From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Embassy Row Associates v. Rawlins

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 22, 1982
162 Ga. App. 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

63676.

DECIDED JUNE 22, 1982.

Tenant holding over. Clayton State Court. Before Judge Arnold.

Joseph R. Baker, for appellant.

Michael R. Hauptman, for appellee.


Embassy Row Associates, d/b/a Embassy Row Apts., filed a dispossessory action against Rawlins in the Justice of the Peace Court of Clayton County. Rawlins filed an answer and counterclaim and the case was transferred to State Court. Embassy Row Associates amended its complaint so that the plaintiff's name was changed to Manzanita Management Corporation, d/b/a Embassy Row Apartments. Rawlins moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Embassy Row Associates, d/b/a Embassy Row Apts., was not a legal entity and suit by said plaintiff was a nonamendable defect. The trial court granted the motion and Embassy Row Associates appeals.

It is the rule in this state that a suit cannot be brought in the name or in behalf of an unincorporated association. O'Jay Spread Co. v. Hicks, 185 Ga. 507, 513 ( 195 S.E. 564) (1938). "`. . . [N]o suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of a plaintiff having a legal entity, either as a natural or an artificial person . . . If the suit is brought in a name which is neither that of a natural person, not a corporation, nor a partnership, it is a mere nullity, and therefore, with no party plaintiff, there is no case in court, and consequently nothing to amend by.'" Orange County Trust Co. v. Estate of Abe Takowsky, 119 Ga. App. 366 (2) ( 166 S.E.2d 913) (1969); Cook v. Computer Listings, 137 Ga. App. 526 ( 224 S.E.2d 501) (1976). An amendment purporting to show who was indeed the actual plaintiff would not aid or sustain the action. Russell v. O'Donnell, 132 Ga. App. 294, 296 ( 208 S.E.2d 107) (1974). This is not a case where a corporation brought suit in its own name, and failed fully to describe its legal entity, and where an amendment would be permitted, Haynes v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 146 Ga. 832, 833 ( 92 S.E. 648) (1917), nor has appellant shown that Embassy Row Associates is a trade name for Manzanita Management Corporation. See Carroll v. Equico Lessors, 141 Ga. App. 279 ( 233 S.E.2d 255) (1977).

The trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion to dismiss.

Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

DECIDED JUNE 22, 1982.


Summaries of

Embassy Row Associates v. Rawlins

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 22, 1982
162 Ga. App. 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Embassy Row Associates v. Rawlins

Case Details

Full title:EMBASSY ROW ASSOCIATES v. RAWLINS

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 22, 1982

Citations

162 Ga. App. 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
292 S.E.2d 541

Citing Cases

Fairfield Plant. Action Comm. v. Plantation Equity

OCGA § 9-2-24. The trial court relied on two cases in holding otherwise: O'Jay Spread Co. v. Hicks, 185 Ga.…

Committee for Better Govt. v. Black

The initial question is whether this suit must be dismissed, despite the absence of a motion to dismiss, in…