SKC, Inc. v. eMag Solutions, LLC
326 Ga. App. 798
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- SKC, Inc. sued eMag Solutions, LLC in Fulton County State Court for amounts owed on eMag’s account.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for eMag, ruling the applicable statute of limitation had expired.
- SKC appeals, arguing the claim is not time-barred and seeking judgment on liability and damages.
- Evidence shows eMag had one account with SKC totaling over $300,000, with six invoices amid ongoing negotiations.
- eMag made monthly wire payments toward the account (mostly April 2002–October 2003; later amounts) totaling about $196,500, leaving a balance of roughly $170,147.
- Notations on payments identified as applying to the eMag account; eMag acknowledged debt in writings and conducted periodic audits; the last relevant payment was in July 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the wire transfers renew the statute of limitations? | SKC: payments constituted new promises renewing the period. | eMag: renewal only as to certain invoices due to bookkeeping allocation. | Yes; the payments renewed the limitation period for the entire account. |
| Did renewal apply to all invoices or only the oldest three? | All invoices aboard the account were renewed. | Only the oldest invoices were renewed per internal application of payments. | Renewal applied to the entire account, not just oldest invoices. |
| Was SKC entitled to summary judgment on liability on the account? | Evidence sufficed to prove eMag owed money. | eMag disputed the invoices; lack of current knowledge of the debt. | Yes; eMag liable on the account as undisputed evidence supported liability. |
| Is the damages amount appropriate for summary adjudication on remand? | Damages should be determined; the record lacks precise computation. | Damages not adequately supported or calculated. | Remand for damages calculation; liability established but damages pending. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middlebrooks v. Cabaniss, 193 Ga. 764 (1942) (new promise to pay may renew the statute when debt is identified)
- Garrett v. Lincoln Cemetery, 148 Ga. App. 744 (1979) (payments by check can renew the statute when they identify the debt)
- All Tech Co. v. Laimer Unicon, 281 Ga. App. 579 (2006) (internal accounting allocation does not defeat renewal of entire account)
- Middlebrooks v. Cabaniss, 902 S.E.2d 10 (1942) (see 193 Ga. 764 (reaffirming new promise rule))
- Murphy v. Varner, 292 Ga. App. 747 (2008) (open account statute begins on due date or creditor’s demand)