The instant appeal is from an order entered by the Superior Court of DeKalb County. The controversy began, however, in the State Court of Cobb County, when Import Leasing Center, Inc. (ILC), an appellee-defendant in the instant appeal, filed a civil action based upon a lease contract for an automobile. Named as the defendant in that Cobb County action was Mr. Lee Matthews, who is now an appellant-plaintiff in the instant appeal. The Cobb County action went into default and ILC took a default judgment against Mr. Matthews. Thereafter, Mr. Matthews unsuccessfully sought to have the Cobb County default judgment set aside. This court denied Mr. Matthews’ application for a discretionary appeal from the denial of his motion to set aside the Cobb County default judgment.
Subsequently, the instant action was commenced when a pleading denominated as a “Complaint In Equity” was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. In addition to Mr. Matthews, this pleading named appellant The Matthews Group & Associates, Inc. (MG&A) as a plaintiff. The “Complaint In Equity” named botfy ILC and appellee Mr. Ron Wages as defendants. After filing their answers to the “Complaint In Equity,” appellees ILC and Mr. Wages moved for judgment on the pleadings. After conducting a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of both appellees. Appellants Mr. Matthews and MG&A appeal from this order granting judgment on the pleadings as to their “Complaint In Equity.”
1. Former OCGA § 9-11-60 (e), the statutory provision in effect at all times applicable to the instant appeal, provided in relevant part: “Complaint in equity may be brought
to set aside a judgment
for fraud, accident, or mistake, or the acts of the adverse party unmixed with the negligence or fault of the complainant.” (Emphasis supplied.) See existing OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (2). Based upon less than clear allegations, the instant “Complaint In Equity” filed by appellants sought monetary damages, the enjoining of enforcement or collection of the Cobb County judgment, and “such further relief as is just and proper.” Notwithstanding the prayer for damages and the absence of a specific prayer that the Cobb County judgment be set aside, the “Complaint In Equity” contained such allegations regarding the fraud and other “acts” attributed to appellees in connection with the Cobb County action as would nonetheless render it construable as purporting to invoke former OCGA § 9-11-60 (e). See generally
Bowers v. Dolen,
2. Insofar as appellant Mr. Matthews might be attempting to use the “Complaint In Equity” to recover contract damages based upon the lease agreement which formed the underlying subject matter of the Cobb County action against him, it would not be error to grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellees. The allegations of the “Complaint In Equity” clearly show that Mr. Matthews should have filed a compulsory counterclaim in the Cobb County action but did not do so. Accordingly, as against Mr. Matthews, appellees would be entitled to judgment on the pleadings based upon their res judicata defense. See generally
B.. J. Howard Corp. v. Skinner, Wilson &c.,
The law provides various forms of relief which can be pursued by one who believes that a judgment has been wrongly entered. However, a cause of action for damages based upon the judgment creditor’s alleged fraudulent securing of his judgment is not among them. When confronted with an allegedly erroneous judgment, the judgment defendant or other entity with a present interest in the former outcome, must attack the underlying judgment, not the judgment creditor. “A judgment of a court having jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject-matter, however, irregular or erroneous, is binding until set aside. [Cits.] Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the validity of a judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties; and until set aside in a manner prescribed by law, will be given effect. [Cits.]”
Mitchell v. Arnall,
“The law must always give a person sued a. right to be heqrd. and must prescribe a reasonable time within which he may be heard, but it may at the same time prescribe the manner in which his objection to the plaintiffs right to proceed against him shall be brought before the court; and if the manner prescribed by law and the time within which the objection can be raised are both reasonable, and the de* fendant fails to avail himself of the right to be heard within the time and in the manner thus prescribed, the fact that a judgment could not have been rendered if he had availed himself of one of the methods fixed by law to prevent the rendition of the judgment does not afford any sufficient reason for giving him another opportunity to be heard. . . .”
Kelly v. Strouse & Bros.,
Judgment affirmed.