Seagraves v. Mount Zion Village, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Seagraves v. Mount Zion Village, Inc.

215 S.E.2d 688, 134 Ga. App. 719, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2141

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 7, 1975

Docket50170

StatusPublished

This text of 215 S.E.2d 688 (Seagraves v. Mount Zion Village, 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

Seagraves v. Mount Zion Village, Inc., 215 S.E.2d 688, 134 Ga. App. 719, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2141 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This dispossessory warrant proceeding was based on the defendant’s alleged non-payment of rent. The defendant answered denying that plaintiff had made demand for possession and that she had failed to pay the rent when due. She also counterclaimed for damages. The answer and counterclaim when filed on August 15, 1974 was unaccompanied by any rental payment into the registry of the court. On September 20, 1974, defendant paid into the registry of the court $230.34. On plaintiffs motion, the trial judge struck the defendant’s answer and counterclaim and granted plaintiff a writ of possession because no rent had been paid into the registry of the court at the time the defendant’s pleadings were filed. The court further ordered that the rental deposited by the defendant with the court be paid to plaintiff. Held:

It was error for the trial judge to strike the answer, counterclaim, and to enter a writ of possession. Code Ann. § 61-303, as amended, gives a tenant an unqualified right to answer and counterclaim in all dispossessory proceedings. The statute as construed by the Supreme Court also states that failure to make a rent payment does not render defective the answer and counterclaim so that no issue remains to be tried. Mountain Hardwoods & Pine, Inc. v. Coosa River Sawmill Co., 233 Ga. 414 (211 SE2d 712). It further appears from the record in this case that there is no dispute as to the amount of monthly rental and it was, therefore, proper for the court to order the clerk of the court to pay the rental deposited in the registry to [720]*720plaintiff pending outcome of the litigation. Code Ann. § 61-304 (d). Accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment striking the defendant’s pleadings and granting the plaintiff a writ of possession; but we affirm that part which orders the payment of the rental deposited into the court to plaintiff.

Argued February 3, 1975 Decided April 7, 1975 Rehearing denied May 8, 1975. Wayne Sobel, Kendric E. Smith, for appellant. J. L. Jordan, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

This dispossessory warrant proceeding was based on the defendant’s alleged non-payment of rent. The defendant answered denying that plaintiff had made demand for possession and that she had failed to pay the rent when due. She also counterclaimed for damages. The answer and counterclaim when filed on August 15, 1974 was unaccompanied by any rental payment into the registry of the court. On September 20, 1974, defendant paid into the registry of the court $230.34. On plaintiffs motion, the trial judge struck the defendant’s answer and counterclaim and granted plaintiff a writ of possession because no rent had been paid into the registry of the court at the time the defendant’s pleadings were filed. The court further ordered that the rental deposited by the defendant with the court be paid to plaintiff. Held:

It was error for the trial judge to strike the answer, counterclaim, and to enter a writ of possession. Code Ann. § 61-303, as amended, gives a tenant an unqualified right to answer and counterclaim in all dispossessory proceedings. The statute as construed by the Supreme Court also states that failure to make a rent payment does not render defective the answer and counterclaim so that no issue remains to be tried. Mountain Hardwoods & Pine, Inc. v. Coosa River Sawmill Co., 233 Ga. 414 (211 SE2d 712). It further appears from the record in this case that there is no dispute as to the amount of monthly rental and it was, therefore, proper for the court to order the clerk of the court to pay the rental deposited in the registry to [720]*720plaintiff pending outcome of the litigation. Code Ann. § 61-304 (d). Accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment striking the defendant’s pleadings and granting the plaintiff a writ of possession; but we affirm that part which orders the payment of the rental deposited into the court to plaintiff.

Argued February 3, 1975 Decided April 7, 1975 Rehearing denied May 8, 1975. Wayne Sobel, Kendric E. Smith, for appellant. J. L. Jordan, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 688, 134 Ga. App. 719, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seagraves-v-mount-zion-village-inc-gactapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack