Court Opinion

ID: 9583795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:42:08.913179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:20.660870
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge.
Charles Rossignol and Charles Rossignol, Inc. brought suit against Prophecy Corporation seeking to recover money allegedly due as compensation under a contract executed between the two corporations. Prophecy answered, raising accord and satisfaction as a defense. The trial court granted Prophecy’s motion for summary judgment. Rossignol and Charles Rossignol, Inc. appeal.
Appellee, a manufacturer of women’s clothing, employed appel*246lants to represent its line of merchandise in the southeast. After the termination of appellants’ employment with appellee, they received a check representing the final payment for all commissions earned during the previous quarter. The check was accompanied by documentation of deductions. Appellants disagreed with some of the deductions taken and contacted appellee’s president to voice that disagreement. Compare Sunbelt Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of Alapaha, 176 Ga. App. 628 (337 SE2d 410) (1985). At some point during the course of their discussions, Rossignol endorsed and deposited the check, sending appellee written notice that it was accepting the check as partial payment of the amount due.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to appellee because questions of fact exist as to whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties resulting in an accord and satisfaction. OCGA §§ 13-4-101; 13-4-103 (b). Appellants contend that telephone conversations between appellants and appellee indicate that there existed an understanding by all parties that the check did not represent full and final payment of the debt, which was to be further discussed, and that, therefore, appellants’ depositing of the check did not constitute an accord and satisfaction of the debt. Rossignol originally testified in a deposition that he did not know what the time sequence of the communications between the parties was, but he also implied that the negotiation of the check preceded the agreement of the parties to discuss the matter further. Later, in response to appellee’s motion for summary judgment, he submitted an affidavit stating that “[s]ince my deposition I have reviewed my notes and records and otherwise refreshed my recollection and I now know” that the crucial conversation occurred prior to the check deposit.
The trial court found that the affidavit contradicted the deposition, and that the contradiction was deliberate and intentional, but held that even had it not been deliberate and intentional, appellants were bound by their version of the incident that was least favorable to their case. For this proposition the trial court relied primarily on Cook v. Delite Beauty Supply, 165 Ga. App. 859, 860 (303 SE2d 40) (1983) and Tri-Cities Hosp. Auth. v. Sheats, 247 Ga. 713 (279 SE2d 210) (1981). As indicated by the trial court, this court in Cook did construe the Supreme Court’s decision in Tri-Cities Hosp. Auth. as being “a modification of the previous rule, set forth in Chambers v. C & S Nat. Bank, 242 Ga. 498 (249 SE2d 214) (1978), to the effect that a respondent’s testimony will be construed against him only where the contradiction is deliberate or intentional.” Cook v. Delite Beauty Supply, supra, 860. The Supreme Court, however, has held otherwise, squarely addressing this issue in King v. Brasington, 252 Ga. 109 (312 SE2d 111) (1984). “In Combs [v. Adair Mortgage Co., *247245 Ga. 296 (264 SE2d 226) (1980)] we were called upon to reconcile the cases of Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551 (181 SE2d 866) (1971), with Chambers v. Citizens &c. Nat. Bank, 242 Ga. 498 (249 SE2d 214) (1978). In our holding we recognized the heavy burden placed upon a movant for summary judgment to show the absence of any issue of material fact. Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, supra. We found, however, that even though the presence of any issue of fact will defeat a motion for summary judgment, such an issue cannot be created by a respondent’s intentionally contradictory evidence. The requirement that only intentionally contradictory evidence will be construed against the respondent is necessary since normally the evidence is construed most strictly against the movant on motion for summary judgment. It is otherwise at trial, and in the absence of other testimony a plaintiff whose testimony as to vital facts is contradictory has not carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case and may not prevail on the basis of such contradictory testimony.” (Emphasis supplied.) King v. Brasington, supra, 111. Since King is the latest expression of the Supreme Court on the issue now before us, it is absolutely binding upon us. Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625 (216 SE2d 839) (1975). In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in King, supra, our analysis of Tri-Cities Hosp. Auth. was erroneous. Accordingly, to the extent that the language in Division 1 of Cook is inconsistent with the holding of the Supreme Court in King, Cook and such other decisions of this court as follow the rationale of Cook must be overruled.
Applying the rule of King v. Brasington to the facts of this case, it is clear that the trial court erred in finding an intentional conflict between Rossignol’s deposition testimony and his later explanatory affidavit statement to the effect that he deposited the check after being told in a telephone conversation that appellee’s agent agreed to consider and discuss further the deductions under consideration. In his deposition, Rossignol merely did not remember the time sequence. It was only in his affidavit, given after he had reviewed his notes and records, that he gave a definite answer as to the time sequence. Even assuming that this evinced a “conflict,” it does not, in our opinion, rise to the level of an “intentional” one so as to authorize the trial court, rather than the jury, to resolve the issue in favor of appellee and against appellant. As a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether, at the time the check was accepted, appellee intended to make full payment, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Pope, Ben-ham and Beasley, JJ., concur. Banke, C. J., Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., dissent.