showing of a meritorious defense in Georgia

2023Such conclusionary statements cannot constitute the showing of a meritorious defense.”). 10 See Exxon Corp., 269 Ga. at 762 (2) (concluding that defendant, despite admitting to having a petroleum tank leak, detailed sufficient facts to contradict the “sweeping allegations of the complaint” when defendant submitted sworn affidavits and documents that detailed circumstances surrounding the leak, including various dates); Bowen, 358 Ga. App. at 310 (holding that defendant’s “affidavits explain in some detail how her mother’s money was used and expressly deny any diversion for personal use” and th

2003In order to make a “showing” that a meritorious defense exists, “the defendant must provide factual information and may not rely solely on conclusions.” (Footnote omitted.) Exxon Corp. v. Thomason, 269 Ga. 761 (1) ( 504 SE2d 676 ) (1998). [T]he defendant must set forth facts that show the existence of the essential elements of such defense even though “there is no requirement that the affidavit or verified answer contain in great detail the factual basis of the proposed *314 defense.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Pinehurst Baptist Church v. Murray, 215 Ga. App. 259, 261 ( 450 SE2d 307

2022However, “absent the showing of a meritorious defense, a trial court has no discretion to open a default.” Id.

2015“Compliance with the four conditions, including the necessity of setting up a meritorious defense, however, is a condition precedent; absent the showing of a meritorious defense, a trial court has no discretion to open a default.” (Citations omitted.) Butterworth v. Safelite Glass Corp., 287 Ga. App. 848, 849 (1) ( 652 SE2d 877 ) (2007).

2023His affidavit was based upon his investigation of the case, and satisfied the requirement that a party seeking to open a default make a showing that there is a meritorious defense.”). 8 attached as an exhibit to the motion to open default.11 Instead, Alexander’s assertions—that the money provided to Capital Gains was used for credit services and an investment in luxury vans—at best amount to general denials of Francis’s claims and do not factually establish a meritorious defense.12 Indeed, neither the affidavit nor 11 See Barone v. McRae & Holloway, P.C., 179 Ga. App. 812, 814 (2) ( 348 SE2d 3

2023His affidavit was based upon his investigation of the case, and satisfied the requirement that a party seeking to open a default make a showing that there is a meritorious defense.”). 8 attached as an exhibit to the motion to open default.11 Instead, Alexander’s assertions—that the money provided to Capital Gains was used for credit services and an investment in luxury vans—at best amount to general denials of Francis’s claims and do not factually establish a meritorious defense.12 Indeed, neither the affidavit nor 11 See Barone v. McRae & Holloway, P.C., 179 Ga. App. 812, 814 (2) ( 348 SE2d 3

2023Such conclusionary statements cannot constitute the showing of a meritorious defense.”). 10 See Exxon Corp., 269 Ga. at 762 (2) (concluding that defendant, despite admitting to having a petroleum tank leak, detailed sufficient facts to contradict the “sweeping allegations of the complaint” when defendant submitted sworn affidavits and documents that detailed circumstances surrounding the leak, including various dates); Bowen, 358 Ga. App. at 310 (holding that defendant’s “affidavits explain in some detail how her mother’s money was used and expressly deny any diversion for personal use” and th

2023Such conclusionary statements cannot constitute the showing of a meritorious defense.”). 10 See Exxon Corp., 269 Ga. at 762 (2) (concluding that defendant, despite admitting to having a petroleum tank leak, detailed sufficient facts to contradict the “sweeping allegations of the complaint” when defendant submitted sworn affidavits and documents that detailed circumstances surrounding the leak, including various dates); Bowen, 358 Ga. App. at 310 (holding that defendant’s “affidavits explain in some detail how her mother’s money was used and expressly deny any diversion for personal use” and th

2023His affidavit was based upon his investigation of the case, and satisfied the requirement that a party seeking to open a default make a showing that there is a meritorious defense.”). 8 attached as an exhibit to the motion to open default.11 Instead, Alexander’s assertions—that the money provided to Capital Gains was used for credit services and an investment in luxury vans—at best amount to general denials of Francis’s claims and do not factually establish a meritorious defense.12 Indeed, neither the affidavit nor 11 See Barone v. McRae & Holloway, P.C., 179 Ga. App. 812, 814 (2) ( 348 SE2d 3

2023His affidavit was based upon his investigation of the case, and satisfied the requirement that a party seeking to open a default make a showing that there is a meritorious defense.”). 8 attached as an exhibit to the motion to open default.11 Instead, Alexander’s assertions—that the money provided to Capital Gains was used for credit services and an investment in luxury vans—at best amount to general denials of Francis’s claims and do not factually establish a meritorious defense.12 Indeed, neither the affidavit nor 11 See Barone v. McRae & Holloway, P.C., 179 Ga. App. 812, 814 (2) ( 348 SE2d 3

2022As this rationale for Appellant’s failure to respond to Appellees’ complaint has been found unpersuasive, and Appellant does not cite any other facts demonstrating that he was prevented from responding by some providential cause “over which [Appellant] or his attorney had no control,”10 we conclude that the trial did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to open default.11 10 Bowen v. Savoy, 308 Ga. 204, 207 ( 839 SE2d 546 ) (2020). 11 Although the trial court did not expressly address the issue of whether Appellant made a showing of a meritorious defense, we note t

2022As this rationale for Appellant’s failure to respond to Appellees’ complaint has been found unpersuasive, and Appellant does not cite any other facts demonstrating that he was prevented from responding by some providential cause “over which [Appellant] or his attorney had no control,”10 we conclude that the trial did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to open default.11 10 Bowen v. Savoy, 308 Ga. 204, 207 ( 839 SE2d 546 ) (2020). 11 Although the trial court did not expressly address the issue of whether Appellant made a showing of a meritorious defense, we note t

2019See id. at 601 (1). 10 See Stewart, 229 Ga. App. at 121 (2) (affirming the denial of motion to open default because the “conclusory” statement in the motion that “‘the [d]efendants have a meritorious defense in that their actions were lawful and not in violation of any duty’ . . . cannot constitute the showing of a meritorious defense required to open default”). 7 third argument — that the Leepers’ negligent construction claims fail — does set up a meritorious defense.

2003In order to make a “showing” that a meritorious defense exists, “the defendant must provide factual information and may not rely solely on conclusions.” (Footnote omitted.) Exxon Corp. v. Thomason, 269 Ga. 761 (1) ( 504 SE2d 676 ) (1998). [T]he defendant must set forth facts that show the existence of the essential elements of such defense even though “there is no requirement that the affidavit or verified answer contain in great detail the factual basis of the proposed *314 defense.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Pinehurst Baptist Church v. Murray, 215 Ga. App. 259, 261 ( 450 SE2d 307

2003In order to make a “showing” that a meritorious defense exists, “the defendant must provide factual information and may not rely solely on conclusions.” (Footnote omitted.) Exxon Corp. v. Thomason, 269 Ga. 761 (1) ( 504 SE2d 676 ) (1998). [T]he defendant must set forth facts that show the existence of the essential elements of such defense even though “there is no requirement that the affidavit or verified answer contain in great detail the factual basis of the proposed *314 defense.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Pinehurst Baptist Church v. Murray, 215 Ga. App. 259, 261 ( 450 SE2d 307

2002In the absence of such a showing under oath, the trial court has no discretion to open the default.” SunTrust Bank &c. v. Perry, 233 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 505 SE2d 230 ) (1998).

2002In the absence of such a showing under oath, the trial court has no discretion to open the default.” SunTrust Bank &c. v. Perry, 233 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 505 SE2d 230 ) (1998).

1997“While there is no requirement that the affidavit contain ‘great detail’ concerning the defense, some factual information must be provided.” (Citation omitted.) Ellerbee v. Interstate Contract Carrier Corp., 183 Ga. App. 828, 835 (4) ( 360 SE2d 280 ) (1987). *122 Moreover, defendants failed to offer to plead instanter.

1997“While there is no requirement that the affidavit contain ‘great detail’ concerning the defense, some factual information must be provided.” (Citation omitted.) Ellerbee v. Interstate Contract Carrier Corp., 183 Ga. App. 828, 835 (4) ( 360 SE2d 280 ) (1987). *122 Moreover, defendants failed to offer to plead instanter.