HENRY v. STRATEGIC EXCHANGE, LLC Et Al.
340 Ga. App. 437
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2006 Henry loaned Strategic Exchange $50,000 under a one‑year written promissory note with guaranties by Poole and Sanders; note required quarterly interest payments and final payment of principal upon maturity.
- Henry received only a few thousand dollars in interest and no principal; she notified Poole and Sanders in July 2011 and retained counsel who sent a demand letter in September 2012.
- Henry sued Strategic, Poole, and Sanders for breach of the note and guaranty on January 11, 2013; she later moved for summary judgment based on defendants’ deemed admissions from unanswered requests for admissions.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were time‑barred by the statute of limitations; the trial court granted dismissal reasoning the cause accrued on October 1, 2006 (first missed payment) and thus the action was untimely.
- The trial court did not rule on Henry’s summary judgment motion; on appeal Henry challenged the statute‑of‑limitations dismissal, the deemed admissions, and the timeliness of the defendants’ dismissal motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the cause of action accrue for the written promissory note? | Accrual occurred at maturity (July 2007), not on the first missed installment. | Accrual occurred on the first missed scheduled payment (Oct. 1, 2006), starting the limitations period earlier. | Accrual occurred at maturity in July 2007; trial court erred. |
| Is the action time‑barred under the statute of limitations? | Action filed Jan. 2013 was within six‑year limitation from July 2007. | Action was barred because limitations began in Oct. 2006. | Not barred; six‑year written‑contract period measured from July 2007 means suit was timely. |
| Can this Court decide Henry’s motion for summary judgment based on deemed admissions? | Deemed admissions entitled Henry to summary judgment. | (Implicit) Trial court needed to rule; issue not yet resolved below. | Cannot consider the summary judgment merits on appeal because trial court did not rule. |
| Was the defendants’ motion to dismiss untimely? | Motion was untimely. | Motion was timely and properly granted by trial court. | Moot given reversal on statute‑of‑limitations ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 285 Ga. App. 705 (standard of de novo review on motion to dismiss)
- Chatham v. Georgia‑Pacific Corp., 163 Ga. App. 525 (cause of action on note accrues at maturity)
- Wall v. Citizens & Southern Bank, 153 Ga. App. 29 (cause accrues upon acceleration after missed payment)
- McKeever v. State, 189 Ga. App. 445 (accrual principles for actions on notes)
- Newell Recycling of Atlanta v. Jordan Jones and Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236 (statute of limitations for simple written contracts)
- Phoenix Recovery Group v. Mehta, 291 Ga. App. 874 (application of written‑contract limitations period)
- Hill v. American Express, 289 Ga. App. 576 (written contract six‑year limitation)
- Rushin v. Ussery, 298 Ga. App. 830 (appellate court will not decide issues not ruled on below)