Otonicar v. Shoreline Towers Phase I Condominium Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Otonicar v. Shoreline Towers Phase I Condominium Ass'n

382 S.E.2d 418, 191 Ga. App. 632, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 714

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1989

DocketA89A0653

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 382 S.E.2d 418 (Otonicar v. Shoreline Towers Phase I Condominium Ass'n) 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

Otonicar v. Shoreline Towers Phase I Condominium Ass'n, 382 S.E.2d 418, 191 Ga. App. 632, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellee sued the appellant to recover unpaid assessments allegedly owed under a condominium declaration. The case proceeded to trial, and at the close of the appellee’s evidence the trial court denied a motion by the appellant for directed verdict. Immediately thereafter, however, the appellee moved for leave to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a). Such permission was granted, and a voluntary dismissal was thereafter filed by the appellee over the appellant’s objection. This appeal followed. Held:

All of the appellant’s enumerations of error address the denial of his motion for directed verdict, and he has presented no argument or citation of authority challenging the validity of the dismissal order. Since the effect of a voluntary dismissal is to render the case “completely lifeless for all purposes from the date of the dismissal . . . ,” Fulton County v. Corp. &c. of Latter Day Saints, 133 Ga. App. 847 (3) (212 SE2d 451) (1975), any error resulting from the denial of the motion for directed verdict is now moot.

Appeal dismissed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellee sued the appellant to recover unpaid assessments allegedly owed under a condominium declaration. The case proceeded to trial, and at the close of the appellee’s evidence the trial court denied a motion by the appellant for directed verdict. Immediately thereafter, however, the appellee moved for leave to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a). Such permission was granted, and a voluntary dismissal was thereafter filed by the appellee over the appellant’s objection. This appeal followed. Held:

All of the appellant’s enumerations of error address the denial of his motion for directed verdict, and he has presented no argument or citation of authority challenging the validity of the dismissal order. Since the effect of a voluntary dismissal is to render the case “completely lifeless for all purposes from the date of the dismissal . . . ,” Fulton County v. Corp. &c. of Latter Day Saints, 133 Ga. App. 847 (3) (212 SE2d 451) (1975), any error resulting from the denial of the motion for directed verdict is now moot.

Appeal dismissed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 S.E.2d 418, 191 Ga. App. 632, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otonicar-v-shoreline-towers-phase-i-condominium-assn-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack