(Footnote omitted.) Huddle House v. Paragon Foods, 263 Ga. App. 382, 383 ( 587 SE2d 845) (2003). Because the trial court decided the instant motion to dismiss on oral testimony and the conflicting written submissions of the parties, Alcatraz's reliance on Aero Toy Store is misplaced. Given that the Second Weiss Affidavit and the oral testimony complained of constituted some evidence that Alcatraz accepted the instant forum selection clause, no error obtained upon the grant of the motion to dismiss for Yahoo. Huddle House, supra, 263 Ga. App. at 383.
Huddle House v. Paragon Foods, 263 Ga.App. 382, 383-384 (1) (587 S.E.2d 845) (2003) (citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted). GreenSky claims that Huddle House is not controlling because later cases conflict with it and support enforcement of the forum selection clause in this case.
But a notice of removal under OCGA § 14-2-510 (b) (4), by that statute's terms, concerns a defendant's right to move the action out of a county in which venue is otherwise proper . And even if West Metro Glass's later motion to transfer could be construed as a notice of removal, West Metro Glass filed that motion well outside of the 45-day period. Compare Huddle House v. Paragon Foods , 263 Ga.App. 382, 387 (3), 587 S.E.2d 845 (2003) (holding that defendant's motion to transfer action from county where tort occurred to county where defendant had place of business served to preserve defendant's right to remove case under OCGA § 14-2-510 (b) (4) because defendant filed transfer motion within 45-day period). So West Metro Glass did not avail itself of the procedure for removal from Fulton County afforded by OCGA § 14-2-510 (b) (4). As a result, venue for this action remained proper in Fulton County as to West Metro Glass. (Because West Metro Glass had the opportunity to file a notice of removal within 45 days of service of the summons as required by OCGA § 14-2-510 (b) (4), we do not address the situation where it only becomes feasible for a defendant corporation to seek removal during the course of the litigation.)
Under these circumstances, we review a trial court's findings of disputed fact under the any evidence rule. See Huddle House v. Paragon Foods, 263 Ga. App. 382, 383 ( 587 SE2d 845) (2003); Barrow v. Gen. Motors Corp., 172 Ga. App. 287, 289 ( 322 SE2d 900) (1984) (on motion for rehearing). But where, as here, there is no dispute as to the trial court's findings of fact and the issue presented is one of law, "the issue for review [is] whether the trial court made a plain legal error." Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga. App. 40, 45 (3) ( 510 SE2d 895) (1999).