From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beatty v. Underground Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 19, 1976
229 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1976)

Opinion

31449.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 21, 1976.

DECIDED OCTOBER 19, 1976. REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 2, 1976.

Termination of lease; summary judgment. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Williams.

Patterson, Parks, Jackson Howell, Jack LaSonde, David E. Allman, for appellant.

Sutherland, Asbill Brennan, John W. Bonds, Jr., Huie, Ware, Sterne, Brown Ide, R. William Ide, III, W. Stell Huie, C. Edward Dobbs, for appellees.


This is an action for damages and injunction alleging improper notice of termination by Underground Atlanta of appellant's sublease following the sale to MARTA of a large tract of land which included the subleased premises. Appellant complains the trial court erred in awarding summary judgments to appellees, Underground Atlanta and MARTA. The trial court held separate hearings on the two motions, entered separate judgments and separate notices of appeal were filed. The cases were transmitted together for appeal.

1. The record shows proper filing of notice of appeal by appellant following the order of March 4, 1976, in favor of Underground Atlanta. However, the record shows appellant filed an "Amended Notice of Appeal" following the order filed April 27th, 1976, in favor of MARTA, on May 28, 1976, thirty-one days following filing of such order. This notice was not timely filed, confers no jurisdiction upon this court, and must be dismissed as to MARTA. Ga. L. 1968, Sec. 2 (b), p. 1074; Code Ann. §§ 6-803 (a), 6-809 (b) (1).

Appellant cannot use a nunc pro tunc order secured ex parte in June 4, 1976, to consolidate the two appeals and add MARTA as a defendant under the appeal granted earlier with respect to Underground Atlanta. "A nunc pro tunc entry is for the purpose of recording some action that was taken or judgment rendered previously to the making of the entry which is to take effect as of the former date. Such an entry cannot be made to serve the office of correcting a decision however erroneous, or of supplying non-action on the part of the court." Pendergrass v. Duke, 147 Ga. 10 (2) ( 92 S.E. 649) (1917); Stubbs v. Mendel, 148 Ga. 802 (2) ( 98 S.E. 476) (1918). Further, such an entry "cannot serve ... to supply an order which it [the trial court] failed to make." Adams v. Payne, 219 Ga. 638, 641 ( 135 S.E.2d 423) (1964).

2. We have reviewed the record carefully regarding the complaint against Underground Atlanta. The leases upon which appellant relies each contain a termination clause giving the lessor the right to cancel the leases at any time by giving 120 days prior written notice upon the condition "(a) a bona fide contract of sale of the property has been voluntarily entered into by lessor; or (b) in the event lessor has sold the property." (Emphasis supplied.) In our opinion, it was the intention of the parties to permit notice of cancellation to be sent before or after a sale of the property. The record shows Underground complied with this provision.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


ARGUED SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 — DECIDED OCTOBER 19, 1976 — REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 2, 1976.


Summaries of

Beatty v. Underground Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 19, 1976
229 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1976)
Case details for

Beatty v. Underground Atlanta

Case Details

Full title:BEATTY v. UNDERGROUND ATLANTA et al

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Oct 19, 1976

Citations

229 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1976)
229 S.E.2d 615

Citing Cases

Rivers v. Goodson

] Further, such an entry `cannot serve ... to supply an order which it (the trial court) failed to make.'…

Norman v. Ault

In re H. L.W., 244 Ga. App. 498, 499 ( 535 SE2d 834) (2000). See also Beatty v. Underground Atlanta, 237 Ga.…