O.C.G.A. § 8-2-37 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Buyers’ remedial repair efforts did not entitle sellers to summary judgment. - Trial court erred in determining that the buyers’ remedial repair efforts entitled the sellers to summary judgment under the Repair Act, O.C.G.A. § 8-2-36 et seq., in the buyers’ action to recover for alleged construction defects in their home because the trial court followed the statutory procedure by staying the action to allow the parties an opportunity to resolve their differences outside of litigation. and when that process proved unsuccessful, the litigation proceeded; thus, the purpose of the Repair Act was served, and while the buyers’ repairs to their home before the sellers were afforded an opportunity to resolve the dispute could create a jury issue as to any potential damages, that action did not authorize the grant of summary judgment

in the sellers’ favor. Lumsden v. Williams, 307 Ga. App. 163, 704 S.E.2d 458, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 1117 (2010). Stay of proceedings. - Trial court did not err in denying a contractor’s motion to set aside a default judgment on the ground that a homeowner failed to give written notice of the homeowner’s claims before filing a lawsuit, which the contractor argued was required under O.C.G.A. § 8-2-38(a), because the contractor did not ask for a stay, so the contractor was not entitled to one; the statutory remedy for a failure of the plaintiff to give notice of his or her claims pursuant to § 8-2-38(a) is a stay of the proceedings, but a defendant is entitled to such a stay only if the defendant asks for the stay. Merry v. Robinson, 313 Ga. App. 321, 721 S.E.2d 567, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 1063 (2011), cert. denied, No. S12C0720, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 403 (Ga. Apr. 24, 2012).