Frazier v. Willis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Frazier v. Willis

197 S.E.2d 831, 128 Ga. App. 762, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1607

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1973

Docket47848

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 197 S.E.2d 831 (Frazier v. Willis) 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

Frazier v. Willis, 197 S.E.2d 831, 128 Ga. App. 762, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This case concerns a dispute over the ownership of an automobile. The lower court granted the defendant-executor’s motion for summary judgment. The Georgia certificate of title reflects plaintiffs stepmother, now deceased, as the owner. The certificate of title is only prima facie evidence of ownership and this can be contradicted by other evidence. Watson v. Brown, 126 Ga. App. 69 (189 SE2d 903). By affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment plaintiff stated that he purchased the car from a dealer. He made a down payment by trading in an older automobile of which he was the owner plus a cash down payment of $150; that the balance was financed by the Universal CIT in the name of the deceased due to his minority; that he made the monthly payments of $119.16 per month by check or cash; that defendant has in his possession a "paper” showing that the deceased received more than $800 in cash to make the monthly payments; and that defendant-executor furnished him a document entitled "Release of Claims” for his signature which contained a statement that plaintiff was the purchaser of this automobile. Three checks payable to Universal CIT in the amount of the monthly payment drawn by plaintiff *763 and a copy of the above release were attached to the affidavit. Affidavits from the car dealer and his sales manager corroborated the plaintiffs affidavit concerning the sale, the trade-in, etc. This evidence in opposition to the defendant’s motion appears to be admissible and would not violate Code § 38-1603 (1), as the evidence would not be categorized as transactions or communications with a deceased person. Simmons v. Larry, 109 Ga. App. 424 (136 SE2d 502). There is a genuine issue of material fact as to ownership of the vehicle. The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Submitted January 3, 1973 Decided April 11, 1973. Nixon & Nixon, John P. Nixon, for appellant. A. O. B. Sparks, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Deen and Quillian, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

This case concerns a dispute over the ownership of an automobile. The lower court granted the defendant-executor’s motion for summary judgment. The Georgia certificate of title reflects plaintiffs stepmother, now deceased, as the owner. The certificate of title is only prima facie evidence of ownership and this can be contradicted by other evidence. Watson v. Brown, 126 Ga. App. 69 (189 SE2d 903). By affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment plaintiff stated that he purchased the car from a dealer. He made a down payment by trading in an older automobile of which he was the owner plus a cash down payment of $150; that the balance was financed by the Universal CIT in the name of the deceased due to his minority; that he made the monthly payments of $119.16 per month by check or cash; that defendant has in his possession a "paper” showing that the deceased received more than $800 in cash to make the monthly payments; and that defendant-executor furnished him a document entitled "Release of Claims” for his signature which contained a statement that plaintiff was the purchaser of this automobile. Three checks payable to Universal CIT in the amount of the monthly payment drawn by plaintiff *763 and a copy of the above release were attached to the affidavit. Affidavits from the car dealer and his sales manager corroborated the plaintiffs affidavit concerning the sale, the trade-in, etc. This evidence in opposition to the defendant’s motion appears to be admissible and would not violate Code § 38-1603 (1), as the evidence would not be categorized as transactions or communications with a deceased person. Simmons v. Larry, 109 Ga. App. 424 (136 SE2d 502). There is a genuine issue of material fact as to ownership of the vehicle. The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Submitted January 3, 1973 Decided April 11, 1973. Nixon & Nixon, John P. Nixon, for appellant. A. O. B. Sparks, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Deen and Quillian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E.2d 831, 128 Ga. App. 762, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-willis-gactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack