Chugh Shopping Center Inc. v. Ameris Bank

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 16, 2013
DocketA13A0501
StatusPublished

This text of Chugh Shopping Center Inc. v. Ameris Bank (Chugh Shopping Center Inc. v. Ameris Bank) 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
Chugh Shopping Center Inc. v. Ameris Bank, (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and BRANCH, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

July 16, 2013

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0501. CHUGH SHOPPING CENTER, INC. v. AMERIS BANK.

PHIPPS, Chief Judge.

Ameris Bank1 filed suit on a promissory note against Chugh Shopping Center,

Inc.,2 eventually procuring a default judgment. About two years later, Chugh

Shopping Center filed a motion to set aside the default judgment as prematurely

1 The parties agree that, at the outset of this litigation, the plaintiff was American United Bank; that Ameris Bank became the successor-in-interest to American United Bank; and that Ameris Bank was subsequently substituted as a party for American United Bank. Accordingly, throughout this opinion, we refer to that party (plaintiff below) as Ameris Bank. 2 The bank also named as a defendant Jawahar L. Chugh, but that part of the litigation is not in issue in this appeal. This court’s unpublished decision of Chugh v. Ameris Bank, 315 Ga. App. XXIV (Case No. A12A0765, decided March 21, 2012), disposed of an appeal that was instituted by Chugh in connection with the underlying lawsuit. entered, given its bankruptcy protections at the time. The trial court denied the motion

to set aside, and Chugh Shopping Center appeals. For reasons that follow, we vacate

the judgment and remand this case for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

On October 20, 2009, Ameris Bank filed a complaint against Chugh Shopping

Center, which was served with process on October 30, 2009. On March 15, 2010,

Ameris Bank filed a motion for default judgment against Chugh Shopping Center for

reason that “[o]ver forty-five days have now elapsed without Chugh Shopping Center,

Inc.’s filing of an answer or other response in this Court.”3 And on March 24, 2010,

the trial court entered an order in which it found that “over forty-five days have now

elapsed without Chugh Shopping Center, Inc.’s filing of an answer or other response

in this Court,” and therefore granting Ameris Bank default judgment in an amount in

excess of $3,500,000.

In February 2012, Chugh Shopping Center filed a compound motion seeking

reprieve. First, Chugh Shopping Center argued that Ameris Bank had pursued, and

that the trial court had granted, default judgment in violation of its intervening

bankruptcy protections and that default judgment therefore should be set aside under

3 See generally OCGA §§ 9-11-12 (a); 9-11-55.

2 OCGA § 9-11-60. Additionally, Chugh Shopping Center sought to open default, to

contest the amount of damages, and to dismiss Ameris Bank’s complaint.

The trial court held a hearing. Chugh Shopping Center argued that the default

judgment had been prematurely entered, citing its intervening bankruptcy case and

relying on the holding of Lucas v. Integrated Health Services of Lester.4 Specifically,

a few days after Chugh Shopping Center was served with Ameris Bank’s complaint,

Chugh Shopping Center filed a petition for bankruptcy. Indeed, the parties stipulated

at the hearing that Chugh Shopping Center filed a bankruptcy petition on November

3, 2009, and stipulated further that an order granting Ameris Bank relief from the

automatic stay was entered February 24, 2010.

As this court recognized in Lucas,

The imposition of the stay under 11 USC § 362 is automatic upon filing of the bankruptcy petition, and the protections afforded to the debtor attach immediately. In our view it follows that the protections afforded by the stay should end on the date the stay is lifted, modified or terminated by order entered in the bankruptcy court, and no other action need be taken in any other forum to recommence the clock ticking.5

4 268 Ga. App. 306 (601 SE2d 701) (2004). 5 Id. at 308 (1).

3 At issue in Lucas was the “time limit for filing an answer in a suit once the stay has

been lifted or modified.”6 Lucas held, “[A] debtor who has been relieved from filing

an answer by the imposition of the stay after service has been made must respond to

those claims within 30 days after the stay is lifted.”7

Given the foregoing, Chugh Shopping Center posited on motion to set aside

that it had been relieved from filing an answer to Ameris Bank’s complaint until 30

days after February 24, 2010; therefore, entry of default judgment against it on March

24, 2010 was not authorized8 and the default judgment should be set aside under

OCGA § 9-11-60.

Ameris Bank countered that Chugh Shopping Center was entitled to no relief

from the default judgment, pointing out that nothing in the record suggested any

bankruptcy. It focused on language in Chugh Shopping Center’s motion alleging that

the default judgment “constitutes a defect in the record,” characterized Chugh

Shopping Center’s motion as one seeking relief under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (3), and

6 Id. at 309 (1) (emphasis supplied). 7 Id. 8 See id.; see generally Evans v. Marshall, 253 Ga. App. 439 (559 SE2d 165) (2002) (explaining that a trial court errs in finding defendant in default, where answer was not due).

4 maintained, “[T]here is nothing on the face of the record that shows there was any

kind of defect.” Counsel for Ameris Bank argued at the hearing,

As [counsel for Chugh Shopping Center] conceded . . ., your Honor, there is no notice of bankruptcy, no suggestion of bankruptcy that would tip the Court off, okay there’s a problem here. There’s been a bankruptcy filed. Okay. That’s not in the record. So for that reason alone, your Honor, there simply is no basis to set aside a default judgment.

The trial court agreed with Ameris Bank, citing OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (3),

which provides that a judgment may be set aside based upon “[a] nonamendable

defect which appears upon the face of the record or pleadings.” The trial court

expressly noted the parties’ stipulations concerning the filings in bankruptcy court

and further acknowledged that the default judgment entered against Chugh Shopping

Center on March 24, 2010 was less than 30 days from the lifting of the stay. But the

trial court found dispositive that “[Chugh Shopping Center] never filed in this case

any documents related to the bankruptcy proceeding.” Thus, the trial court denied

Chugh Shopping Center’s motion to set aside for reason that Chugh Shopping Center

had failed to point to any defect on the face of the record.

5 1. Chugh Shopping Center contends that the trial court erred by concluding that

it was not entitled to relief under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (3).9 But as Chugh Shopping

Center has conceded, no bankruptcy documents were filed in the trial court.

Consequently, the trial court did not err in concluding that the record was devoid of

a nonamendable defect which appears upon the face of the record or pleadings.10

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

Related

Capital Associates, Inc. v. Keoho
327 S.E.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
The Pantry, Inc. v. Harris
609 S.E.2d 692 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Evans v. Marshall
559 S.E.2d 165 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
Hiner Transport, Inc. v. Jeter
667 S.E.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
City of Gainesville v. Dodd
573 S.E.2d 369 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2002)
Herringdine v. Nalley Equipment Leasing Ltd.
517 S.E.2d 571 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
City of Atlanta v. Holder
711 S.E.2d 332 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Stamey v. Policemen's Pension Fund Board of Trustees
712 S.E.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011)
Jova Daniels Busby, Inc. v. Greenforest Community Baptist Church, Inc.
523 S.E.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Lucas v. Integrated Health Services of Lester, Inc.
601 S.E.2d 701 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chugh Shopping Center Inc. v. Ameris Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chugh-shopping-center-inc-v-ameris-bank-gactapp-2013.