Harwood v. Great American Management & Investment, Inc.

298 S.E.2d 263, 164 Ga. App. 703, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2917
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 17, 1982
Docket64618
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 298 S.E.2d 263 (Harwood v. Great American Management & Investment, Inc.) 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
Harwood v. Great American Management & Investment, Inc., 298 S.E.2d 263, 164 Ga. App. 703, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2917 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Shulman, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from an order dismissing appellants’ complaint as a sanction for failing to answer interrogatories. The dismissal was entered pursuant to Code Ann. § 81A-137 (b) (2) (C) (OCGA § 9-11-37 (b)(2) (C)). The trial court had already issued an order compelling appellants to supplement previous answers to interrogatories. When no supplementation was filed, the trial court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss.

Appellants’ first enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal without first conducting a hearing. We agree.

In Swindell v. Swindell, 233 Ga. 854 (2) (213 SE2d 697), the Supreme Court iterated its holding that such a harsh sanction required a showing of willfulness in the failure to permit discovery. Although the record is clear that appellants did not file any supplement to their answers to appellees’ interrogatories, the record is not so clear as to the willfulness of that failure. We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in dismissing appellants’ complaint under CPA § 37 (b) (2) (C) without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of willfulness. Our holding on this issue obviates the necessity of discussing appellants’ other grounds for reversal.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Related

Vining v. KIMOTO USA, INC.
433 S.E.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Schrembs v. Atlanta Classic Cars, Inc.
402 S.E.2d 723 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1991)
Schrembs v. Atlanta Classic Cars, Inc.
398 S.E.2d 712 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Lewis v. Foster
368 S.E.2d 575 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Smith v. Nat. Bank of Ga.
354 S.E.2d 678 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Brunswick Manufacturing Co. v. Sizemore
338 S.E.2d 288 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Serwitz v. General Electric Credit Corp.
331 S.E.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Harwood v. Great American Management & Investment, Inc.
320 S.E.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 S.E.2d 263, 164 Ga. App. 703, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harwood-v-great-american-management-investment-inc-gactapp-1982.