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.
Brazell v. J. K. Boatwright & Co.
Citations: 324 Ga. App. 502; 751 S.E.2d 133; 13 Fulton County D. Rep. 3411; 2013 WL 5932131; 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 872; 13 FCDR 3411Docket: A13A1113
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; November 6, 2013; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Joseph and Joanne Brazell appeal a trial court's default judgment in favor of J.K. Boatwright and Company, P.C., awarding $20,265 in principal and $15,793.88 in interest. The Brazells argue the court abused its discretion in granting the default judgment and denying their motion to open it. The appellate review focuses on whether the conditions outlined in OCGA 9-11-55 (b) for opening a prejudgment default were met. These conditions require a showing under oath, an offer to plead instanter, an announcement of readiness for trial, and establishing a meritorious defense. The trial judge has discretion in this matter. The case stems from Boatwright's 2011 suit for unpaid debts by West Georgia Collection Bureau, LLC, owned by the Brazells. Although the Brazells acknowledged service in November 2011, their answer was not filed until December 2011, after which they claimed affirmative defenses. Boatwright moved for default judgment in February 2012, asserting the Brazells were in default since December 9, 2011, due to failure to file their answer on time and pay necessary court costs. The Brazells responded with a motion to open the default, citing Boatwright's failure to serve a necessary party and attributing the delay to ongoing settlement talks, while also tendering court costs. A hearing was held in July 2012, but the transcript is missing from the record. In August 2012, they filed an amended answer claiming it related back to their original answer and that the verification issue was amendable. However, the trial court denied their motion to open the default, stating the Brazells failed to comply with two conditions: their showing was not made under oath, and they did not properly announce readiness for trial, as they had not responded to discovery requests. On appeal, the Brazells claimed errors regarding the verification issue and their promptness, along with asserting a meritorious defense. Nonetheless, they did not prove compliance with the four conditions necessary to open the default under OCGA 9-11-55 (b). The trial court has discretion to open a default, but this is contingent upon meeting four specific conditions, one of which is providing a showing under oath. The Brazells did not comply with this requirement, as their motion to open default was not made under oath, and their amended answer, although verified, only included a conclusory claim of having good defenses against the complaint. The necessary showing under oath must detail a meritorious defense, which the Brazells failed to provide. In contrast, the appellant successfully met this requirement by submitting an affidavit from a director explaining the default and outlining the meritorious defense. Consequently, since the Brazells did not fulfill all conditions precedent, the trial court correctly declined to open the default, leading to the affirmation of its judgment.