Summary
Judgment affirmed. Sognier, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Sognier, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.
Text
Rich, Bass, Kidd & Witcher, Merck K. Smith, for appellee.James Cornelius, pro se.
Finley filed a dispossessory action in DeKalb State Court against her tenant Cornelius. In response to the action, Cornelius filed an answer and a counterclaim in which he sought damages and sought to have the action transferred to superior court because the case involved "questions regarding the purchase price of the property and what should be done with the purchase price of the property."
The court issued a trial notice for February 13, 1991, and on that date heard Cornelius' motion to transfer. Although Cornelius argued that a transfer was necessary since his counterclaim involved claims for equitable relief, his counterclaim as drafted set forth claims for legal relief. Because of this, the trial court allowed Cornelius a week to amend the counterclaim to reflect the equitable defenses. The trial court ordered that the hearing on the motion to transfer be continued until February 20, 1991, and that Cornelius pay the arrearage of rent into the registry of the court.
On February 15, 1991, Cornelius filed an amended counterclaim and a "Motion for New Trial." In the meantime, because the payments mandated by the February 13 order had not been paid, Finley filed an application for writ of possession. On the same date, a rule nisi issued which indicated that the Motion for New Trial would be heard on February 25. The record contains a letter to Cornelius' attorney, also dated February 15, which discusses the rule nisi.
The case came before the court on February 25 and despite two telephone calls from the court and the notice above, Cornelius failed to appear. Pursuant to Finley's motions to strike, Cornelius' motion for new trial and motion to transfer were dismissed and his counter-claim was stricken. The trial court then heard evidence and entered judgment in favor of Finley for $9,100.41 plus court costs.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Cornelius claims that the trial court erred in completely resolving the case at the February 25 court date since he had insufficient notice that the trial would be held on that date.
At the outset, we note that there is no dispute that Cornelius received the trial notice for February 13 and a rule nisi for February 25. Further, there is a notation on the dispossessory warrant itself from the clerk's office that the matter was "reset" from February 20 to February 25, 1991.
The trial notice provisions of OCGA
Such error does not appear affirmatively from the record here. See also Grindle v. Eubanks,
Grindle, supra. Therefore, in light of the notice Cornelius received and his failure to appear or to offer any legal excuse for his absence, we find no error in the trial court's actions.
2. In his second enumeration, Cornelius claims that the court erred by failing to grant his motion to transfer on February 13 since his counterclaim involved matters of equity and all the facts necessary for a determination were before the court that date. This enumeration is without merit since on the date of the hearing, the reason for the transfer was unclear. The trial court allowed Cornelius to amend his counterclaim and we find no error. See generally OCGA
3. In his third enumeration of error, Cornelius claims that the court erred by requiring the payment of rent into the court in light of the pending Motion to Transfer. This enumeration is without merit. See OCGA
4. In his fourth enumeration, Cornelius claims that the judgment is void because the judges who heard the case were appointed under OCGA
Although we find no error in the proceedings below, Finley's motion for damages for a frivolous appeal is denied.
1991
Notes:
1. The issue of Cornelius' right to a jury trial in this case is not before us. See Hill v. Levenson,
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HILL et al. v. LEVENSON., 259 Ga. 395, 383 S.E.2.d 110
- Supreme Court of Georgia - CANTRELL et al. v. HENRY COUNTY., 250 Ga. 822, 301 S.E.2.d 870
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HANCOCK v. OATES (two cases)., 244 Ga. 175, 259 S.E.2.d 437 (1979)
- Georgia Court Of Appeals - Favors v. Arnold., 181 Ga. App. 286, 351 S.E.2d 641 (1986)
See other documents that cite the same legislation