1. This wаs a suit by appellees for an accounting for rents collectеd by appellant from jointly owned property.
*131
A jury verdict and judgment was entered for appellees. Appellees’ proof of their clаim was dependent upon answers to interrogatories which were not signеd by appellant but by her attorney. Code Ann. § 81A-133 provides, "Any party may serve uрon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served. . . Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing undеr oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objectiоn shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.” See
Williamson v. Lunsford,
2. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion, for continuance. The case had been continued several times, the last in March, 1976, because of the illness of appellant’s husband. The case was set for Monday, July 12,1976, and thе court empaneled a jury specially for the matter. The previous Wednesday the appellant had a fee dispute with her attorney аnd agreed that he could withdraw from the case. Appellant employed another attorney on Friday.
3. Appellee’s Exhibits 12 and 13 were admitted into evidence without objection. Accordingly, there was no error in admitting them.
4. We reverse the award of attorney fees. In our opinion a bona fide controversy existed and there is no *132 evidence of bad faith. One appellee and the appellant are sisters. The other appellee is a sister-in-law. They came into possession of remaindеr estates as co-tenants in 1971. The appellant had managed the рroperty for her mother’s preceding life estate since 1940 under provisions of her father’s will. It appears the parties have not spoken to each other since 1973. The evidence discloses the apрellees have received monthly statements and periodic remittаnces. In November, 1974, the appellant by letter offered to furnish whatevеr information the appellees desired, suggested the property bе divided, that the parties meet to resolve their dispute, hopefully to avoid expensive court action, and to meet with appellees’ representative if they elected to appoint one. The аppellees claim approximately $30,000, being half of the admitted gross rentals of approximately $78,000 less taxes and insurance premiums of аpproximately $13,000, and less $2,250 which they received. Appellees’ Exhibits 12 and 13, сompilations of "Monthly Reports,” show expenses of approximately $53,000. The jury decided the dispute and awarded the plaintiffs $23,000 plus $6,000 attorney fеes. In our opinion there was no evidence of bad faith or stubborn litigiousness. The case involves nothing more than a dispute over allowable expenses which was resolved partly in favor of appellant. See Code § 20-1404.
5. We find no merit in the cross complaint that the evidence demanded a verdict of $30,363.36 for appellees.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part on the main appeal. Judgment affirmed on the cross appeal.