Court Opinion

ID: 9848235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:15:09.290985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.227274
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting. In support of the first motion for summary judgment plaintiff submitted the affidavit of its credit manager, showing that its bill for advertising was true and correct. The bill was based on a contract of the individual defendant doing business as Gregory Advertising, which affiant contends had been acknowledged by the defendant and accepted by the plaintiff. The lower court denied the motion, stating it was unable to ascertain whether the account was made by an individual or a corporation. Thereupon, plaintiff served requests for admission on defendant, in which it requested that defendant admit: 1. That the corporation was not created until a date later than when the debt was created; 2. That the contract was true and correct; 3. That defendant had breached the contract by failing to pay for the advertisements, covering a period of six months advertising; 4. That the debt was past due and unpaid.
Defendant filed his answers to requests for admission, in which he admitted that the corporation was not created until a time later than when the debt was created. Thus, it was established that no liability existed against the corporation.
But defendant did not admit any of the other requests for admissions. Some of his answers could be construed as being vague and indefinite in certain respects, but definitely no admission was made. If the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the answers as made, his remedy is spelled out in detail in Code Ann. § 81A-136, to wit: "The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections ... If the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this section, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” (Emphasis supplied.) This procedure clearly gives to the party who files answers to requests for admissions the privilege of amending his answers when he learns that the opposite party is dissatisfied therewith. But no authority inheres in the trial judge to consider *123an answer as an admission unless and until the party submitting the requests has moved for an order as to the sufficiency of the answers.
Unless the trial court considered defendant’s answers to requests for admissions as admitting plaintiffs requests for admissions there was no possible way for him to grant summary judgment. The original petition was in three paragraphs, the first and second paragraphs alleging the names of the defendants, and the third paragraph alleging: "Defendants owe plaintiff $2,422.75 according to the account attached hereto marked Exhibit 'A.’ ”
Defendant’s answer admitted paragraphs 1 and 2 of complaint, but as to paragraph 3, it asserted: "Defendant denies each and every allegation in the complaint, not herein admitted.” This answer made an issue unless it was pierced by plaintiff in some manner provided by law. He sought to pierce same by requesting admissions, but failed to do so. It is all too obvious that the trial judge considered the answers to the second set of requests for admissions as admitting the requests — perhaps because they were in some respects vague and ambiguous. But this the trial judge could not do unless the plaintiff had first filed objections to the answers and afforded defendant the right to amend.
One further reason why the court could not properly grant summary judgment is that plaintiffs affidavit is insufficient, in that it shows a conflict between the amount named in the contract, and the amount for which complaint was filed and judgment demanded. And defendant denied that this was the agreement between the parties.
The pleadings and evidence, and all inferences arising therefrom, must be construed most strongly in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. McCarty v. National Life &c. Ins. Co., 107 Ga. App. 178 (1) (129 SE2d 408), and the burden of demonstrating the absence of a substantial issue is on the party who moves for the summary judgment.
The grant of summary judgment was erroneous for the above reasons, and I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Bell and Judges Pannell and Quillian join me in this dissent.