ADAMS v. HILL

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

71508.

Attorney(S)

Christopher A. Frazier, for appellants. Jefferson L. Davis, Jr., for appellee.

Judges

BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from an action on a note in the Bartow Superior Court, where Adams was the defendant and the plaintiff sought summary judgment. Two days before the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Adams' attorney filed a motion for continuance citing health problems that prevented him from appearing in court and preparing necessary documents. The motion included a doctor's letter recommending a leave of absence for the attorney. The trial court denied the motion for continuance and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. Adams appealed the denial of the continuance.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for continuance based on the attorney's illness.
Whether strict compliance with OCGA § 9-10-155 is required to obtain a continuance of a case proceeding.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Scott v. State, 151 Ga. App. 840 (262 S.E.2d 198)	Strict compliance with OCGA § 9-10-155 is required to obtain a continuance; the party must swear inability to proceed without counsel, expectation of counsel’s services at next term, and that the application is not for delay only.	The court found none of these statutory requirements were fulfilled in this case, supporting the denial of the continuance.
McLendon v. State, 123 Ga. App. 290, 296-297 (180 S.E.2d 567)	Continuances on the ground of counsel's illness are generally disfavored; the grant of continuance is at the trial court’s discretion.	The court reiterated that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the continuance and noted that the summary judgment was not appealed and thus established the judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the requirements under OCGA § 9-10-155 for obtaining a continuance, which include the party’s sworn statement that trial cannot safely proceed without the absent counsel, expectation of counsel’s availability at the next term, and that the motion is not made for delay. Because Adams’ motion failed to satisfy these statutory conditions, the court held no grounds existed for a continuance. The court further noted that continuances based on counsel’s illness are generally disfavored. The discretionary authority of the trial court under OCGA § 9-10-167 to grant continuances was not abused here, and since the summary judgment was not appealed, it effectively resolved the case. Therefore, the denial of the continuance was proper.

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed.

The court upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion for continuance and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This decision directly affects the parties by confirming the finality of the judgment and does not establish new precedent beyond reinforcing strict compliance with statutory requirements for continuances and the disfavor of continuances based solely on counsel’s illness.

Show full summary ...

ADAMS et al. v. HILL.

BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge.

Adams was defendant in this suit on a note. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Two days before the scheduled hearing, Adams' attorney filed a motion for continuance, averring that "because of current problems with his health," he was unable to appear in court and had been unable to prepare several documents in response to the plaintiff's motion. He averred that to deny the motion for continuance would work a manifest injustice. A doctor's letter attached to the motion described the attorney's illness and said: "I believe it will be in his best interests and his clients [sic] that he take a leave of absence from any professional liabilities for at least three weeks." The motion for continuance was denied and summary judgment granted to the plaintiff. Adams appeals the denial of continuance. Held:

Strict compliance with OCGA § 9-10-155 is required to obtain a continuance of a case proceeding. Scott v. State, 151 Ga. App. 840 (1) ( 262 S.E.2d 198). These requirements are that the party must swear that he cannot go safely to trial without the services of the absent counsel, that he expects his services at the next term, and that the application is not made for delay only. These are absolute requirements. See also OCGA § 9-10-166. None of these requirements was fulfilled. As a rule, continuance on the ground of counsel's illness is not favored. McLendon v. State, 123 Ga. App. 290, 296-297 ( 180 S.E.2d 567).

In all cases, the grant of a continuance is in the discretion of the trial judge (OCGA § 9-10-167), but where the statute is not complied with, no grounds for continuance exist. The trial court did not err in refusing a continuance in this case. In any event, the summary judgment was not appealed from and establishes the judgment in this case. See McLendon, supra, p. 295 (2).

Judgment affirmed. Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur.