From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mountain View Enterprises, Inc. v. Diversified Sys

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 7, 1974
211 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)

Summary

In Mountain View Enterprises, Inc., this very issue was before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the trial court which denied its request for summary judgment after the defendant failed to timely respond to requests for admission. Mountain View Enters., Inc., 211 S.E.2d at 187.

Summary of this case from Byrd v. Bowie

Opinion

49760.

SUBMITTED OCTOBER 2, 1974.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1974.

Action for damages. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Henley.

Marchman, Cueto Henderson, Charles Marchman, Jr., for appellant.


This is a tort case. But the question raised in this appeal is limited to the failure of the defendant to file answers to plaintiff's request for admissions within thirty days after service. The answers were not filed within 30 days, nor until a motion for summary judgment had been filed by plaintiff. Defendants then sought to file answers to the request for admissions over objection, 63 days after the date of filing. The trial judge took the motion under advisement, and then denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff was not damaged by the delay. Plaintiff appeals. Held:

Code Ann. § 81A-136 (a) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 648; 1967, pp. 226, 234, 235; 1972, pp. 510, 528) states clearly that as to request for admissions the matter is admitted unless answers or objections are filed to such request within 30 days after service of said request, but the answer need not be made earlier than 45 days after service of the summons and complaint. We are not concerned with the 45 day period because here no objections or answers were filed until 63 days after the request was served on defendant. The defendant waited until motion for summary judgment was filed before answering.

The court has a discretion in such matter only when a party moves to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections filed to the request. Here there were no timely objections or answers until after the passage of 30 days, and the requests were admitted as a matter of law. Code Ann. § 81A-136 (a), supra; Moore v. Hanson, 224 Ga. 482 (2) ( 162 S.E.2d 429); Bailey v. Bailey, 227 Ga. 55 ( 178 S.E.2d 864); Walker Enterprises v. Mullis, 124 Ga. App. 305 ( 183 S.E.2d 534). When defendant finally filed his answers to request for admissions, 63 days after service, he made no motion that he be granted the privilege of filing at that late day.

The court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment. The matter admitted through failure to properly respond to the requests for admissions established a complete claim for the relief sought, except as to the unliquidated damages. See Moore v. Hanson, 224 Ga. 482 (1), supra; Bailey v. Bailey, 227 Ga. 55, supra. However, the amount of damages, other than the value of the equipment, is unliquidated and required admission and consideration of evidence by the jury in order to determine these amounts.

The lower court erred in failing to award a partial summary judgment as to liability and the value of the equipment, and also in holding plaintiff was not damaged by the delay.

Judgment reversed in part; affirmed in part. Pannell, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

SUBMITTED OCTOBER 2, 1974 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1974.


Summaries of

Mountain View Enterprises, Inc. v. Diversified Sys

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 7, 1974
211 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)

In Mountain View Enterprises, Inc., this very issue was before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the trial court which denied its request for summary judgment after the defendant failed to timely respond to requests for admission. Mountain View Enters., Inc., 211 S.E.2d at 187.

Summary of this case from Byrd v. Bowie
Case details for

Mountain View Enterprises, Inc. v. Diversified Sys

Case Details

Full title:MOUNTAIN VIEW ENTERPRISES, INC. v. DIVERSIFIED SYSTEMS et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Nov 7, 1974

Citations

211 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
211 S.E.2d 186

Citing Cases

Tyson v. Automotive Controls Corporation

To avoid being bound by those admissions, the one who fails to answer must move under Code Ann. § 81A-136 (b)…

Strickland v. C. S. Nat. Bank

There being no objection made to the request for admissions and no motion made seeking permission for the…