Hoffman v. PMC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

232 S.E.2d 541, 238 Ga. 258, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 982
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 28, 1977
Docket31508
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 232 S.E.2d 541 (Hoffman v. PMC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoffman v. PMC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., 232 S.E.2d 541, 238 Ga. 258, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 982 (Ga. 1977).

Opinion

*258 Jordan, Justice.

Appellants, purchasers of lots in a subdivision from appellees, brought suit alleging that the sales violated the Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act and that appellees were ordered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to refund to appellants all funds paid on said lots but that no refunds had been made.

Appellees filed a "motion to dismiss and plea of statute of limitations.” The trial court granted the motion and appellants filed this appeal. We reverse.

The basis of the trial court’s order was that the complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitation. Since the complaint did not set out the dates when the sales took place, it is clear that the trial court considered matters outside the complaint. The appellees’ motion should therefore have been treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Code Ann. § 81A-156. Daylight Industries, Inc. v. Allen, 123 Ga. App. 69 (179 SE2d 542) (1970).

The affidavit of plaintiff Thomas and the deposition of defendant Meazell contain evidence which tends to show that appellants have a cause of action against PMC based on a contract to rescind. While it appears from our review of the record that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint based upon the violation of the Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act, questions of fact remain as to the alleged contracts to rescind, and therefore summary judgment as to those grounds was improper.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Warehouseboy Trading, Inc. v. Gew Fitness, LLC
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012
Johnson v. RLI Insurance Co.
704 S.E.2d 173 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2010)
Sowerby v. Doyal
703 S.E.2d 326 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Morrell v. Wellstar Health System, Inc.
633 S.E.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Redding v. Walker
485 S.E.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Peeples v. City of Atlanta
377 S.E.2d 889 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Ferguson v. United Insurance Company of America
293 S.E.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
International Indemnity Co. v. Blakey
289 S.E.2d 303 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Lewis v. Schlenz
291 S.E.2d 55 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Stender v. Fulton County
287 S.E.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Carl E. Jones Development, Inc. v. Wilson
255 S.E.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Atlanta Associates v. Westminster Properties, Inc.
249 S.E.2d 252 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 S.E.2d 541, 238 Ga. 258, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-pmc-development-company-inc-ga-1977.