Caswell v. Pelham

323 S.E.2d 247, 172 Ga. App. 317, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2494
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 5, 1984
Docket68478, 68823
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 323 S.E.2d 247 (Caswell v. Pelham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Caswell v. Pelham, 323 S.E.2d 247, 172 Ga. App. 317, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Wynn Pelham, assignee of R. G. Jordan, filed two suits against Jerry Caswell for delinquent monthly installment payments due under a written contract between Caswell and Jordan. Caswell ap[318]*318peals from the trial court’s grant of Pelham’s motions for summary judgment as to the July, August, and September 1983 delinquent payments (Case No. 68478) and the October, November, December 1983 and January 1984 delinquent payments (Case No. 68823).

Decided October 5, 1984. Tom Pye, for appellant. Wynn Pelham, pro se.

We affirm. Appellant admitted executing the subject contract binding appellant to pay Jordan $1,350 a month for 26 months beginning March 1983, in exchange for various actions taken by Jordan. Appellant does not controvert that these payments were delinquent under the contract and he raised no defenses involving the performance of the contract against appellee. Therefore, the trial court properly granted appellee’s motions for summary judgment. See Laurens County &c. Ctr. v. Ernest Jones & Assoc., 168 Ga. App. 705 (2) (310 SE2d 282) (1983). Appellant’s attempt to create a question of fact surrounding the assignment of the contract from Jordan to appellee is meritless, since appellant did not allege any harm from that assignment and the record shows that appellant received full credit from appellee for all payments made to either Jordan or appellee under the contract.

Although we find no merit in appellant’s enumeration of error, we cannot conclude that the appeal was totally frivolous or solely for purposes of delay. Accordingly, appellee’s motion for the assessment of penalties under OCGA § 5-6-6 is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, C. J., and Deen, P. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fortenberry v. Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc.
335 S.E.2d 460 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
323 S.E.2d 247, 172 Ga. App. 317, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caswell-v-pelham-gactapp-1984.