Our review is for abuse of discretion. Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga.App. 164, 166 (547 S.E.2d 561) (2001).
Unless the trial court abuses its discretion, its findings regarding the sufficiency of service of process "will not be disturbed on appellate review when supported by any evidence." Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 166 (2001). B. The Georgia Renewal Statute
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Duke v. Buice , 249 Ga. App. 164, 166, 547 S.E.2d 561 (2001). However, "[w]here it is apparent that a trial court's judgment rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm.
Lovell's motion, however, states plainly his request for relief. It cannot be said beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga.App. 164, 165, 547 S.E.2d 561 (2001) (pleadings are judged by their function rather than the name given to them by a party, and substance rather than mere nomenclature controls).Baker v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 199 Ga.App. 758, 406 S.E.2d 87 (1991).
While the Georgia Tort Claims Act clearly provides the exclusive remedy for any tort committed by a state officer or employee, and the procedural strictures of the Georgia Tort Claims Act must be strictly construed, this does not render the service provisions in OCGA § 9-11-4 inapplicable. See Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 165-166 ( 547 SE2d 561) (2001). OCGA § 50-21-25 (a).
(Punctuation omitted.) Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 165 ( 547 S.E.2d 561) (2001).State Soil Water Conservation Comm. v. Stricklett, 252 Ga. App. 430, 436(4)(a) ( 555 S.E.2d 800) (2001).
(Footnote omitted.) Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 165-166 ( 547 S.E.2d 561) (2001). See Webb, 202 Ga. App. at 91.