CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. KICKLIGHTER Et Al. , 339 Ga. App. 658 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               FIFTH DIVISION
    PHIPPS, P. J.,
    DILLARD and PETERSON, JJ.
    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
    http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
    November 18, 2016
    In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
    A16A2161. CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. v.
    KICKLIGHTER et al.
    PETERSON, Judge.
    Leslie and Kathy Kicklighter’s house burned down. Central Mutual Insurance
    Company, with whom they had a homeowners’ insurance policy, paid them several
    hundred thousand dollars under the policy. The Kicklighters contended they were
    owed still more; when Central Mutual did not pay, the Kicklighters sued them for bad
    faith. Central Mutual responded to the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss, but not
    an answer. So far, so good for the Kicklighters. But then the Kicklighters’ counsel
    obtained an ex parte default judgment against Central Mutual, and then intentionally
    withheld the judgment from Central Mutual until the time to appeal or file a motion
    to reconsider had run. We cannot allow conduct of this sort to stand, and so we
    reverse the order of the trial court denying Central Mutual’s understandably belated
    motion to set aside.
    We review a trial court’s refusal to set aside a default judgment for an abuse
    of discretion, but review questions of law de novo. See Hutcheson v. Elizabeth
    Brennan Antiques & Interiors, Inc., 
    317 Ga. App. 123
    , 125 (730 SE2d 514) (2012).
    The record evidence, which is largely undisputed, shows that on October 16,
    2015, the Kicklighters filed suit against Central Mutual after it allegedly refused to
    provide full coverage for a fire loss under the Kicklighters’ homeowners’ insurance
    policy. The Kicklighters sought to recover the additional amounts allegedly owed
    under the policy, attorneys’ fees, and bad faith damages. On November 20, Central
    Mutual filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that it made a partial
    payment of $441,000 under the policy and denying that it acted in bad faith in
    refusing to pay the entirety of the Kicklighters’ fire loss claim because coverage
    issues remained unsettled and the Kicklighters never made any demand for immediate
    payment of the entire policy limits.
    On December 16, 2015, the trial court held a meeting with the Kicklighters’
    counsel and signed an order entering a default judgment of $124,660 plus interest for
    the Kicklighters. Central Mutual was not given notice of the hearing and therefore did
    2
    not attend. In its default judgment order, the trial court ruled that Central Mutual’s
    motion to dismiss could not be construed as an answer, Central Mutual was therefore
    in default, and Central Mutual failed to open the default.
    The trial court did not provide a copy of the default judgment to Central
    Mutual, and despite intervening communications with Central Mutual, the
    Kicklighters’ counsel made no mention of it either. Instead, the Kicklighters’ counsel
    deliberately withheld the default judgment from Central Mutual until February 1,
    2016, when the Kicklighters made a demand of payment of the judgment. By this
    time, the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal from the order had expired and
    the term of the court had ended. OCGA § 15-6-3(30)(A) (the court terms for the
    Superior Court of Bulloch County begin on the first Mondays in February, May,
    August, and November). At oral argument, the Kicklighters’ counsel acknowledged
    that he delayed notice, at least in part, for the purpose of ensuring that Central Mutual
    could not appeal.
    Soon after receiving notice of the default judgment, Central Mutual moved to
    set aside the judgment. Central Mutual argued that the judgment should be set aside
    because its motion to dismiss was a responsive pleading that could be construed as
    an answer so as to preclude default; the entry of default judgment was improper
    3
    where a dispositive motion is pending; it was not given notice that the court would
    enter a default judgment; and the Kicklighters’ counsel acted in bad faith in failing
    to provide prompt notice of the default judgment. The trial court held a hearing on
    Central Mutual’s motion to set aside, during which the following colloquy occurred
    between the trial court and the Kicklighters’ counsel (John B. Manly and Bobby T.
    Jones):
    Court: Do you recall when we had the meeting in the — in the law
    library and I did — I signed the order. Do you remember what I told
    you? I told you to make sure that the opposing side got a copy.
    Manly: That’s correct.
    Court: I did say that. Correct?
    Manly: I don’t remember exactly, but it doesn’t surprise me.
    Court: I did. I did.
    Manly: And we served a copy, Your Honor, in accordance with —
    Court: Yes. When did you serve a copy?
    Manly: I believe the date was February 1st or 2nd.
    4
    Court: And when did I sign the order?
    Manly: I think it was December 17th, if I recall.
    Court: And why did you wait that long?
    Manly: Because of the term of court and because this case Winslet v.
    Guthrie[, 
    326 Ga. App. 747
     (755 SE2d 287) (2014),] allows us to wait
    until the new term of court because of his failure to file an answer and
    his negligence in not filing an answer absolves our responsibility of
    having to serve him with that.
    ...
    Court: [T]he only thing that bothers me is I specifically told you folks
    to make sure they got a copy and I think that somewhat — if the case
    says that, the case says that. But it was my clear impression that I had
    informed you to give them notice and my impression or my belief was
    that the notice would be forthcoming and not delayed. Okay.
    Manley: Yes, sir.
    Jones: May I address that?
    Court: Why?
    5
    Jones: Because, Judge, I’ve been before you decades now . . . As you
    know, I’ve known you almost forty years.
    Court: We have.
    Jones: I can assure you, Judge, and I think my experience will bear this
    out, if you had told us and if you did tell us, I’m not denying what you
    said. I don’t recall it, but if — we have never, and I personally in my
    dealings with this Court and all other courts, have never not done as
    instructed by a court even when I disagreed with it. So I want you to
    understand that I didn’t —
    Court: Oh, I didn’t say today. I didn’t say tomorrow. I just said give
    them notice.
    Jones: I understand. And we did, Judge, but whatever you told us I
    promise you I did my best and always will, including today, comply with
    the Court’s directions and instructions. I just don’t want the Court
    having any belief of anything otherwise.
    Court: That’s fine.
    Jones: And, I mean, my reputation with the Court is more important than
    any one single case. Whatever the Court — the Court has the authority
    to rule and it’s the (inaudible) of the lawyers and parties to comply with
    the Court’s rulings and I just want you to understand that that’s always
    been my position and is today and will always be. Following the
    6
    hearing, the trial court denied the motion without explanation, and we
    granted Central Mutual’s application for discretionary review.
    On appeal, Central Mutual argues that the trial court erred in denying its
    motion to set aside the default judgment because Central Mutual filed a motion to
    dismiss that the court should have construed as an answer, the court held an ex parte
    hearing when denying the motion to dismiss and granting default judgment to the
    Kicklighters, and plaintiffs’ counsel deliberately delayed providing Central Mutual
    notice of the order granting default judgment until the time frame for filing a notice
    of appeal had expired and the term of the court had ended. We agree that (1) Central
    Mutual was entitled to notice that the court would hold a hearing in which it would
    consider whether Central Mutual’s motion to dismiss constituted an answer, and (2)
    that the court erred in entering default judgment without first disposing of Central
    Mutual’s pending motion. Therefore, we reverse the denial of its motion to set aside
    the default judgment.
    A motion to set aside may be brought on several grounds, including when a
    nonamendable defect appears on the face of the record or pleadings. OCGA § 9-11-
    60(d)(3). “In cases involving a default judgment, this type of defect arises where the
    record shows on its face that the default was entered on an improper basis.” Hiner
    7
    Transp., Inc. v. Jeter, 
    293 Ga. App. 704
    , 705 (667 SE2d 919) (2008) (citing Shields
    v. Gish, 
    280 Ga. 556
    , 558 (2) (629 SE2d 244) (2006)) (punctuation omitted). The
    record shows that the trial court entered the default on an improper basis and,
    therefore, should have granted Central Mutual’s motion to set aside.
    “[U]nder the [Civil Practice Act] a party is to be given notice and the
    opportunity to amend defective pleadings where such notice will facilitate [a]
    decision on the merits. The [Civil Practice Act] does not penalize a party irrevocably
    for one misstep in pleading.” McDonough Constr. Co. v. McLendon Elec. Co., 
    242 Ga. 510
    , 515 (250 SE2d 424) (1978). If the defendant timely files a document
    responding to the complaint that could be construed as an answer, a trial court may
    not hold an ex parte hearing disposing of the filing; it must provide notice to the
    defendant that the court will rule on the sufficiency of its filing as an answer. See
    Brown v. Brown, 
    217 Ga. App. 245
    , 246-47 (457 SE2d 215) (1995) (regardless of
    whether defendant’s letter was sufficient as an answer, it was properly before the trial
    court and could not be disposed of in an ex parte proceeding without notice thereof
    to the defendant); cf. Livesay v. King, 
    129 Ga. App. 751
    , 751 (201 SE2d 178) (1973)
    (“The rule of fair play suggests at the outset that one who moves the court to change
    the status of a pending matter . . . should serve the opposite party with a copy of the
    8
    motion and of a rule nisi which the court should enter thereon, thus affording to the
    opposite party a fair opportunity to object or to defend against the proposed action.”).
    And it is reversible error for the trial court to enter default judgment where a
    dispositive motion is pending. See US Professionals, LLC v. Directlink India (P) Ltd.,
    
    247 Ga. App. 679
    , 680 (1) (545 SE2d 95) (2001) (although defendant failed to appear
    for trial, it was error to enter judgment against the defendant when the court failed to
    dispose of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue); Williams v. Coca-
    Cola Co., 
    158 Ga. App. 139
    , 140 (2) (279 SE2d 261) (1981) (it is harmful error to
    enter default judgment without ruling on a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a
    motion for summary judgment that was filed within the time permitted to file an
    answer).
    Here, the trial court held an ex parte hearing with the Kicklighters’ counsel in
    a law library before signing the default judgment order in which it deemed Central
    Mutual’s motion to dismiss an insufficient answer. The failure to give Central Mutual
    notice that the issue of the sufficiency of the answer would be heard requires the grant
    of Central Mutual’s motion to be set aside. See Brown, 217 Ga. App. at 247.
    Moreover, Central Mutual provided evidence outside of the pleadings in support of
    its motion to dismiss to argue that it was entitled to a judgment on the merits. This
    9
    was a dispositive motion that the trial court was required to dispose of before entering
    default judgment, and it committed reversible error in failing to do so. See US
    Professionals, 247 Ga. App. at 680 (1); Williams, 158 Ga. App. at 140 (2). Because
    we reverse on these grounds, it is unnecessary to consider Central Mutual’s
    arguments that the trial court should have set aside the default judgment because
    Central Mutual’s motion to dismiss constituted an answer, or because the
    Kicklighters’ counsel intentionally withheld providing notice of the judgment to
    prejudice Central Mutual.1 Accordingly, we reverse.
    Judgment reversed. Phipps, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur.
    1
    We note, however, that the Kicklighters’ counsel misconstrued Winslett when
    arguing at the motion to set aside hearing that there was no duty to inform Central
    Mutual of the default judgment. In Winslett, we concluded that the trial court had no
    responsibility to give notice of a default judgment when the defendant waived the
    right to receive future notices, like the entry of the default judgment, by failing to file
    any pleadings. 326 Ga. App. at 751-52 (4) (citing OCGA § 9-11-5(a)). Here, Central
    Mutual filed a motion to dismiss, and so Winslett does not apply.
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A16A2161

Citation Numbers: 339 Ga. App. 658, 794 S.E.2d 258, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 677

Judges: Peterson, Phipps, Dillard

Filed Date: 11/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/8/2024