Steele v. Colbert

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Steele v. Colbert

356 S.E.2d 736, 182 Ga. App. 680, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1775

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1987

Docket74326

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 356 S.E.2d 736 (Steele v. Colbert) 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

Steele v. Colbert, 356 S.E.2d 736, 182 Ga. App. 680, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1775 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of her action against defendant. The trial court had previously ordered “that Plaintiff shall have Fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to fully and unequivocally answer Defendant’s interrogatories which were served on Plaintiff on the 3rd day of April, 1986, otherwise Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be dismissed without any further action.” Held:

This case is controlled by Maxey v. Covington, 126 Ga. App. 197 (190 SE2d 448), wherein we made it clear that a prospective, -self-executing order cannot be used by a trial court, to invoke the drastic sanction of dismissal under former Code Ann. § 81A-137, now OCGA § 9-11-37. Accord Serwitz v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 174 Ga. App. 747 (331 SE2d 95). As we said, “[a] court cannot assume that a future failure [to comply with discovery orders] will be unjustifiable. It must examine the circumstances retrospectively. This means affording an opportunity to explain the circumstances following the failure; which means, in turn, an express motion and notice to the party concerned.” Maxey v. Covington, 126 Ga. App. 197, supra at 199.

The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on account of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the trial court’s order compelling answers to interrogatories without affording plaintiff a hearing and an opportunity to explain the circumstances, following the failure.

Judgment reversed.

Sognier and Beasley, JJ., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of her action against defendant. The trial court had previously ordered “that Plaintiff shall have Fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to fully and unequivocally answer Defendant’s interrogatories which were served on Plaintiff on the 3rd day of April, 1986, otherwise Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be dismissed without any further action.” Held:

This case is controlled by Maxey v. Covington, 126 Ga. App. 197 (190 SE2d 448), wherein we made it clear that a prospective, -self-executing order cannot be used by a trial court, to invoke the drastic sanction of dismissal under former Code Ann. § 81A-137, now OCGA § 9-11-37. Accord Serwitz v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 174 Ga. App. 747 (331 SE2d 95). As we said, “[a] court cannot assume that a future failure [to comply with discovery orders] will be unjustifiable. It must examine the circumstances retrospectively. This means affording an opportunity to explain the circumstances following the failure; which means, in turn, an express motion and notice to the party concerned.” Maxey v. Covington, 126 Ga. App. 197, supra at 199.

The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on account of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the trial court’s order compelling answers to interrogatories without affording plaintiff a hearing and an opportunity to explain the circumstances, following the failure.

Judgment reversed.

Sognier and Beasley, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.E.2d 736, 182 Ga. App. 680, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-colbert-gactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack