point in the trial was appellant’s testimony regarding the contents of the lease assignment disputed. See Nesbit v. Nesbit, 241 Ga. 351 (245 SE2d 303) (1978). Thus, even assuming its relevancy, any error in the exclusion of the lease assignment was necessarily harmless. See CPA § 161 (Code Ann. § *78681A-161); White v. Hammond, 129 Ga. App. 408, 410 (199 SE2d 809) (1973).