Val Preda Motors v. Nat'l Unif. Serv., 393 S.E.2d 728 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Val Preda Motors v. Nat'l Unif. Serv., 393 S.E.2d 728 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Seaboard Constr. Co., 732 S.E.2d 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
195 Ga. App. at 444 Reversing summary judgment when genuine issues remain8 citing casesmary judgment. Val Preda’s brief was supported by his affidavit stating he had returned all of National’s uniforms and there was no balance due National.…opening of page *444 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 7 listed here
  • Brown v. Seaboard Constr. Co., 732 S.E.2d 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).published 2 cites
    Uniform Svc., 195 Ga. App. 443, 444 (2) ( 393 SE2d 728 ) (1990) (affidavit based on business records and manager’s personal knowledge could not be used to support motion for summary judgment where business records were not attached).
  • McCarter v. La Hacienda Condo. Assn., 564 S.E.2d 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).published
    Uniform Svc., 195 Ga. App. 443, 444 (2) ( 393 SE2d 728 ) (1990) (debtor’s affidavit denying debt raised a material issue of fact either as fact or opinion where creditor did not attach business records to establish the debt).
  • Carter v. Digby, 535 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).published
    Uniform Svc. 195 Ga. App. 443, 444 (1) ( 393 SE2d 728 ) (1990). 193 Ga. App. 267 ( 387 SE2d 359 ) (1989).
  • Jaillett v. Georgia Television Co., 520 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).published
    Uniform Svc., 195 Ga. App. 443, 444 ( 393 SE2d 728 ) (1990). 2 Although Jaillett apparently took McKay’s deposition, he did not file it with the trial court, despite WSB’s request that he do so.
  • Sherin v. Dep't of Human Resources, 494 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).published
    Uniform Svc., 195 Ga. App. 443, 444 (2) ( 393 SE2d 728 ) (1990).
  • Lance v. Elliott, 413 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).published
    Uniform Svc., 195 Ga. App. 443, 444 (2) ( 393 SE2d 728 ) (1990).
  • Vadde v. Bank of Am., 687 S.E.2d 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).published 2 cites
    See also Hertz Corp. v. McCray, 198 Ga. App. 484, 485 (2) ( 402 SE2d 298 ) (1991) (“[a] witness identifying business records under OCGA § 24-3-14 does not have to have personal knowledge of the correctness of the records or have made the e…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Val Preda Motors
v.
National Uniform Service
A90A0853.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 24, 1990.
Published opinion
393 S.E.2d 728
1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 565
Peter Val Preda, pro se., Krause & Hirons, Wayne A. Krause, Allen R. Hirons, for appellee.
Birdsong, Banke, Cooper.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Birdsong, Judge.

Peter Val Preda d/b/a Val Preda Motors (“Val Preda”) appeals from the grant of summary judgment to National Uniform Service (“National”). The record shows that National filed suit to recover sums allegedly owed under a contract. Val Preda, pro se, answered denying “all the allegations” in the complaint. Thereafter, National moved for summary judgment and supported its motion with the contract and the affidavit of its general manager. The affidavit stated, from National’s business records and the manager’s personal knowledge, Val Preda had defaulted on the contract and refused to make the payments owed. The business records mentioned, however, were not attached to the affidavit.

Val Preda’s brief in opposition to the motion contended that genuine issues of material fact remained which barred a grant of sum[*444] mary judgment. Val Preda’s brief was supported by his affidavit stating he had returned all of National’s uniforms and there was no balance due National.

Decided April 24, 1990. Peter Val Preda, pro se. Krause & Hirons, Wayne A. Krause, Allen R. Hirons, for appellee.

Neither party having requested a hearing on the motion, the trial court considered the matters of record, found that “there [were] no disputes as to genuine issues of material fact,” and granted summary judgment to National. Val Preda appeals, contending that summary judgment was erroneously granted because genuine issues remained for trial. Held:

1. National’s motion to dismiss the appeal because Val Preda was six days late in filing his brief and enumerations of error is denied. OCGA § 5-6-48 (b).

2. Although National’s affidavit referred to certain business records purportedly supporting its motion, the records were not attached to the affidavit and, therefore, the references to the business records cannot be used to support the motion. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e); Henry v. Polar Rock Dev. Corp., 143 Ga. App. 189, 190 (237 SE2d 667).

Val Preda’s affidavit, a matter of record in this case, denied he owed any money to National. Viewed either as a statement of fact or of opinion, the denial is sufficient to defeat National’s motion. Ginn v. Morgan, 225 Ga. 192, 193 (167 SE2d 393). Thus, unless National established this denial was of no legal consequence, a genuine issue of material fact remained for trial. National made no such showing, and the record merely shows a claim for money by National and a denial that money was owed by Val Preda. Under the circumstances, the trial court’s finding that no genuine issues remained is not supported by the record and cannot be sustained. Beaulieu of America v. L. T. Dennard & Co., 253 Ga. 21, 22 (315 SE2d 889). Accordingly, National failed to meet the burden established in OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), and the grant of summary judgment must be reversed.

3. In the absence of a request under Superior Court Rule 6.3, the trial court did not err by deciding the motion without oral argument. Jacobsen v. Muller, 181 Ga. App. 382, 383 (352 SE2d 604).

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.