O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 51-7-85 (2019)

Exclusive remedy

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

On and after April 3, 1989, no claim other than as provided in this article or in Code Section 9-15-14 shall be allowed, whether statutory or common law, for the torts of malicious use of civil proceedings, malicious abuse of civil process, nor abusive litigation, provided that claims filed prior to such date shall not be affected. This article is the exclusive remedy for abusive litigation.

History

(Code 1981, § 51-7-85, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 408, § 2.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, ‘‘April 3, 1989’’ was substituted for ‘‘the effective

date of this article’’ near the beginning of the Code section.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section not applicable. Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 405 S.E.2d 265, cert. denied, 199 Ga. App. 906, 405 S.E.2d 265 (1991). A claim for tortious interference with contract cannot be predicated upon an allegedly improper filing of a lawsuit. Phillips v. MacDougald, 219 Ga. App. 152, 464 S.E.2d 390 (1995). Preemption. - Grant of summary judgment was affirmed because the trial court did not err in holding that the company’s claims against the law firm fell within the purview of the abusive litigation statute, should have been brought under that statute, and thus were preempted by the exclusivity provisions of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-85. Meadow Springs Recovery, LLC v. Wofford, 319 Ga. App. 79, 734 S.E.2d 100 (2012). Punitive damages excluded in claim governed by Yost. - In an abusive litigation claim governed by Yost v.

Torok, 256 Ga. 92, 344 S.E.2d 414 (1986) punitive damages are excluded, as the tort itself is designed as a deterrent. Rice v. Cropsey, 203 Ga. App. 272, 416 S.E.2d 786, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 907, 416 S.E.2d 786 (1992). After the plaintiff filed the plaintiff ’s complaint in December of 1988, and the defendant filed an answer and counterclaim in February of 1989, the awarding of punitive damages was governed by Yost and not O.C.G.A. § 51-7-85. Rice v. Cropsey, 203 Ga. App. 272, 416 S.E.2d 786, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 907, 416 S.E.2d 786 (1992). Cited in Seckinger v. Holtzendorf, 200 Ga. App. 604, 409 S.E.2d 76 (1991); Sneakers of Cobb County v. Cobb County, 265 Ga. 410, 455 S.E.2d 834 (1995); Great W. Bank v. Southeastern Bank, 234 Ga. App. 420, 507 S.E.2d 191 (1998); Hagemann v. City of Marietta, 287 Ga. App. 1, 650 S.E.2d 363 (2007).

CHAPTER 8 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER 51-8-1 through 51-8-11. Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 1983, p. 884, § 4-2, effective July 1, 1983. Editor’s notes. - This chapter was based on Laws 1833, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 813; Ga. L. 1851-52, p. 261, § 1; Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 42, § 1; Orig. Code 1863, §§ 3988 - 3994; Ga. L. 1865-66, p. 35, § 1; Ga. L. 1865-66, p. 222, § 1; Code 1868, §§ 4014 - 4022; Code 1873,

§§ 4085 - 4093; Ga. L. 1876, p. 98, § 1; Code 1882, §§ 4085 - 4093; Civil Code 1895, §§ 4823 - 4832; Ga. L. 1898, p. 88, § 1; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5395 - 5405; Code 1933, §§ 105-1601 - 105-1611; and Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 8.

CHAPTER 9 INJURIES TO REAL ESTATE Sec.

Cause of action for interference with enjoyment of property. Recovery of possession of lands; damages. Recovery for wrongful interference with possession of land. Action for trespass by person having title. Effect of holding title when possession claimed by two persons. Damages for continuing trespass.

Sec.

Diversion, obstruction, or pollution of stream as trespass. Interference with underground streams. Interference with rights of owner above and below surface of property. Interference with right of way or right of common. Slander or libel concerning title to land.

Cross references. - Time limitation on bringing of actions for trespass upon or damage to real property, § 9-3-30. RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Rights and obligations, with respect to adjoining landowners, arising out of secondary recovery of gas, oil, and other fluid minerals, 19 ALR4th 1182. Res ipsa loquitur as to cause of or liability for real-property fires, 21 ALR4th 929. Tree or limb falls onto adjoining private

property: personal injury and property damage liability, 54 ALR4th 530. Encroachment of trees, shrubbery, or other vegetation across boundary line, 65 ALR4th 603. Excessiveness or inadequacy of punitive damages in cases not involving personal injury or death, 14 ALR5th 242.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Joe Rogers, Jr. v. Hylton B. Dupree, 824 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joe Rogers, Jr. v. Hylton B. Dupree, 824 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 20× “” OCGA § 51-7-85. No other tort claims for malicious use of civil proceedings, malicious abuse of civil process, or abusive litigation are allowed.”
Rogers v. Dupree, 799 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “” OCGA § 51-7-85 provides: ... [N]o claim other than as provided in this article or in Code Section 9-15-14 shall be allowed, whether statutory or common law, for the torts of malicious use of civil proceedings, malicious abuse of civil process, nor abusive litigation.”
Meadow Springs Recovery, LLC v. Wofford, 734 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “In this separate claim by an assignee against the law firm that filed the lis pendens, we conclude that the trial court correctly found preemption under the exclusivity provision of the abusive litigation statute, OCGA § 51-7-85, because the lawsuit seeks damages solely for the…”
Fabe v. Floyd, 405 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “(As this action was filed prior to April 3, 1989, OCGA § 51-7-85 is not applicable.) Fabe contends the trial court erred by not giving full faith and credit to an Ohio statute and certain injunctions prohibiting counterclaims against Fabe as he attempted to recover sums owed…”
Phillips v. MacDougald, 464 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “) and abusive litigation (see generally OCGA § 51-7-85 et seq.). Also OCGA § 51-7-85 provides: “This article is the exclusive remedy for abusive litigation.”
Coen v. Aptean, Inc., 838 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 4× “The statutory tort expressly replaced all other abusive litigation torts except OCGA § 9-15-14: On and after April 3, 1989, no claim other than as provided in this article or in Code Section 9-15-14 shall be allowed, whether statutory or common law, for the torts of malicious…”
Coen v. Aptean, Inc. Et Al., 816 S.E.2d 64 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 51-7-85 ; 12 Great Western Bank , 234 Ga.”
Sneakers of Cobb Cnty. v. Cobb Cnty., 455 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 51-7-85; Mason v. Port Wentworth Corp.”
Whitley v. Piedmont Hosp., Inc., 644 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “3 Indeed, OCGA§ 51-7-85 provides that [o]n and after April 3,1989, no claim other than as provided in this article or in Code Section 9-15-14 shall be allowed, whether statutory or common law, for the torts of malicious use of civil proceedings, malicious abuse of civil process,…”
O'NEAL v. Home Town Bank of Villa Rica, 514 S.E.2d 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “98, 107 (6) (a) ( 70 SE2d 734 ) (1952); OCGA § 51-7-85 (OCGA § 51-7-80 et seq. is exclusive remedy for abusive litigation).”
Nairon v. Land, 529 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The gravamen of both emotional distress claims is the defendants’ act of filing an abusive lawsuit.”
Davis v. Wallace, 713 S.E.2d 446 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The federal court subsequently granted Davis’s motion to remand based upon his representation that he was asserting claims for abusive litigation under OCGA § 51-7-85 and not under federal law.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.