Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-10-31 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 10. Civil Practice and Procedure Generally, 9-10-1 through 9-10-204.

ARTICLE 2 VENUE

9-10-31. Actions against certain codefendants residing in different counties; pleading requirements; application.

  1. The General Assembly finds that Paragraph IV of Section II of Article VI of the Georgia Constitution permits a trial and entry of judgment against a resident of Georgia in a county other than the county of the defendant's residence only if the Georgia resident defendant is a joint obligor, joint tort-feasor, joint promisor, copartner, or joint trespasser.
  2. Subject to the provisions of Code Section 9-10-31.1, joint tort-feasors, obligors, or promisors, or joint contractors or copartners, residing in different counties, may be subject to an action as such in the same action in any county in which one or more of the defendants reside.
  3. In any action involving a medical malpractice claim as defined in Code Section 9-9-60, a nonresident defendant may require that the case be transferred to the county of that defendant's residence if the tortious act upon which the medical malpractice claim is based occurred in the county of that defendant's residence.
  4. If all defendants who reside in the county in which an action is pending are discharged from liability before or upon the return of a verdict by the jury or the court hearing the case without a jury, a nonresident defendant may require that the case be transferred to a county and court in which venue would otherwise be proper. If venue would be proper in more than one county, the plaintiff may elect from among the counties in which venue is proper the county and the court in which the action shall proceed.
  5. Nothing in this Code section shall be deemed to alter or amend the pleading requirements of Chapter 11 of this title relating to the filing of complaints or answers.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 3315; Code 1868, § 3327; Code 1873, § 3404; Code 1882, § 3404; Civil Code 1895, § 4952; Civil Code 1910, § 5529; Code 1933, § 3-204; Ga. L. 1999, p. 734, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 9; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 2/SB 3.)

The 2005 amendment, effective February 16, 2005, added subsection (a); redesignated former subsection (a) as present subsection (b); in subsection (b), substituted "Subject to the provisions of Code Section 9-10-31.1, joint" for "Joint or joint and several" at the beginning and deleted the former second sentence which read "If, however, the court determines prior to the commencement of trial that: (1) The plaintiff has brought the action in bad faith against all defendants residing in the county in which the action is brought; or (2) As a matter of law, no defendant residing in the county in which the action is brought is a proper party, the action shall be transferred to the county and court which the plaintiff elects in which venue is proper. The burden of proof on the issue of venue shall be on the party claiming improper venue by a preponderance of evidence."; added subsection (c); redesignated former subsection (b) as present subsection (d); substituted "or upon the return of a verdict by the jury or the court hearing the case without a jury" for "the commencement of trial" in the first sentence of subsection (d); deleted former subsection (c) which read: "If all defendants who reside in the county in which the action is pending are discharged from liability after the commencement of trial, the case may be transferred to a county and court in which venue would otherwise lie only if all parties consent to such transfer."; deleted former subsection (d) which read: "For purposes of this Code section, trial shall be deemed to have commenced upon the jury being sworn or, in the instance of a trial without a jury, upon the first witness being sworn."; and deleted former subsection (f) which read: "This Code section shall apply to actions filed on or after July 1, 1999."

Cross references.

- Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV.

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1999, "tort-feasors" was substituted for "tortfeasors" in the first sentence of subsection (a) (now subsection (b)).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1999, p. 734, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "It is the intent of the General Assembly through this Act to provide for a fairer and more predictable rule of venue in actions involving joint or joint and several tort-feasors, obligors or promisors, or joint contractors, or copartners, residing in different counties; to establish venue in such actions prior to the commencement of trial in a manner that is fair and constitutionally sound; to eliminate the waste of time and resources to courts and parties under the vanishing venue doctrine; and to bring the law of venue into conformity with the language of Article IV, Section II, Paragraph IV of the Georgia Constitution of 1983."

Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The General Assembly finds that there presently exists a crisis affecting the provision and quality of health care services in this state. Hospitals and other health care providers in this state are having increasing difficulty in locating liability insurance and, when such hospitals and providers are able to locate such insurance, the insurance is extremely costly. The result of this crisis is the potential for a diminution of the availability of access to health care services and a resulting adverse impact on the health and well being of the citizens of this state. The General Assembly further finds that certain civil justice and health care regulatory reforms as provided in this Act will promote predictability and improvement in the provision of quality health care services and the resolution of health care liability claims and will thereby assist in promoting the provision of health care liability insurance by insurance providers. The General Assembly further finds that certain needed reforms affect not only health care liability claims but also other civil actions and accordingly provides such general reforms in this Act."

Law reviews.

- For annual survey article discussing trial practice and procedure, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 487 (1999). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 433 (2004). For article on 2005 amendment of this Code section, see 22 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 221 (2005). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 381 (2005). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 423 (2007). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008). For note discussing problems with venue in Georgia, and proposing statutory revisions to improve the resolution of venue questions, see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 254 (1972). For note, "Venue in Multidefendant Civil Practice in Georgia," see 6 Ga. State U.L. Rev. 427 (1990). For note on 1999 amendment to this section, see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 7 (1999).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Action against joint defendants to be brought in county of residence of either.

- Ga. L. 1949, §§ 4-6 (see O.C.G.A. § 15-21-56) did not overrule Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI), providing that civil actions generally shall be brought in the county of the defendant's residence; where there are joint defendants, however, such an action may be brought in the county of residence of either. Banks County v. Stark, 88 Ga. App. 368, 77 S.E.2d 33 (1953).

Insurer and contractor held not to be joint obligors.

- Where a county board of education contracted with a construction company to renovate a portion of an elementary school, but, during renovation, a fire (allegedly caused by the contractor's negligence) partially destroyed not only the section being renovated, but other portions of the school building as well, and a "builder's risk" insurance policy covering the renovation named as insureds both the construction company and the county board of education, although the construction company was a resident of Stephens County, the board of education sued both the insurance company and the construction company in Rabun County, the locale of the insured property, as "joint obligors," it was held that the defendants were not joint obligors. The school district's actions were not only for different injuries but one was ex contractu (against the insurance company) and the other was ex delicto (against the construction company). Currahee Constr. Co. v. Rabun County Sch. Dist., 180 Ga. App. 471, 349 S.E.2d 487 (1986).

A contractor and a county were not joint obligors as the obligation of the contractor arose from its breach of a contractual promise to pay supplier while the alleged obligation of county arose from the alleged breach of its statutory duty to require a good and sufficient payment bond. J & A Pipeline Co. v. DeKalb County, 208 Ga. App. 123, 430 S.E.2d 13, modified on other grounds, DeKalb County v. J & A Pipeline Co., 263 Ga. 645, 437 S.E.2d 327 (1993).

Service by sheriff outside of the sheriff's county allowed.

- Service in another county by the sheriff of the county where suit was brought and where a joint obligor resided was permitted. Re/Max 100 of Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Tri-Continental Leasing Corp., 177 Ga. App. 111, 338 S.E.2d 542 (1985).

Venue against nonresident governed by long-arm statute.

- An individual defendant who lives outside the state does not "reside" in Georgia so as to be subject to the joint obligor venue provisions, and venue against the nonresident individual is proper only where authorized by the long-arm statute. Goodman v. Vilston, Inc., 197 Ga. App. 718, 399 S.E.2d 241 (1990).

Action jointly against residents and nonresidents to be brought where jurisdiction over nonresident is obtainable.

- Where residents and nonresidents are joint obligors or joint tortfeasors, action against them may be brought in any county in the state in which jurisdiction can be obtained over the nonresident defendant. Nelson Assocs. v. Grubbs, 135 Ga. App. 947, 219 S.E.2d 607 (1975).

Transfer of jurisdiction improper.

- Consent judgment entered against the sole resident defendant/joint tortfeasor did not amount to a discharge from liability entitling the nonresident defendants/joint tortfeasors to transfer the action. Nalley v. Baldwin, 261 Ga. App. 713, 583 S.E.2d 544 (2003).

Trial court erred in granting transfer motion.

- In a wrongful death medical malpractice suit, the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to transfer venue of the case because the remaining defendant had waived the defendant's venue defenses and, therefore, the plaintiff had no standing to require the trial court to transfer the case to the county where the defendant resided when the suit was filed. Richardson v. Gilbert, 319 Ga. App. 72, 733 S.E.2d 783 (2012).

Venue proper as to nonresident, resident, and joint obligor defendants.

- Where a nonresident admits jurisdiction, the defendant against whom substantial relief is prayed is a resident, and a second defendant is a joint obligor of the first, venue is proper as to all parties. Cheek v. Savannah Valley Prod. Credit Ass'n, 244 Ga. 768, 262 S.E.2d 90 (1979).

Venue proper in county where co-defendant's office located.

- Trial court's order that venue was proper in Twiggs County was proper in a declaratory judgment action between an owner and a corporation arising from leases between the parties for facilities because one of the facilities at issue was located in Twiggs County and the corporation's subsidiary, a co-defendant, had an office and transacted business in Twiggs County. Mariner Healthcare, Inc. v. Foster, 280 Ga. App. 406, 634 S.E.2d 162 (2006).

Proof of cause of action against resident required to maintain action against nonresident.

- In order to maintain action against a nonresident joint tortfeasor, it is essential that a cause of action be alleged and proven against the resident defendant. Chitty v. Jones, 210 Ga. 439, 80 S.E.2d 694 (1954).

Court without jurisdiction to enter judgment against nonresident where resident discharged.

- Where joint tortfeasors residing in different counties are sued in the county of one, and on the trial of the case the resident defendant is discharged and a verdict returned solely against the nonresident defendant, the court is without jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the nonresident defendant. O'Neill v. Western Mtg. Corp., 153 Ga. App. 151, 264 S.E.2d 691 (1980).

Effect of judgment against resident.

- Where a single suit is brought against several joint tortfeasors in a county where one of them is a resident, and the others reside outside the county, a consent judgment and an agreement not to enforce the judgment constitute a finding that the resident is liable and do not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants in the county where suit was brought. Motor Convoy, Inc. v. Brannen, 194 Ga. App. 795, 391 S.E.2d 671, aff'd, Frazier v. State, 195 Ga. App. 109, 393 S.E.2d 262 (1990).

Corporation resident of same county as other tortfeasors and also resident of different county.

- A corporation which is sued as a joint tortfeasor and is deemed to be a resident of the same county as other joint tortfeasors with which it is joined and is also considered to be a resident of another county in which neither of the other joint tortfeasors resides is a resident of a "different" county within the meaning of this section. Richards v. Johnson, 219 Ga. 771, 135 S.E.2d 881 (1964) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31).

Action against nonresident corporation and resident noncorporate defendant proper in county of latter.

- Even where a defendant corporation has no office, agent, or place of business in the county where action is brought, and regardless of whether the other defendant was an independent contractor or an employee of the corporation, venue is proper if the petition alleges facts which state a claim against the defendants as joint tortfeasors and the noncorporate defendant is a resident of the county in which the action is brought. Del-Cook Timber Co. v. Brown, 124 Ga. App. 67, 183 S.E.2d 81 (1971).

Action against corporation and noncorporate defendant proper in county where former has office.

- A nonresident corporation is, for purposes of action, a resident of the county of this state in which it has an office, agent, and place of business, and an action will lie against such corporation and a resident joint defendant tortfeasor in such county, even though the resident joint tortfeasor resides in a different county. Nelson Assocs. v. Grubbs, 135 Ga. App. 947, 219 S.E.2d 607 (1975).

Fact that partnership has place of business in state does not establish venue as to the partners. Reading Assocs., Ltd. v. Reading Assocs. of Ga., Inc., 236 Ga. 906, 225 S.E.2d 899 (1976).

Constitutional and statutory provisions as to venue of actions against partners apply to limited partnership. Farmers Hdwe. of Athens, Inc. v. L.A. Properties, Ltd., 136 Ga. App. 180, 220 S.E.2d 465 (1975).

Action against partnership to be brought only in county where at least one partner resides.

- A partnership may be sued in any county in which one partner resides but it cannot be sued in a county where none of the partners reside even if the partnership may be doing business in the latter county. Farmers Hdwe. of Athens, Inc. v. L.A. Properties, Ltd., 136 Ga. App. 180, 220 S.E.2d 465 (1975).

There is no basis for distinction as to partners who may be sued in county of either. Nelson Assocs. v. Grubbs, 135 Ga. App. 947, 219 S.E.2d 607 (1975).

Court of county of partner's residence has jurisdiction regardless of citizenship.

- Partnership may be sued in any county in which one of the partners has such a residence as will confer upon the courts of that county jurisdiction over the partner's person, regardless of the place of the partner's citizenship. Nelson Assocs. v. Grubbs, 135 Ga. App. 947, 219 S.E.2d 607 (1975).

Venue in an action against the guarantor of unpaid promissory notes was not lost merely because no final judgment for money damages was entered against resident joint obligors, where summary judgment was granted against all joint obligors and final judgment for money damages was entered against only the guarantor, who resided in another county, and the others could not satisfy the liability of their debt. Hodge Residential, Inc. v. Bankers First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n, 199 Ga. App. 474, 405 S.E.2d 302 (1991).

Retention of jurisdiction after venue vanishes.

- After venue vanishes, the trial court still retains jurisdiction to order the case transferred to a court where venue is appropriate and the court also retains jurisdiction to consider and grant a defendant's motion to dismiss on a matter of abatement, such as insufficiency of service of process, rendering the need to transfer moot. Exum v. Melton, 244 Ga. App. 775, 536 S.E.2d 786 (2000).

Improper venue.

- In a personal injury action by the passenger against the estate of the driver of the vehicle in which the passenger was riding and the owner of the truck, venue over the nonresident truck owner vanished when the passenger dismissed the owner from the main action, notwithstanding a pending cross-claim for wrongful death against the owner by the estate, a joint tortfeasor which had consented to judgment against it. Airgrowers, Inc. v. Tomlinson, 230 Ga. App. 415, 496 S.E.2d 528 (1998).

Not proper exercise of legislature's authority.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c) was not a proper exercise of the legislature's authority to enact laws which allowed the superior and state courts to change venue; furthermore, because O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) vested power to change venue in the court, and not in a defendant, as did O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c), O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) was proper under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VIII, and did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV. EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006).

Medical malpractice action.

- Gwinnett County trial court properly granted an emergency motion by a husband and wife, in their medical malpractice action, to transfer the case back to Fulton County, based on the Supreme Court of Georgia finding that O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c) was unconstitutional, as: (1) the husband and wife's participation in the litigation did not waive any issue of transfer; (2) the husband and wife did not acquiesce in the transfer, and the hospital failed to show how the husband and wife waived the issue when they failed to pursue an interlocutory appeal; and (3) the husband and wife were not to be denied a remedy merely because there was no specific procedural mechanism to address their grievance; moreover, the Gwinnett County trial court's transfer order was not erroneous despite the fact that the statute that the court relied upon was later found to be unconstitutional, but rather, the result was that the case was to be tried in the original forum, which the hospital did not show was substantively prejudicial to its defense. Hosp. Auth. of Gwinnett County v. Rapson, 283 Ga. App. 297, 641 S.E.2d 286 (2007).

Cited in Rylee v. Abernathy, 210 Ga. 673, 82 S.E.2d 220 (1954); United States Cas. Co. v. American Oil Co., 104 Ga. App. 209, 121 S.E.2d 328 (1961); Byrd v. Moore Ford Co., 116 Ga. App. 292, 157 S.E.2d 41 (1967); Williamson v. Perret's Farms, Inc., 128 Ga. App. 687, 197 S.E.2d 754 (1973); White v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 233 Ga. 919, 213 S.E.2d 879 (1975); Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, 159 Ga. App. 416, 283 S.E.2d 647 (1981); Gordon v. Long State Bank, 163 Ga. App. 334, 294 S.E.2d 201 (1982); Smith v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 169 Ga. App. 751, 315 S.E.2d 265 (1984); Unger v. Bryant Equip. Sales & Servs., Inc., 173 Ga. App. 364, 326 S.E.2d 483 (1985); Edwards v. Edmondson, 173 Ga. App. 353, 326 S.E.2d 550 (1985); Calhoun County Hosp. Auth. v. Walker, 205 Ga. App. 259, 421 S.E.2d 777 (1992); Bryant v. Haynie, 216 Ga. App. 430, 454 S.E.2d 533 (1995); Sikes v. Norton, 185 Bankr. 945 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995); Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Wood, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 177, 659 S.E.2d 410 (2008); HD Supply, Inc. v. Garger, 299 Ga. App. 751, 683 S.E.2d 671 (2009); Tomsic v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 321 Ga. App. 374, 739 S.E.2d 521 (2013); Granite Loan Solutions, LLC v. King, 334 Ga. App. 305, 779 S.E.2d 86 (2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 77 Am. Jur. 2d, Venue, §§ 6, 33.

C.J.S.

- 92A C.J.S., Venue, § 116 et seq.

ALR.

- Plaintiff's bona fide belief in cause of action against defendant whose presence in action is necessary to justify venue as against another defendant as sustaining venue against latter notwithstanding failure to establish cause of action, or dismissal of action, against former, 93 A.L.R. 949.

Venue of action for partnership dissolution, settlement, or accounting, 33 A.L.R.2d 914.

Independent venue requirements as to cross complaint or similar action by defendant seeking relief against a codefendant or third party, 100 A.L.R.2d 693.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31

Total Results: 11  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 514 S.E.2d 201 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 8, 1999 | 270 Ga. 730, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 923

...de' in Georgia for venue purposes, OCGA § 14-2-510." Goodman v. Vilston, Inc., 197 Ga.App. 718, 721, 399 S.E.2d 241 (1990). Thus, the Corporation is properly joined as a defendant with the Partnership under the joint obligor venue provision of OCGA § 9-10-31....
...ong Arm Statute which, in this case, is DeKalb County where the accident occurred. Because the UGTC Partnership consented to venue in Clayton County, the trial court offered plaintiffs the choice of Clayton or DeKalb, and they chose DeKalb. [6] OCGA § 9-10-31 provides: "Joint or joint and several obligors or promisors, or joint contractors, or copartners, residing in different counties, may be subject to an action as such in the same action in any county in which one or more of the defendants r...
Copy

Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 18, 2013 | 740 S.E.2d 136, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 605

...Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss, but we vacate the order making permanent the interlocutory injunction. 1. We turn first to the denial of the motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. When a trial court considers such a motion, it must apply the standard that appears in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a): If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state ....
...e plaintiffs own right to pursue his or her remedy; (5) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts; (6) Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and (7) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...Considering the number, variety, and nature of the statutory factors that necessarily must inform the discretion of the trial court, meaningful appellate review is possible only if the record reflects in some way the thinking that led the trial court to exercise its discretion as it did. By its express terms, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 requires the trial court to consider each of the statutory factors enumerated in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), but it does not expressly require specific findings of fact on each factor....
...242, 248-249 (2) (614 SE2d 875) (2005). Although this Courtnever has said that such specific findings are required absolutely, we previously have noted the existence of such findings in the record of an appeal from the grant of a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-10-31.1, thereby signaling that such findings are an important aid to meaningful appellate review....
...Without such *571a statement of the essential reasoning of the trial court, we frequently cannot ascertain whether the decision of the trial court was a reasoned and reasonable one in the light of the standard set out, and factors enumerated, in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...This is not a case in which the evidence and arguments are so one-sided that, even without a statement of the reasoning of the trial court, we might find an abuse of discretion. As noted, counsel for both parties made competing color-able arguments about the proper application in this case of the standard in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
Copy

Ehca Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 626 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 13, 2006 | 280 Ga. 333

...Marshall, William V. Custer IV, Eric Peter Schroeder, Powell Goldstein, L.L.P., Atlanta, amici curiae, in No. S05A2066. SEARS, Chief Justice. We granted applications for interlocutory appeal in these two cases to consider the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-10-31(c) and of OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a), which were enacted *484 as part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005. [1] For the reasons that follow, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) violates the provision of our Constitution providing for venue in actions against joint tortfeasors, [2] but that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not....
...The counties where the plaintiffs filed the actions, however, were not the counties where the torts occurred. In each case, a defendant who resided in the county where the tort occurred moved to have the case transferred to that county pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31(c)....
...case be transferred to a county of that defendant's residence if the tortious act upon which the medical malpractice claim is based occurred in the county of that defendant's residence." The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contended that, under OCGA § 9-10-31(c), if a nonresident defendant may require that a case be tried in the county of his residence, venue is limited to that county, and the case may no longer be tried in the county of residence of any joint tortfeasor, thus violating the joint tortfeasor provision of the Constitution. In Case No. S05A1560, the trial court held that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) was unconstitutional, but in Case No. S05A2066, the trial court reached the opposite conclusion. We conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) violates the joint tortfeasor venue provision of our Constitution....
...50-21-28 is the implementation of a constitutional amendment authorizing not only the adoption of the [Georgia Tort Claims Act] but also *485 the limitation on the waiver of sovereign immunity." [8] The defendants in these actions contend that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is authorized by Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII of the Constitution, and that, even if it is not, OCGA § 9-10-31(c) simply does not violate the joint tortfeasor provision of the Constitution. We will address the latter contention first. As for this contention, the defendants contend OCGA § 9-10-31(c) does not violate the rationale of Glover because it authorizes, as in the present cases, the transfer of venue from one county where venue would be appropriate to another county where venue would be appropriate, whereas the statute in Glover had no provision for a transfer and simply authorized a trial court to dismiss an action filed against MARTA in any county other than Fulton County. However, this distinction is insufficient to save OCGA § 9-10-31(c)....
...In Glover, the statute permitted the plaintiff to try the action in the county of residence of only one joint tortfeasor, MARTA, and the Court in Glover thus held that the statute was unconstitutional. Similarly, in the present case, once a nonresident tortfeasor moves to transfer an action under OCGA § 9-10-31(c), the case may only be tried in one county, the county of that tortfeasor's residence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the defendants' attempts to distinguish the present cases from Glover are unavailing. The defendants, however, also contend that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is authorized by Art....
...VIII must be construed to include "state courts." The defendants correctly contend that Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII authorizes the General Assembly to enact laws that permit the superior and state courts to exercise the power to change venue. The defendants, however, incorrectly contend that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is a proper exercise of that authority. Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII vests the power to change venue in the courts, whereas OCGA § 9-10-31(c) vests the power, not in the courts, but in nonresident defendants who reside in the county where the tort occurred. Such a *486 defendant may require a court to transfer venue by simply filing a motion to transfer, thus divesting the courts of any power over the decision to change venue. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) violates Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV of our Constitution. Accordingly, in Case No. S05A1560, we affirm the trial court's ruling that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is unconstitutional, and in Case No. S05A2066, we reverse the trial court's ruling that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is constitutional. 2. OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides that a trial court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case and may transfer it to "a different county of proper venue within this state" if the court determines that "the interest of justice" and "the convenience of the parties" warrant that course of action....
...The statute sets forth seven factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [13] In Case No. S05A2066, one of the defendants moved the trial court to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a). The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) violated the joint tortfeasor venue provision of our Constitution. The trial court held that the statute was constitutional and transferred venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [14] On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred, and the defendants contend that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is authorized by Art....
...VIII plainly contemplates that, once a plaintiff has filed his or her action in an appropriate venue, the court has the authority to exercise its discretion to change the venue selected by the plaintiff if the General Assembly has enacted a statute authorizing it to do so. [15] In the present case, because OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) vests the power to change venue in the court, and not in a defendant, as does OCGA § 9-10-31(c), we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is a proper exercise of authority under Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII of the Constitution, and thus does not violate Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV of the Constitution. [16] 3. The plaintiff in Case No. S05A2066 contends that, even if OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not violate the joint tortfeasor *487 venue provision of our Constitution, it cannot be applied to his case, as he filed his action before OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) became effective on February 16, 2005. For the reasons that follow, we disagree. The General Assembly provided that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) would apply retroactively unless that application would be unconstitutional....
...Procedural law is that law which prescribes the methods of enforcement of rights, duties, and obligations." [19] It has been held that statutes affecting where an action may be tried are procedural and not substantive in nature. [20] Garland, however, relies on National Surety Corp. v. Boney [21] to contend OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) should not be applied retroactively....
...ace where an action will be tried are procedural and to the rule that a party has "`no vested rights in any course of procedure.'" [26] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in Case No. S05A2066 in holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) could be applied to the present case....
...ch the defendant alleges that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county where the crime occurred. Also, see OCGA § 9-10-50, which provides for changes of venue in civil cases in which a fair and impartial jury cannot be obtained. [13] OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)(1-7). OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) also permits a trial court to dismiss an action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens if it determines that the case "would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state." That part of the statute is not at issue in these cases....
...aw v. Holtsclaw, 269 Ga. 163, 163-164, 496 S.E.2d 262 (1998). [14] The defendant who moved the trial court to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was not the same defendant who moved the trial court to transfer venue under OCGA § 9-10-31(c), but both defendants moved that venue be transferred to the same county....
Copy

Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck, 651 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. 2007).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 24, 2007 | 282 Ga. 554, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 2902

...Mallery, Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather, PLC, New Orleans, LA, for Appellee. MELTON, Justice. In this case, Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC, appeals the trial court's dismissal of its suit against Dana R. Feneck on the grounds of forum non conveniens. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a). [1] On appeal, Hawthorn Suites contends that the trial court erred by granting Feneck's motion to dismiss because: (1) Feneck abandoned his motion by failing to properly support it; (2) OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is unconstitutional; and (3) even if OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is constitutional, the facts of this case do not support a finding of forum non conveniens....
...Hawthorn Suites first argues that Feneck abandoned his motion to dismiss for failing to raise any authority or facts supporting his motion. To accompany his motion to dismiss, Feneck filed a brief in which he made detailed arguments to support his claims. With regard to legal authority, Feneck properly cited OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) in both his motion and his brief....
...uisiana resident. Feneck's arguments and the facts of record thereby provided a sufficient basis for the trial court's consideration of whether a Louisiana court might be a more appropriate forum for litigation. 2. Hawthorn Suites contends that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) violates Article VI, Section IV, Paragraph I of the 1983 Georgia Constitution [2] because it automatically divests the superior court of its jurisdiction over forum non conveniens cases. [3] This argument is misplaced. By its explicit terms, OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not automatically divest the superior court of its jurisdiction....
...to determine whether, "in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state." Id. Only after the trial court exercises this discretion does OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provide any directive regarding the proper venue of a given case. Therefore, this statute does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) remains constitutional. 3. Hawthorn Suites argues, in the alternative, that the trial court erred by finding that Louisiana, not Georgia, was the more convenient forum for litigation of this matter. The determination of whether to transfer a case pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is a matter of the trial court's discretion, and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision should be affirmed....
...preceding factors that the case should be tried in Louisiana. Based on these specific and detailed findings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hawthorn Suites' case. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides: If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state...
...[2] This constitutional provision states: "The superior courts shall have jurisdiction in all cases, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. . . . The superior courts shall have such appellate jurisdiction . . . as may be provided by law." [3] We have previously ruled that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not violate our constitutional provision for venue in actions against joint tortfeasors. R.J. Taylor Memorial Hospital v. Beck, 280 Ga. 660(1), 631 S.E.2d 684 (2006) (determination by trial court that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is constitutional under 1983 Ga....
Copy

McInerney v. McInerney, 870 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 462

...462 FINAL COPY S21A1068. MCINERNEY V. MCINERNEY. BETHEL, Justice. This appeal presents the question of whether a superior court can transfer or dismiss a divorce case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) without offending Article VI, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution, which provides that “[d]ivorce cases shall be tried in the county where the defendant resides.” As discussed below, we hold that, with respect to the question of transfer of venue, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) is consistent with the authority vested in the General Assembly by Article VI, Section II, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution to enact statutes that direct the superior courts on how to exercise their power to change venue. As to the question of dismissal, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) is an exercise of the General Assembly’s plenary legislative power under Article III, Section VI, Paragraph I, not a matter of venue subject to the constitutional venue provisions....
...The venue provisions do not limit the General Assembly’s authority to provide for the dismissal of a divorce case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. However, because the trial court incorrectly analyzed some of the factors set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for reconsideration in accordance with this opinion. 1....
...their divorce and the custody of their children. They were unable to come to an agreement. After the mediation failed, Jeffrey filed a motion to dismiss the divorce case in Bryan County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a).1 1 OCGA § 9-10-31.1 provides: (a) If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a...
...on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed. 4 factors — the traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum — listed in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) weighed in favor of dismissal....
...t to OCGA § 9-10- 31.1? (2) Is the provision of Article VI, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution referenced above subject to waiver by a defendant filing a motion to dismiss or transfer pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1? (3) Does Article VI, Section II, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution provide the trial court with the authority to transfer or dismiss a divorce case under OCGA § 9-10-31.1, when the case was originally brought in a proper forum? See EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 333 (626 SE2d 482) (2006). 2. In construing these constitutional provisions and their interplay with OCGA § 9-10-31.1, we look to our traditional canons of constitutional and statutory construction for guidance. We generally apply the ordinary signification to words in construing a constitutional provision....
...With these principles in mind, we turn to the questions presented in this case. The first and third questions we posed to the parties were designed to discern whether a trial court can transfer or dismiss a divorce case based on a motion invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...That statute authorizes the trial courts to take two different types of action. First, it authorizes the transfer of venue over a case between counties of proper venue in Georgia when the statutory factors weigh in favor of the transfer. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) (“As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a different county of proper venue within this state, the venue shall be transferred to the appropriate county.”). Second, the statute authorizes the dismissal of actions when a forum outside Georgia is found to be a more convenient 7 forum based on application of the same statutory factors. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) (“As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall dismiss the claim or action.”). (a) The first question before us is whether the transfer provisions of the stat...
...m,” Blevins, 288 Ga. at 115 (1), we hold that while venue in divorce cases is proper in certain constitutionally designated places, the General Assembly may statutorily authorize the superior court to change venue in those cases. In OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), the General Assembly has done just that. The statute sets forth certain circumstances in which a party may move the trial court to transfer to another proper venue in Georgia by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...I (“The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws not inconsistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which it shall deem necessary and proper for the welfare of the state.”). OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) authorizes the dismissal of a case when a forum outside the State is found to be more convenient based on the application of the statutory factors....
...to exercise the jurisdiction otherwise granted by our constitution, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is generally governed by statutory 12 provisions.”).2 That is, the dismissal of a divorce case under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) presents the question of whether a case ought to be tried anywhere in Georgia, which does not implicate the constitutional venue provisions in Paragraphs I and VIII. The parties have not pointed us to any other provision in the Georgia Constitution limiting the General Assembly’s authority to provide for dismissal of a divorce case based on forum non conveniens. Where, as here, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 has not been shown to be in “clear and palpable” conflict with the Constitution and there is no suggestion that dismissal in favor of adjudication in a forum outside Georgia violates due process of law or some other constitutional...
.... under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum,’” that statute did not apply to divorce actions. (Citation omitted.) 269 Ga. at 164-165. But Holtsclaw was decided before the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, which applies to all civil actions. See Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 133 (1) (765 SE2d 340) (2014) (noting that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 “could serve to modify the holding in Holtsclaw” where the new statute, rather than OCGA § 19-9-47, was invoked to support a forum non conveniens motion). 13 authority to dismiss a divorce suit consistent with the principles of forum non conveniens. Because there does not appear to be any provision of the Georgia Constitution that bars the General Assembly from enacting the dismissal provisions of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), we hold that those provisions are a valid exercise of the General Assembly’s plenary legislative power under Article III, Section VI, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution.3 Thus, the superior court’s application of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 in this case did not offend Article VI, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution. (c) Though we did not pose a question to the parties about the merits of the trial court’s ruling on Jeffrey’s motion to dismiss for...
...sell the marital property and move out of Bryan County, and because he asserted that venue was proper in his counterclaim. 3 We limit our analysis to the constitutional provisions addressed in this opinion and express no opinion about whether OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) may offend other provisions of the Georgia Constitution. 14 Kristine further argues that the court did not require Jeffrey to present evidence and that he failed to do so as to several of the factors enumerated in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), that the burden was improperly shifted onto her as a result, and that the court improperly weighed the statutory factors....
...Thus, the issue is not whether venue was proper where the action was filed, but whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that “in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state.” OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...County; and (7) Kristine was entitled to the traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. 17 Kristine does not challenge the undisputed facts on which the trial court relied in evaluating the OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) factors, but argues instead that the court did not properly analyze two of the factors and that the court improperly weighed the last factor. Specifically, Kristine maintains that Jeffrey should have identified and presented evid...
...18 its discretion when the exercise of discretion was infected by a significant legal error.” Rockdale Hosp. v. Evans, 306 Ga. 847, 851 (2) (b) (834 SE2d 77) (2019). The second factor set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) requires the court to consider the “[a]vailability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Emphasis supplied.) However, the court’s order indicates that it instead considered the availability of witnesses generally....
...(d) Because of our holding in Division 2 (a) above, we need not address the second question posed by this Court. Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur. Decided March 15, 2022. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a); constitutional question....
Copy

La Fontaine v. Signature Rsch., Inc., 823 S.E.2d 791 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 4, 2019 | 305 Ga. 107

Benham, Justice. **107We granted certiorari in this case to resolve whether the trial court properly applied OCGA § 9-10-31.1, Georgia's forum non conveniens statute, to dismiss a lawsuit filed in Georgia by residents of Michigan against a Georgia corporation in favor of it being filed in the foreign country where the underlying event occurred. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable to the case at bar. The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed....
...Appellee is a Georgia corporation that inspected and certified the zip-line course operated by CSA. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens saying it would submit to **108jurisdiction in the Dominican Republic and it would agree to extend the applicable statute of limitations period. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1, the trial court granted Appellee's motion because the balance of private and public factors weighed in favor of adjudicating this matter in the Dominican Republic. Appellants appealed the trial court's decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals on four grounds....
...454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).1 Relevant here, the Court of Appeals relied on its earlier decision in Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 242, 248 (3), 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005),2 to reject Appellants' *793argument that it was error to dismiss the case in favor of a foreign tribunal under the plain language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1. La Fontaine , 342 Ga. App. at 457 (2), 803 S.E.2d 609. Appellants' main argument in this Court is that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable here because that statute only allows dismissals of actions to other states and not to other countries. We agree and consequently reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment. Determining whether OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is applicable to this case is a matter of statutory construction which is a question of law subject to de novo review....
...language mere surplusage." Lyman v. Cellchem Intl., Inc. , 300 Ga. 475, 477, 796 S.E.2d 255 (2017) (punctuation and citation omitted). In construing language in any one part of a statute, a court should consider the statute as a whole. See id. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 provides in relevant part: (a) If a court of this state ......
...s at the time the claim was filed in this state as necessary to effect a tolling of the limitations periods in those states beginning on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed. (Emphasis added.) OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was adopted in derogation of the common law3 and therefore " 'must be limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed, and not extended beyond the plain and explicit terms of the statute.' " Wegman v. Wegman , 338 Ga. App. 648, 652 (1), 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016) (quoting Couch v. Red Roof Inns , 291 Ga. 359, 364, 729 S.E.2d 378 (2012) ). Considering the language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 as a whole and giving it its plain and ordinary meaning, dismissing a claim via statutory forum non conveniens when the alternative forum is a foreign country is not an action the trial court may take. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) provides discretionary factors to help trial courts determine whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Based on those factors, if a claim or action would be more properly heard in "a forum outside this state," the trial court shall dismiss the claim or action. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). Critically for this case, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) provides **110that a court *794may not dismiss a claim via forum non conveniens until the defendant files a written stipulation that all defendants waive the right to assert a statute of limitations defense "in all other states of the United States in which the claim was not barred." (Emphasis added.) This requirement in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) shows that a "forum outside this state" in subsection (a) can only be referring to forums in sister states....
...ns defense in 49 states where the defendant could not be sued in the first place, but the defendant would not have to waive this defense in the foreign country-the very place it argues should decide the case. In sum, the courts cannot construe OCGA § 9-10-31.1 to force an outcome that the legislature did not authorize. Strictly construed, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 does not provide for dismissals of actions unless the claim should be moved to one of the other 49 states. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of Appellants' action pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is reversed....
...138, 145-146, 780 S.E.2d 291 (2015) (applying canon of constitutional doubt to adopt statutory construction that "certainly [was] not unreasonable"). I am authorized to state that Justice Warren joins in this concurrence. The Court of Appeals declined to review Appellants' first argument that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 unconstitutionally invades a plaintiff's right of access to the courts because the trial court did not rule on it....
...The court rejected Appellants' second argument that AT&T Corp. v. Sigala , 274 Ga. 137, 549 S.E.2d 373 (2001), mandated that the trial court's decision should be reversed because it concluded Sigala , which was decided four years prior to the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, was superseded by the statute. La Fontaine , 342 Ga. App. at 457 (1) (b), 803 S.E.2d 609. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Appellants' argument that the trial court abused its discretion when granting the motion to dismiss under the factors provided in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...n conveniens for use in lawsuits brought in state courts by nonresident aliens who suffer injuries outside this country." Sigala , 274 Ga. at 139, 549 S.E.2d 373. However, since Sigala was decided in 2001, the legislature enacted OCGA § 50-2-21 and § 9-10-31.1 in 2003 and 2005 respectively to create a statutory framework for the application of forum non conveniens in Georgia. See Ga. L. 2003, pp. 824-825, § 5; Ga. L. 2005, pp. 2-3, § 2. In reaching this result, we need to overrule Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005). In Hewett , OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was invoked to dismiss a case from a Georgia court even though the defendant was arguing that the case should be dismissed to Australia. Although the Court of Appeals stated in a footnote that Kansas could still serve as a possible forum for the suit, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case in favor of Australia. Therefore, Hewett 's holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 can be used to dismiss a case in favor of a forum in another country is overruled.
Copy

R. J. Taylor Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Beck, 631 S.E.2d 684 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 26, 2006 | 280 Ga. 660, 6 Fulton County D. Rep. 1395

...ibb County denying its motion to transfer venue (Case No. S06A0402). Subsequently, plaintiff Donald Ray Beck ("Beck") filed a cross-appeal (Case No. S06X0403). At issue were questions regarding the constitutionality of the venue provisions in OCGA §§ 9-10-31(c) [1] and 9-10-31.1(a), [2] enacted as part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005 and effective February 16, 2005....
...During the pendency of the appeal, the constitutional questions were addressed and decided by this Court. See EHCA Cartersville v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006). The remaining issue is whether the trial court erred in holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not require transfer under the facts of this case....
...ging joint and several acts of medical negligence resulting in paralysis from a spinal cord injury. Although some of the defendants resided in Bibb County, on March 17, 2005, the hospital moved to transfer the suit to Pulaski County pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31(c); it contended that it had the right to require that the case be transferred to Pulaski County because it was a resident of that county and because the alleged tortious acts occurred there. Beck, himself a Pulaski County resident, opposed the transfer, challenging, inter alia, the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-10-31(c), and arguing that a transfer was not warranted under OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a). On June 20, 2005, the Bibb County trial court ruled that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) was unconstitutional as violative of 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, § II, Par. IV, and it declined to transfer the case under the criteria set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)....
...The court also rejected the hospital's contention that Beck was required by OCGA § 9-4-7(c) [3] to notify the Attorney General of the constitutional challenge; nevertheless, the court found that Beck did serve a "Notice of Constitutional Challenge" on the Attorney General. 1. The trial court properly ruled that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) ran afoul of 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, § II, Par. IV, and therefore, was unconstitutional. EHCA Cartersville, v. Turner, supra at 333(1), 626 S.E.2d 482. Also, any implicit determination by the trial court that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is constitutional was correct. EHCA Cartersville v. Turner, supra at 333(2), 626 S.E.2d 482. Furthermore, OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) may be *686 applied retroactively....
...The hospital's contention that Beck was procedurally barred from making the constitutional challenge for an alleged failure to comply with OCGA § 9-4-7(c) is moot. See Division 1, supra. 3. The hospital contends that the trial court erred in finding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not require transfer under the facts of this case. It argues that the factors of forum non conveniens, as codified in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a), support transferring this case to Pulaski County in that, inter alia, Beck is a resident of Pulaski County and given that his claim is predicated on his suffering paralysis, travel would be a hardship to him; the hospital is located...
...unfair prejudice to Beck's case if it is transferred to Pulaski County. But the argument is unavailing. As the hospital acknowledges in its brief, as movant to transfer venue of the case, it had the burden to show that the factors set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) support the transfer....
...Star Gas of Hawkinsville, 243 Ga.App. 112, 113, 533 S.E.2d 97 (2000). The hospital has simply failed to meet this burden of showing an abuse of the trial court's discretion. The trial court's order specifies that it carefully reviewed the criteria set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a), and following such review, found that the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses would not be better served by transfer of the case to Pulaski County....
...convenienced by litigating the matter in Bibb County. The hospital urges that public policy considerations warrant a judicial preference for venue in medical malpractice actions to be in the county where the subject medical care took place. But OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not single out medical malpractice actions for different consideration or treatment....
...*687 The trial court's refusal to transfer venue of this litigation to Pulaski County stands. Judgment affirmed. SEARS, C.J., HUNSTEIN, P.J., BENHAM, CARLEY, THOMPSON, JJ., and Judge DANIEL M. COURSEY, JR., concur. MELTON, J., not participating. NOTES [1] OCGA § 9-10-31(c) provides: In any action involving a medical malpractice claim as defined in Code Section 9-9-60, a nonresident defendant may require that the case be transferred to the county of that defendant's residence if the tortious act upon which the medical malpractice claim is based occurred in the county of that defendant's residence. [2] OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides: If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state...
Copy

Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 3, 2014 | 765 S.E.2d 340

...Did the trial court err in dismissing husband’s entire divorce petition under OCGA § 19-9-67 (a), instead of dismissing only the child custody portion of the case? See Holtsclaw v. Holtsclaw, 269 Ga. 163, 163-164 (496 SE2d 262) (1998); OCGA § 19-9-67 (d); OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (effective February 16, 2005). We answer this question affirmatively. 1....
...Thus, although the trial court was authorized to dismiss the custody portion of husband’s case on the basis of forum non conveniens, OCGA § 19-9-67 (d), it erred in dismissing the divorce case as well. We recognize that our legislature enacted OCGA § 9-10-31.1 in 2005 to enable a trial court to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens in matters other than child custody....
...554 (651 SE2d 664) (2007). Arguably, this code section could serve to modify the holding in Holtsclaw to allow a trial court to dismiss a divorce action along with a child custody proceeding. However, it is clear that the trial court did not expressly invoke OCGA § 9-10-31.1 to dismiss the divorce portion of the case and we find nothing in the record showing that the trial court considered the factors enumerated in that statute....
...dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, trial court must record the essential reasoning that forms the basis for its exercise of discretion). Because 4 the trial court has not considered OCGA § 9-10-31.1 and wife has not argued its application in this appeal, we do not presently consider its application in this case. Wife asserts the trial court was authorized to dismiss husband’s petition for divorce independently because husband did not reside in Georgia for six months prior to filing suit....
Copy

Woodruff v. Gould, 632 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 13, 2006 | 280 Ga. 757, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2263

...THOMPSON, Justice. Plaintiffs filed this medical malpractice case in Fulton County, the county of residence of the defendant physician. Two years later, the physician's professional group moved to transfer the case to Gwinnett County pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31(c)....
...Plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting the statute was unconstitutional. The motion to transfer was granted, but the order granting *663 the motion was certified for immediate review. [1] We granted plaintiffs' application for interlocutory review to determine (1) whether OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is constitutional and, if so, (2) whether it could be applied retroactively. In the meantime, in another case, we answered the first part of our inquiry in the negative, holding that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) was unconstitutional because it empowers a non-resident defendant to change venue. EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006). We adhere to our ruling in Turner, finding OCGA § 9-10-31(c) unconstitutional. It follows that it was error to transfer this case to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31(c)....

La Fontaine v. Signature Rsch., Inc (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 4, 2019 | 280 Ga. 757, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2263

...Decided: February 4, 2019 S18G0078. LA FONTAINE et al. v. SIGNATURE RESEARCH, INC. BENHAM, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case to resolve whether the trial court properly applied OCGA § 9-10-31.1, Georgia’s forum non conveniens statute, to dismiss a lawsuit filed in Georgia by residents of Michigan against a Georgia corporation in favor of it being filed in the foreign country where the underlying event occurred. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable to the case at bar. The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed....
...Appellee is a Georgia corporation that inspected and certified the zip-line course operated by CSA. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens saying it would submit to jurisdiction in the Dominican Republic and it would agree to extend the applicable statute of limitations period. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion because the balance of private and public factors weighed in favor of adjudicating this matter in the Dominican Republic. Appellants appealed the trial court’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals on four grounds....
...1 Relevant here, the Court of Appeals relied on its earlier decision in Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 248 (3) (614 SE2d 875) (2005),2 to reject Appellants’ argument that it was error to dismiss the case in favor of a foreign tribunal under the plain language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1. La Fontaine, 342 Ga. App. at 457 (2). Appellants’ 1 The Court of Appeals declined to review Appellants’ first argument that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 unconstitutionally invades a plaintiff’s right of access to the courts because the trial court did not rule on it....
...The court rejected Appellants’ second argument that AT&T Corp. v. Sigala, 274 Ga. 137 (549 SE2d 373) (2001), mandated that the trial court’s decision should be reversed because it concluded Sigala, which was decided four years prior to the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, was superseded by the statute. La Fontaine, 342 Ga. App. at 457 (1) (b). Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Appellants’ argument that the trial court abused its discretion when granting the motion to dismiss under the factors provided in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). La Fontaine, 342 Ga. App. at 458 (3). 2 Overruled on other grounds by Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568, 569 (1) (740 SE2d 136) (2013). 2 main argument in this Court is that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable here because that statute only allows dismissals of actions to other states and not to other countries. We agree and consequently reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Determining whether OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is applicable to this case is a matter of statutory construction which is a question of law subject to de novo review....
...mere surplusage.” Lyman v. Cellchem Intl., Inc., 300 Ga. 475, 477 (796 SE2d 255) (2017) (punctuation and citation omitted). In construing language in any one part of a statute, a court should consider the statute as a whole. See id. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 provides in relevant part: (a) If a court of this state ....
...as necessary to effect a tolling of the limitations periods in those states beginning on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed. (Emphasis added.) OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was adopted in derogation of the common law3 and therefore “‘must be limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed, and not extended beyond the plain and explicit terms of the statute.’” Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 652 (1) (791 SE2d 431) (2016) (quoting Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 291 Ga. 359, 364 (729 SE2d 378) (2012)). Considering the language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 as a whole and giving it 3 At common law, Georgia courts had no inherent authority to dismiss cases based on forum non conveniens when jurisdiction was otherwise granted by the Georgia Constitution or by statute....
...ine of forum non conveniens for use in lawsuits brought in state courts by nonresident aliens who suffer injuries outside this country.” Sigala, 274 Ga. at 139. However, since Sigala was decided in 2001, the legislature enacted OCGA § 50-2-21 and § 9-10-31.1 in 2003 and 2005 respectively to create a statutory framework for the application of forum non conveniens in Georgia....
...2005, pp. 2-3, § 2. 4 its plain and ordinary meaning, dismissing a claim via statutory forum non conveniens when the alternative forum is a foreign country is not an action the trial court may take. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) provides discretionary factors to help trial courts determine whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Based on those factors, if a claim or action would be more properly heard in “a forum outside this state,” the trial court shall dismiss the claim or action. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). Critically for this case, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) provides that a court may not dismiss a claim via forum non conveniens until the defendant files a written stipulation that all defendants waive the right to assert a statute of limitations defense “in all other states of the United States in which the claim was not barred.” (Emphasis added.) This requirement in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) shows that a “forum outside this state” in subsection (a) can only be referring to forums in sister states....
...limitations defense in 49 states where the defendant could not be sued in the first place, but the defendant would not have to waive this defense in the foreign country–the very place it argues should decide the case. In sum, the courts cannot construe OCGA § 9-10-31.1 to force an outcome that the legislature did not authorize....
...Strictly construed, OCGA § 9- 10-31.1 does not provide for dismissals of actions unless the claim should be moved to one of the other 49 states. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of Appellants’ action pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is reversed. We do not address whether the action may be 4 In reaching this result, we need to overrule Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242 (614 SE2d 875) (2005). In Hewett, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was invoked to dismiss a case from a Georgia court even though the defendant was arguing that the case should be dismissed to Australia....
...Although the Court of Appeals stated in a footnote that Kansas could still serve as a possible forum for the suit, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case in favor of Australia. Therefore, Hewett’s holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 can be used to dismiss a case in favor of a forum in another country is overruled. 6 transferred pursuant to OCGA § 50-2-21, Sigala, 274 Ga....
Copy

SKALIY v. Metts, 700 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. 2010).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 20, 2010 | 287 Ga. 777, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3007

...33-4-1(4) [1] since Dr. Metts, the insured, maintained a dental practice in Columbia County at the address to which Great-West sent the insurance policy. Mrs. Metts further points out that her choice of venue is entitled to some deference under OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)(7)....
...sident defendants). Since the amended complaint did not seek equitable relief common to both the resident and nonresident defendants, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction of Mrs. Skaliy due to improper venue. 3. Mrs. Metts's reliance on OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)(7) is misplaced....
...ther to exercise its discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline jurisdiction and transfer an action filed in one county in Georgia to another county in Georgia. In order for the trial court to exercise its discretion under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) to determine whether, "in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard ......
...tion and venue over the action. See Murillo v. Murillo, 300 Ga.App. 61, 63-64, 684 S.E.2d 126 (2009); Davis & Shulman, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 5:7 (2nd ed.). See also EHCA Cartersville v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333(2), 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006) ("OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides that a trial court may decline to exercise jurisdiction of a case and may transfer it...."); Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts v....
...urt exercises initial jurisdiction over the case). Since the trial court does not have personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Skaliy due to improper venue, it cannot act pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and employ the factors listed in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) in order to decide whether the case "would be more properly heard ......