Havischak v. Neal

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Havischak v. Neal

335 S.E.2d 469, 176 Ga. App. 203, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2284

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1985

Docket71249

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 335 S.E.2d 469 (Havischak v. Neal) 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

Havischak v. Neal, 335 S.E.2d 469, 176 Ga. App. 203, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2284 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff left her automobile with defendant Crafts & Cars, Inc., to be repaired, and a dispute arose over the amount of the bill. She filed this suit to recover actual and punitive damages from the company based on its alleged action in “illegally withholding [her] automobile by using fraud to increase the price of repair agreed upon and not notifying [her] of same for her approval.” Later, after Crafts & Cars, Inc., had been served but one day before it filed its answer, the plaintiff sought and obtained an ex parte order granting her leave to amend her complaint to add the appellant, Dennis Havischak, as an additional defendant, “subject to objections.” Havischak subsequently filed an answer, which the plaintiff moved to strike as untimely. The plaintiff also filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment against Havischak based on the alleged untimeliness of his answer. Havischak, in turn, moved to vacate the order allowing him to be added as a defendant. Without ruling on the latter motion, the trial court struck Havischak’s answer as untimely and entered judgment on the pleadings against him in the amount of $55,000, plus costs. Havischak then moved to set this judgment aside pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60. The trial court granted the motion to set aside with respect to the award of damages but allowed the judgment to stand as a determination of liability. This appeal is from the latter ruling. Held:

Through the procedural muddle from which this appeal has arisen, a central fact stands out — the judgment appealed from is not final, either with respect to the case as a whole or with respect to the claim against Havischak. See generally OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). There having been no compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), the appeal must consequently be dismissed. Accord Black v. Sturdivant, 131 Ga. App. 698 (206 SE2d 526) (1974); Spivey v. Rogers, 167 Ga. App. 729 (307 SE2d 677) (1983).

Appeal dismissed.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur. *204 Robert L. Neal, for appellee.

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

Banke, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff left her automobile with defendant Crafts & Cars, Inc., to be repaired, and a dispute arose over the amount of the bill. She filed this suit to recover actual and punitive damages from the company based on its alleged action in “illegally withholding [her] automobile by using fraud to increase the price of repair agreed upon and not notifying [her] of same for her approval.” Later, after Crafts & Cars, Inc., had been served but one day before it filed its answer, the plaintiff sought and obtained an ex parte order granting her leave to amend her complaint to add the appellant, Dennis Havischak, as an additional defendant, “subject to objections.” Havischak subsequently filed an answer, which the plaintiff moved to strike as untimely. The plaintiff also filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment against Havischak based on the alleged untimeliness of his answer. Havischak, in turn, moved to vacate the order allowing him to be added as a defendant. Without ruling on the latter motion, the trial court struck Havischak’s answer as untimely and entered judgment on the pleadings against him in the amount of $55,000, plus costs. Havischak then moved to set this judgment aside pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60. The trial court granted the motion to set aside with respect to the award of damages but allowed the judgment to stand as a determination of liability. This appeal is from the latter ruling. Held:

Through the procedural muddle from which this appeal has arisen, a central fact stands out — the judgment appealed from is not final, either with respect to the case as a whole or with respect to the claim against Havischak. See generally OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). There having been no compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), the appeal must consequently be dismissed. Accord Black v. Sturdivant, 131 Ga. App. 698 (206 SE2d 526) (1974); Spivey v. Rogers, 167 Ga. App. 729 (307 SE2d 677) (1983).

Appeal dismissed.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur. *204 Robert L. Neal, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 S.E.2d 469, 176 Ga. App. 203, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havischak-v-neal-gactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack