Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 51-7-80 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 51 TORTS

Section 7. False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abusive Litigation, 51-7-1 through 51-7-85.

ARTICLE 5 ABUSIVE LITIGATION

51-7-80. Definitions.

As used in this article, the term:

  1. "Civil proceeding" includes any action, suit, proceeding, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim, or other claim at law or in equity.
  2. "Claim" includes any allegation or contention of fact or law asserted in support of or in opposition to any civil proceeding, defense, motion, or appeal.
  3. "Defense" includes any denial of allegations made by another party in any pleading, motion, or other paper submitted to the court for the purpose of seeking affirmative or negative relief, and any affirmative defense or matter asserted in confession or avoidance.
  4. "Good faith," when used with reference to any civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, or other position, means that to the best of a person's or his or her attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, formed honestly after reasonable inquiry, that such civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, or other position is well grounded in fact and is either warranted by existing law or by reasonable grounds to believe that an argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law may be successful.
  5. "Malice" means acting with ill will or for a wrongful purpose and may be inferred in an action if the party initiated, continued, or procured civil proceedings or process in a harassing manner or used process for a purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings are based.
  6. "Person" means an individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint-stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity or unincorporated association of persons with capacity to sue or be sued.
  7. "Without substantial justification," when used with reference to any civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, or other position, means that such civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, or other position is:
    1. Frivolous;
    2. Groundless in fact or in law; or
    3. Vexatious.
  8. "Wrongful purpose" when used with reference to any civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, or other position results in or has the effect of:
    1. Attempting to unjustifiably harass or intimidate another party or witness to the proceeding; or
    2. Attempting to unjustifiably accomplish some ulterior or collateral purpose other than resolving the subject controversy on its merits.

(Code 1981, §51-7-80, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 408, § 2.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "Appeals, Interlocutory and Discretionary Applications, and Post-Judgment Motions in the Georgia Courts: The Current Practice and the Need for Reform Legislation," see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 17 (1992). For annual survey article discussing trial practice and procedure, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 447 (2000). For survey article on zoning and land use law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (2008).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Overbroad restrictions on right of access to courts unconstitutional.

- The legislature has provided remedies for hapless defendants hauled into court for the purpose of harassment, but overbroad restrictions on the right of access to the courts will not pass constitutional muster. In re Carter, 235 Ga. App. 551, 510 S.E.2d 91 (1998).

What constitutes "civil proceeding."

- Allegations relating solely to prelitigation actions did not state a viable claim for abusive litigation under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80. Ward v. Coastal Lumber Co., 196 Ga. App. 249, 395 S.E.2d 601 (1990).

Malice not established.

- Trial court did not err in granting a judgment in favor of a company on a debtor's abusive litigation claim because the debtor failed to present any evidence that the company pursued the company's claim against the debtor to recover the amount due on a loan with malice pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80(5). Sevostiyanova v. Tempest Recovery Servs., 307 Ga. App. 868, 705 S.E.2d 878 (2011).

Persons entitled to notice.

- Insurer which took an active part in the continuation of proceedings against an insured in an automobile negligence case could be named as the defendant in an abusive litigation claim, and was entitled to specific written notice by registered or certified mail or other means evidencing receipt by the "addressee." Talbert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 200 Ga. App. 312, 408 S.E.2d 125, cert. denied, 200 Ga. App. 897, 408 S.E.2d 125 (1991).

Notice required prior to suit.

- When a construction company's counterclaims alleging abusive litigation under O.C.G.A. §§ 9-15-14 and51-7-80 et seq., alleged in the pleading that the claims constituted "notice" to assert such claims under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-81, the trial court properly determined that they were not counterclaims and, accordingly, dismissed them for want of subject matter jurisdiction under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12(h)(3); it was also found that the required notice provided in O.C.G.A. § 51-7-84(b) was not provided prior to the filing of a claim, nor was the prior litigation ended in the defendants' favor, both of which were requirements in order to bring such a claim, and disposing of the claim under a summary judgment analysis, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56, was proper. Langley v. Nat'l Labor Group, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 749, 586 S.E.2d 418 (2003).

Punitive damages are excluded from the tort of abusive litigation. Snellings v. Sheppard, 229 Ga. App. 753, 494 S.E.2d 583 (1998).

Claim lacked substance.

- Claim that creditor maliciously used the process of the bankruptcy court to obtain ownership of a partnership's motel business lacked substance when the partnership omitted from its allegations the guaranty contract which gave the creditor the legal right to pursue an action against the partnership as well as the factual disparity that the partnership was still in bankruptcy. Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Hall, 144 Bankr. 568 (S.D. Ga. 1992).

Abusive litigation not found.

- Dismissal of an action involving an employment dispute without prejudice was not a final termination of the case as required for an abusive litigation action. Hallman v. Emory Univ., 225 Ga. App. 247, 483 S.E.2d 362 (1997).

Because the Court of Appeals of Georgia merely found in a prior action between the parties that an employer failed to prove its claims against its former employee at trial, and that holding did not amount to a binding determination that those claims were without substantial justification or that the employer engaged in abusive litigation, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the employer as to the former employee's abusive litigation claims; moreover, although questions of reasonableness were generally for the jury, given that the employer was successful at every stage of the litigation prior to the appeal, the trial court was authorized to determine as a matter of law that the company acted in good faith in filing and pursuing its claims. Bacon v. Volvo Serv. Ctr., Inc., 288 Ga. App. 399, 654 S.E.2d 225 (2007).

Strategic lawsuits against public participation.

- There is no requirement that a party first seek to invoke O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 or O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80 before seeking the protections of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1. Hagemann v. City of Marietta, 287 Ga. App. 1, 650 S.E.2d 363 (2007), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 128 (Ga. 2008).

Relevancy found.

- Evidence of the defendants' financial condition was relevant to the plaintiffs' abusive litigation claim against the defendants. Snellings v. Sheppard, 229 Ga. App. 753, 494 S.E.2d 583 (1998).

Award of attorney's fees premature.

- An award of attorney fees to the purchaser of building supplies in a supplier's action to recover sums allegedly due for the supplies was in error because the underlying litigation had not yet been concluded when the attorney fee award was made. Cox Interior, Inc. v. Bayland Props., LLC, 293 Ga. App. 612, 667 S.E.2d 452 (2008).

Claim not "without substantial justification."

- Trial court did not err in granting a realty company's motion to dismiss a limited liability company's (LLC) complaint for abusive litigation because it could not establish that a realty company acted without substantial justification as required by O.C.G.A. § 51-7-81; the realty company's failure to withdraw the notices of lis pendens based upon the non-final dismissal of its clients' specific performance claim did not demonstrate that it continued the notices of lis pendens without substantial justification. Petroleum Realty II v. Morris, Manning & Martin, 317 Ga. App. 102, 728 S.E.2d 896 (2012).

Cited in Johnson v. Lomas Mtg. USA, Inc., 201 Ga. App. 562, 411 S.E.2d 731 (1991); Ibrahim v. Talley & Assocs., 214 Ga. App. 609, 448 S.E.2d 707 (1994); Kirsch v. Jones, 219 Ga. App. 50, 464 S.E.2d 4 (1995); Owens v. Generali-United States Branch, 224 Ga. App. 290, 480 S.E.2d 863 (1997); Swafford v. Bradford, 225 Ga. App. 486, 484 S.E.2d 300 (1997); Kendrick v. Funderburk, 230 Ga. App. 860, 498 S.E.2d 147 (1998); Davis v. Butler, 240 Ga. App. 72, 522 S.E.2d 548 (1999); Land v. Boone, 265 Ga. App. 551, 594 S.E.2d 741 (2004); Fortson v. Hotard, 299 Ga. App. 800, 684 S.E.2d 18 (2009).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80

Total Results: 7  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Mitcham v. Blalock, 491 S.E.2d 782 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 22, 1997 | 268 Ga. 644, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3494

...ealed with other matters directly appealable, no application was necessary); and Hallman v. Emory University, 225 Ga.App. 247, 249-50, 483 S.E.2d 362 (1997) (§ 9-15-14 award directly appealable since attorney fees were also awarded pursuant to OCGA § 51-7-80, which is not statutorily subject to discretionary review)....
Copy

Denton v. Browns Mill Dev. Co., 561 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2002).

Cited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 27, 2002 | 275 Ga. 2

...velopers to file false claims of trespass against those who oppose them in the public arena. However, this State has enacted laws to curb the filing of suits that are not based in fact. See OCGA §§ 9-15-14 (attorney fees for frivolous actions) and 51-7-80 et seq....
Copy

Betallic, Inc. v. Deavours, 439 S.E.2d 643 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 24, 1994 | 263 Ga. 796

...ajority's adoption of the Court of Appeals' interpretation, which establishes OCGA § 9-15-14 as a procedural trap for the unwary victim of abusive litigation. I am authorized to state that Judge William H. Ison joins in this dissent. NOTES [1] OCGA § 51-7-80 et seq....
Copy

McCullough v. McCullough, 439 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 7, 1994 | 263 Ga. 794, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 398

...798, 802 (4) (353 SE2d 491) (1987) ("[t]he most acceptable test for relevancy is whether the evidence offered renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. [Cits.]"). 3. It does not matter whether appellee, in filing a counterclaim for attorney fees and damages, was travelling under OCGA § 51-7-80 et seq....
Copy

Junior v. Graham, 870 S.E.2d 378 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 8, 2022 | 313 Ga. 420

...(A) A claim, defense, or other position that lacks substantial justification or that is not made in good faith or that is made with malice or a wrongful purpose, as those terms are defined in Code Section 51-7-80; (B) A claim, defense, or other position with respect to which there existed such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it could n...
Copy

Coen v. Aptean, Inc., 838 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 10, 2020 | 307 Ga. 826

P&J Beverage Corp. v. the Bottle Shop, LLC (Ga. 2025).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Aug 12, 2025 | 307 Ga. 826

...sive litigation. But before such a suit can be filed, certain statutory prerequisites must be met. In particular, OCGA § 51-7-84 (a) requires that “[a]s a condition precedent to any claim for abusive 1Under OCGA § 51-7-80 (6), “Person” is defined as “an individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint-stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity or unincorporated association of persons with capa...
...799, 805 (828 SE2d 366) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted) (citation and punctuation omitted). To begin, we observe that OCGA § 51-7-84 (a), which is part of the title in Georgia’s Code dealing with the claim of abusive litigation, see OCGA § 51-7-80 et seq., plainly requires that a notice be sent as “a condition precedent to any claim for abusive litigation” and establishes several requirements for that notice....
...ndicates that the party who sought the injunction acted “with malice” and “without substantial justification,” such that it constitutes abusive litigation. See OCGA § 51-7-81 (1) & (2).12 That is so because all that is 12 OCGA § 51-7-80 provides further definitions of the terms used in OCGA § 51-7-81 (1) and (2) to define “abusive litigation.” OCGA § 51-7-80 (5) defines “malice” as acting with ill will or for a wrongful purpose and may be inferred in an action if the party initiated, continued, or procured civil proceedings or process in a harassing manner or used process for a purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings are based. “Wrongful purpose” is further defined in OCGA § 51-7-80 (8) as result[ing] in or ha[ving] the effect of: (A) Attempting to unjustifiably harass or intimidate another party or witness to the proceeding; or (B) Attempting to unjustifiably accomplish some ulterior or collateral purpose other than resolving the subject controversy on its merits. And OCGA § 51-7-80 (7) defines “without substantial justification” as meaning that a “civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, or other position is: (A) Frivolous; (B) Groundless in fact or in law; or (C) Vexatious.” None of these terms defi...
...abusive litigation by using words or phrases other than “abusive litigation,” such as by describing the civil proceeding as malicious or “without substantial justification,” see OCGA § 51-7-81 (1) and (2), 19 done with “ill will,” OCGA § 51-7-80 (5), “[a]ttempting to unjustifiably accomplish some ulterior or collateral purpose,” OCGA § 51-7-80 (8) (b), or as one of the other phrases referenced above in footnote 12 that defines “abusive litigation,” see OCGA § 51-7-81 (1) and (2), “wrongful purpose,” see OCGA § 51-7-80 (5), or “without substantial justification,” see OCGA § 51-7-80 (7).13 But we do not need to decide all of the words or phrases that would or would not satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 51-7-84 (a) to conclude that the statute was not met by a notice that referenced only wrongful injunction, cite...
...s identification of the injunction proceeding as resulting in a wrongful injunction did not fulfill the requirement in OCGA § 51-7-84 (a) that the party 13 We are doubtful that formal citation to the abusive litigation statutes, OCGA § 51-7-80 et seq., is required to fulfill the condition precedent set forth in OCGA § 51-7-84 (a), although such a citation could help identify a proceeding as abusive litigation. 20 sending the notice identi...