Stewart v. Richardson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stewart v. Richardson

411 S.E.2d 309, 201 Ga. App. 312, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1336

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 16, 1991

DocketA91A1755

StatusPublished

This text of 411 S.E.2d 309 (Stewart v. Richardson) 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

Stewart v. Richardson, 411 S.E.2d 309, 201 Ga. App. 312, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is a stockholders’ derivative action brought by two minority stockholders, plaintiffs Flowers and Stewart, against the majority stockholder, defendant Richardson. Plaintiffs sought damages by reason of the sale of substantially all of the assets of Residential Brokers, Inc., without notice to the minority stockholders. Plaintiffs appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Held:

The uncontradicted evidence shows that Residential Brokers, Inc., was insolvent in that the corporation’s total assets were less than the sum of its total liabilities. OCGA § 14-2-1201 (a) (2). Therefore, [313]*313the corporation was authorized to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its property under terms and conditions determined by the board of directors. OCGA § 14-2-1201 (b) (1) (A). Defendant was the sole director of Residential Brokers, Inc. A sale of assets of a corporation pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-1201 does not require shareholder approval. OCGA § 14-2-1202 (a). Plaintiffs’ action was not well founded in the law and the superior court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Decided September 16, 1991 Reconsideration denied September 25, 1991 William A. Wehunt, for appellants. Chesnut & Livingston, Tom Pye, for appellee.

Three of plaintiffs’ enumerations of error are predicated upon an alternative ground stated for defendant’s motion for summary judgment, that plaintiffs failed to make an ante litem demand on the corporation pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-742. In view of our holding that the grant of summary judgment was authorized under the alternative theory discussed above, these enumerations of error are moot.

Plaintiffs’ final enumeration of error, contending that the trial judge erred in sustaining objections to two affidavits filed by plaintiffs, is also without merit. The affidavit of plaintiff Flowers, stating that defendant “removed from sale assets which would have revealed that the company was in a solvent condition at the time of the sale,” was properly excluded as conclusory. Abrahamsen v. McDonald’s Corp., 193 Ga. App. 868, 870 (2) (389 SE2d 386). The affidavit of witness Wan was also conclusory, and even if considered, would not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is a stockholders’ derivative action brought by two minority stockholders, plaintiffs Flowers and Stewart, against the majority stockholder, defendant Richardson. Plaintiffs sought damages by reason of the sale of substantially all of the assets of Residential Brokers, Inc., without notice to the minority stockholders. Plaintiffs appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Held:

The uncontradicted evidence shows that Residential Brokers, Inc., was insolvent in that the corporation’s total assets were less than the sum of its total liabilities. OCGA § 14-2-1201 (a) (2). Therefore, [313]*313the corporation was authorized to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its property under terms and conditions determined by the board of directors. OCGA § 14-2-1201 (b) (1) (A). Defendant was the sole director of Residential Brokers, Inc. A sale of assets of a corporation pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-1201 does not require shareholder approval. OCGA § 14-2-1202 (a). Plaintiffs’ action was not well founded in the law and the superior court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Decided September 16, 1991 Reconsideration denied September 25, 1991 William A. Wehunt, for appellants. Chesnut & Livingston, Tom Pye, for appellee.

Three of plaintiffs’ enumerations of error are predicated upon an alternative ground stated for defendant’s motion for summary judgment, that plaintiffs failed to make an ante litem demand on the corporation pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-742. In view of our holding that the grant of summary judgment was authorized under the alternative theory discussed above, these enumerations of error are moot.

Plaintiffs’ final enumeration of error, contending that the trial judge erred in sustaining objections to two affidavits filed by plaintiffs, is also without merit. The affidavit of plaintiff Flowers, stating that defendant “removed from sale assets which would have revealed that the company was in a solvent condition at the time of the sale,” was properly excluded as conclusory. Abrahamsen v. McDonald’s Corp., 193 Ga. App. 868, 870 (2) (389 SE2d 386). The affidavit of witness Wan was also conclusory, and even if considered, would not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 S.E.2d 309, 201 Ga. App. 312, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-richardson-gactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack