Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tabar, Inc. v. D & D Services, Inc.
Citations: 267 Ga. App. 659; 601 S.E.2d 143; 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1923; 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 753Docket: A04A0425
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; June 3, 2004; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Tabar, Inc. successfully appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of D. D Services, Inc., as D. D Services had not established valid claims against Tabar. The background involves a contract between Horace and Horacena Tate and Good Guys, Inc. for construction work, which included a subcontract with D. D Services for air conditioning units. D. D Services claimed Good Guys owed them $13,500 after receiving a total of $31,437 out of a $45,000 contract. D. D Services sued multiple parties, including Tabar, asserting breach of contract, assumpsit, and constructive trust. The trial court granted a summary judgment without distinguishing between defendants. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment under a de novo standard, emphasizing that a default by Tabar in responding to the motion does not automatically justify a summary judgment. It highlighted three main reasons for overturning the judgment against Tabar: (1) D. D Services' breach of contract claim was solely against Good Guys, not Tabar; (2) the assumpsit claim lacked evidence showing Tabar had received funds to which D. D Services was entitled; and (3) the constructive trust claim failed as there was no evidence that allowing Tabar to keep the heat pumps would result in unjust enrichment or violate equity principles. The court concluded that D. D Services had not met its burden of proof for summary judgment against Tabar, leading to a reversal of the trial court's order.