Statute of Limitations — Renewal Statute — Grant of New Trial. The facts of this convoluted case reflect that Cale sued his wife in Forsyth County for divorce in 1978. Cale was represented by Jones in that action. Apparently Cale was dissatisfied with the results of the divorce case and the reasonableness of the attorney fees claimed by Jones came into dispute. In October 1978, Jones served a bill for legal representation upon Cale for $5,571.01. Cale declined to pay that amount. On November 9, 1978, Jones sued Cale in Fulton County for the unpaid legal fee. Being unable to find Cale in Fulton County (apparently Cale no longer resides in Fulton County), Jones dismissed his suit for attorney fees without prejudice. On September 19, 1981,
*866
Cale filed a malpractice suit against Jones in DeKalb County. Jones answered that complaint and filed a counterclaim seeking the unpaid attorney fees. Summary judgment was awarded Jones as to Cale’s malpractice suit and that grant of summary judgment was affirmed by this court.
Cale v. Jones,
1. The first two enumerations of error deal with the failure to dismiss the action filed by Jones as being barred by the statute of limitations. In its simplest terms, Cale’s argument is that the bill for services was filed in October 1978, and the present suit was not filed until June 24, 1983, almost five years later. The parties do not dispute that the applicable statute of limitations is four years. Thus unless Jones’ reliance upon OCGA § 9-2-61 is well placed, Cale’s argument must prevail.
OCGA § 9-2-61 provides in substance that a plaintiff may renew a timely filed suit which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations at the time of renewal if he dismisses the case not more than once and renews it within six months of the dismissal. In such a situation the refiling stands on the same footing as the case originally filed.
An analysis of the filings utilized by Jones shows he filed a case for attorney fees in Fulton County in November 1978. That case was dismissed without prejudice in December 1978. It is clear from the record in the instant case that the Fulton County filing of November 1978, has remained dormant since its dismissal and is not involved in this litigation. The next filing by Jones for attorney fees was in the form of a counterclaim to a suit filed by Cale in September 1981. Conceding a four-year statute of limitations, it is manifest that the counterclaim for attorney fees filed in 1981 was well within the four-year period permitted by the statute of limitations. When Cale’s malpractice suit was terminated by grant of summary judgment, the only suit remaining in DeKalb County between these two parties was the claim for attorney fees filed by Jones in October 1983. There is no dispute this counterclaim was not barred by the statute of limitations.
When Jones dismissed this counterclaim (for the first and only time) in March 1983 from the DeKalb County court, the statute of *867 limitations had already run except as it might have been tolled by the renewal statute. As indicated hereinabove, Jones renewed his claim for attorney fees in Coweta County in June 1983, a period of only three months after the dismissal. After filing this renewed complaint, Jones expressly established in the record that the suit was a renewal and continuation of the counterclaim filed in DeKalb County in October 1981.
Cale seeks to avoid the consequences of the renewal statute by arguing that it does not apply to the renewal of a counterclaim but only as to a renewal of an original lawsuit.
We are unable to agree with this reasoning. The renewal statute gives the right of renewal to a “plaintiff” who renews as provided by the statute. Even in a counterclaim, the counterclaimant is the “plaintiff” saddled with the burden of establishing his right of recovery by a preponderance of the evidence. Though he may be a “defendant” in the case-in-chief, he is the plaintiff in his own right as the counterclaimant. See
Standridge v. Standridge,
2. Cale argues in his third enumeration of error the trial court improperly granted a new trial based upon a finding that the verdict was decidedly against the weight of the evidence. Such an enumeration has no merit. We note in the first instance that in the grant of a new trial, the trial court sits, in effect, as a thirteenth juror. Moreover, the grant of the new trial is vested largely in the discretion of the court. Thus, as a thirteenth fact finder and acting within its discretion, the trial court’s first grant of new trial is given great weight.
Ricketts v. Williams,
3. In his fourth enumeration of error, Cale argues that the court erred in granting a partial motion in limine. Cale wished to introduce the facts and results of the original divorce trial to show how Jones had failed to earn his fee. However, the court observed and concluded that the present litigation was the reasonableness of the attorney fee based upon matters other than the professional competence exercised by Jones. The trial court properly reasoned that the issue of malprac
*868
tice had already been decided by a court of competent jursidiction and that issue was final as between these parties. However, the court did allow evidence of whether Jones represented Cale as contracted and the value of those services to Cale. The court thus would not allow evidence of the result of the divorce action as evidence that tends to point to the degree of professionalism exercised. See
Landers v. Ga. Baptist Medical Ctr.,
4. The last four of Cale’s enumerations of error deal with the giving of charges requested by Jones. In general these charges dealt with the standard of care owed by an attorney to his client, consequences of a breach of that standard of care and guidelines for imposing penalties upon an offending attorney. Cale argues that while each of these charges may be relevant in legal malpractice cases, they had no relevance in a suit upon a contract for the recovery of attorney fees. While that argument might have merit in a dispute limited solely to evidence of a stated account, the trial court in this case allowed Cale to introduce evidence of alleged incompetence to dispute the payment of any fee at all. Thus the charges each had relevance to the issues raised by Cale and were appropriate legal principles to aid the jury in reaching a verdict. The first three requests were taken from
Hughes v. Malone,
Judgment affirmed.