Kalustian v. McDonald

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kalustian v. McDonald

390 S.E.2d 657, 194 Ga. App. 435, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 7, 1990

DocketA89A1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 390 S.E.2d 657 (Kalustian v. McDonald) 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

Kalustian v. McDonald, 390 S.E.2d 657, 194 Ga. App. 435, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooper, Judge.

Appellant, acting pro se, filed a legal malpractice suit against appellee/attorney arising from appellee’s representation of appellant in a criminal matter. With his answer, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for appellant’s failure to file with his complaint the statutorily-required supporting affidavit of an expert. See OCGA § 9-11-9.1. The trial court granted appellee’s motion, and this appeal followed.

The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss. Frazier v. Merritt, 190 Ga. App. 832 (2) (380 SE2d 495) (1989), Contrary to appellant’s assertions, OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (b), the statutory exception to the requirement that the affidavit accompany the complaint, is inapplicable since appellant’s case was not filed within ten days of the expiration of the statute of limitation. Furthermore, neither appellant’s indigency nor the pendency of discovery matters was a barrier to the trial court’s dismissal of the malpractice action for failure to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.1.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Cooper, Judge.

Appellant, acting pro se, filed a legal malpractice suit against appellee/attorney arising from appellee’s representation of appellant in a criminal matter. With his answer, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for appellant’s failure to file with his complaint the statutorily-required supporting affidavit of an expert. See OCGA § 9-11-9.1. The trial court granted appellee’s motion, and this appeal followed.

The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss. Frazier v. Merritt, 190 Ga. App. 832 (2) (380 SE2d 495) (1989), Contrary to appellant’s assertions, OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (b), the statutory exception to the requirement that the affidavit accompany the complaint, is inapplicable since appellant’s case was not filed within ten days of the expiration of the statute of limitation. Furthermore, neither appellant’s indigency nor the pendency of discovery matters was a barrier to the trial court’s dismissal of the malpractice action for failure to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.1.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 S.E.2d 657, 194 Ga. App. 435, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalustian-v-mcdonald-gactapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack