Smith v. Georgia Kaolin Co. (1994)

The Act “creates an efficient, speedy and effective means of adjudicating disputed title claims and sets out specific rules of practice and procedure with respect to an in rem quiet title action against all the world that take precedence over the Civil Practice Act when there is a conflict.” Nelson v. Ga. Sheriffs Youth Homes, 286 Ga. 192 ( 686 SE2d 663 ) (2009) (citation and pune *541 tuation omitted). 1 Under the Act, “[a]ny person who claims an interest in land may bring …

VI, § II, ¶ II (“Cases respecting titles to land shall be tried in the county where the land lies —”); OCGA § 23-3-62 (a) (“The proceeding in rem shall be instituted by filing a petition in the superior court of the county in which the land is situated.”); Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., Inc., 264 Ga. 755, 755-56 (1) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994). 13 Woodruff v. Morgan County, 284 Ga. 651, 651 (1) ( 670 SE2d 415 ) (2008) (punctuation omitted); see also James v. Gainey, 231 Ga. 543, 544 ( …

Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756 (3) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994).

See OCGA § 23-3-60 et seq.; Resseau v. Bland, 268 Ga. 634, 635-636 (1) ( 491 SE2d 809 ) (1997); Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994). 2.

All the Justices concur. 1 Latson v. Boaz, 278 Ga. 113 ( 598 SE2d 485 ) (2004). 2 Id. 3 Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756-757 ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994). 4 Latson, 278 Ga. 113 . 5 Town of Tyrone v. Tyrone, LLC, 275 Ga. 383, 385 ( 565 SE2d 806 ) (2002). 6 Id.; DeKalb County v. Chamblee Dunwoody Hotel Partnership, 248 Ga. 186 , 190 ( 281 SE2d 525 ) (1981). 7 See Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 458 NE2d 809, 815-816 (N.Y. 1983).

As to the quiet title action, the trial court granted Kaolin Cos.’ motion for summary judgment, but, in a previous appeal, this Court reversed and remanded, finding that Smith had “demonstrated by written instruments that disputed issues of material fact remain concerning his claim. . . .” Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 757 (3) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994).

OCGA § 23-3-61; Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994).

OCGA § 23-3-60; Smith v. Georgia Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756 ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994).

The evidence judged in favor of the plaintiffs as respondents in summary judgment (Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756-757 ( 449 SE2d 85 )) fairly and by reasonable inference shows the Nelsons bought this television because of Curtis Mathes’s name and reputation for manufacturing quality, non-defective products “backed” by Curtis Mathes.

VI, § II, ¶ III of the Georgia Constitution, which required that equity cases be brought in the county where a defendant resides); see also OCGA § 9-10-30 ("All actions seeking equitable relief shall be filed in the county of the residence of one of the defendants against whom substantial relief is prayed...."). 9 Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., Inc. , 264 Ga. 755 , 755 (1), 449 S.E.2d 85 (1994). 10 OCGA § 23-3-60 ; see Smith , 264 Ga. at 756 (2), 449 S.E.2d 85 ("The legislature en…

See OCGA § 23-3-61.” Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994).

Compare GHG, Inc. v. Bryan, 275 Ga. 336 (1) ( 566 SE2d 662 ) (2002) (petition to quiet title established current title based upon recorded and unrecorded instruments as well as by prescription) with Smith v. Georgia Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994) (despite relaxed standards of Quiet Title Act, plaintiff must have more than the possibility of an interest in title to bring an action to quiet title).

See Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755 ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994). 3 Holland Elec. &c.

See Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755 (3) ( 449 SE2d 85 ) (1994); Rivermist Homeowners, supra. 2.