counterclaim violation in Georgia

2019We explained that "[w]e discern no reason for creating a different rule of standing merely because, as in the present case, the plaintiff in the underlying tort action initiates the declaratory judgment action rather than asserts a counterclaim or defense in such an action." Lewis , 341 Ga. App. at 843 (1) (a), 802 S.E.2d 844 . 6 At least one court has reached the opposite conclusion and allowed a declaratory judgment to proceed where there were "at least the ripening seeds of such [a] controversy." See Community Action of Greater Indianapolis v. Indiana Farmers Mut.

2019We explained that "[w]e discern no reason for creating a different rule of standing merely because, as in the present case, the plaintiff in the underlying tort action initiates the declaratory judgment action rather than asserts a counterclaim or defense in such an action." Lewis , 341 Ga. App. at 843 (1) (a), 802 S.E.2d 844 . 6 At least one court has reached the opposite conclusion and allowed a declaratory judgment to proceed where there were "at least the ripening seeds of such [a] controversy." See Community Action of Greater Indianapolis v. Indiana Farmers Mut.

2014In support of its argument, State Bank relies upon Finnerty v. State Bank and Trust Co., 301 Ga. App. 569, 569-570 (1) ( 687 SE2d 842 ) (2009), which held that the inclusion of the defendant’s social security number on a promissory note 8 A motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) will not be sustained unless (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the frame

2014In support of its argument, State Bank relies upon Finnerty v. State Bank and Trust Co., 301 Ga. App. 569, 569-570 (1) ( 687 SE2d 842 ) (2009), which held that the inclusion of the defendant’s social security number on a promissory note 8 A motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) will not be sustained unless (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the frame

2009See Zohoury v. Zohouri, 218 Ga. App. 748, 751 (6) ( 463 SE2d 141 ) (1995); Davis & Shulman, Ga. Practice & Procedure, § 9:1 (2008) (As used in Georgia’s Civil Practice Act, “the word ‘motion’ is a very broad term.

2009See Zohoury v. Zohouri, 218 Ga. App. 748, 751 (6) ( 463 SE2d 141 ) (1995); Davis & Shulman, Ga. Practice & Procedure, § 9:1 (2008) (As used in Georgia’s Civil Practice Act, “the word ‘motion’ is a very broad term.

2006“When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review.” (Citation omitted.) Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000).

2006“When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review.” (Citation omitted.) Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000).

1998Korey, supra, 225 Ga. App. at 859 (2).

1987Mock v. Canterbury Realty Co., 152 Ga. App. 872, 878 ( 264 SE2d 489 ) (1980).

1987Mock v. Canterbury Realty Co., 152 Ga. App. 872, 878 ( 264 SE2d 489 ) (1980).

1969See Hirsch’s v. Adams, 117 Ga. App. 847 ( 162 SE2d 243 ).

1969See Hirsch’s v. Adams, 117 Ga. App. 847 ( 162 SE2d 243 ).