316 Ga. App. 718
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- DHB&B sued Altacare for unpaid legal fees; complaint described general corporate matters and 22 invoiced matters, with attached ledger but did not allege an open account.
- Trial court struck Altacare’s answer for failure to comply with OCGA § 9-10-112 and entered a default judgment for DHB&B.
- Altacare appealed; the appellate court reversed, finding this case was not properly governed by 9-10-112 despite the trial court’s ruling.
- Open account is an ongoing indebtedness subject to future adjustment, suitable where plaintiff has performed and only payment is disputed; otherwise, it is not the proper vehicle for suit.
- In this case, the complaint alleged breach of contract, quantum meruit, and attorneys’ fees, and the defense involved affiliates’ invoices; thus the dispute was not about an open account.
- The court held that striking the answer and entering default judgment was error; judgment reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case fits open-account procedure under OCGA § 9-10-112 | DHB&B treated as open-account action requiring 9-10-112 compliance | Altacare contends not an open-account case; other claims exist | No; not proper open-account case; reversal of holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Five Star Steel Constr., Inc. v. Klockner Namasco Corp., 240 Ga. App. 736 (1999) (application of open-account pleading standards)
- Harper v. Carroll Tire Co., 237 Ga. App. 767 (1999) (open-account pleading requirements applied when appropriate)
- Baylis v. Daryani, 294 Ga. App. 729 (2008) (discipline of pleading requirements on open account)
- Riverdale Beverage Corp. v. Brick & Whalen, 162 Ga. App. 516 (1982) (open-account pleading standards cited)
- Haas v. Jaffe, 45 Ga. App. 11 (1931) (recognizes simplified open-account procedure when appropriate)