Court Opinion

ID: 9581907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:20:22.873805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:19.646663
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent, because the holding of the Supreme Court of Georgia requires that the original action be treated as voidable and not void.
The defendant, Robert Donald Coats, was personally served with the renewal action. While the defendant made an OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (4) and (5) for failure to serve and insufficient service, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the original complaint without prejudice and refiled the complaint as a renewal action to correct such defect as to sufficiency of service. Therefore, the original action was voidable and not void, because the trial court had not ruled on the motion to dismiss at the time of dismissal.
*60Decided February 26, 2002
Parker & Lundy, William L. Lundy, Jr., Charles E. Morris, Jr., Gammon & Anderson, W. Wright Gammon, Jr., for appellant.
The renewal statute is remedial in nature; it is construed liberally to allow renewal where a suit is disposed of on [grounds] not affecting its merits. Clark v. Newsome, 180 Ga. 97 (178 SE 386) (1935); Cox v. Strickland, 120 Ga. 104 (7) (47 SE 912) (1904); Atlanta K & N R. Co. v. Wilson, 119 Ga. 781 (47 SE 366) (1904), and cases cited therein. The privilege of dismissal and renewal does not apply to cases decided on [the] merits or to void cases, but does allow renewal if the previous action was merely voidable. Patterson v. Douglas Women’s Center, 258 Ga. 803, 804 (3) (374 SE2d 737) (1989). The original suit is void if service was never perfected, since the filing of a complaint without perfecting service does not constitute a pending suit. [Id.]; Hilton v. Maddox, Bishop, Hayton &c., 125 Ga. App. 423 (1) (188 SE2d 167) (1972). A suit is also void and incapable of renewal under OCGA § 9-2-61 (a) if there has been a judicial determination that dismissal is authorized. However, unless and until the trial court enters an order dismissing a valid action, it is merely voidable and not void.
(Punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Hobbs v. Arthur, 264 Ga. 359, 360 (444 SE2d 322) (1994); accord Tate v. Coastal Utilities, 247 Ga. App. 738, 740 (1) (545 SE2d 124) (2001). Neither this nor the original action suffered from any deficiency which rendered it void ab initio.1
“Defenses which are raised in the renewal action will be adjudicated only with respect to that which occurred subsequent to refiling.” Hobbs v. Arthur, supra. Thus, the trial court erred as a matter of law in dismissing the renewal action, because it found that the service in the original action was insufficient, which made such action voidable and not void. Id.
*61Magruder & Sumner, J. Clinton Sumner, Jr., Susan D. Taylor, King & Spalding, Lanny B. Bridgers, Steven J. Estep, for appellee.

 These “includ[e] actions that were filed and not served, [Branch v. Mechanics’ Bank, 50 Ga. 413, 418 (1873);] Acree v. Knab, 180 Ga. App. 174 (348 SE2d 716) (1986) and actions in which the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Keramidas v. Dept. of Human Resources, 147 Ga. App. [820, 821 (250 SE2d 560) (1978)].” (Footnote omitted.) Patterson v. Douglas Women’s Center, supra at 804 (4).