Kim v. McCullom

4 Citing cases

  1. Franzen v. Downtown Dev. Auth. of Atlanta

    309 Ga. 411 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Finding "no need to remand" to the trial court where there was a "clear statement of the trial court's reasoning" and a "sufficient basis ... [to] assess that conclusion"

    See, e.g., Ford's & GanttCo., Inc. v. Wallace , 249 Ga. App. 273, 276, 548 S.E.2d 31 (2001) (trial court did not abuse discretion denying amendment where "the attempt to amend the answer to add the defense of condemnation came too late and was not supported by the evidence."); Kim v. McCullom , 222 Ga. App. 439, 440 (2), 474 S.E.2d 654 (1996) ("Not only is the right of amendment very broad, but so is the court's discretion in this regard, and its determination will not be disturbed absent abuse."). As the trial court found in its order regarding the Intervenors’ objections, the Intervenors were not surprised by the filing of the bond validation petitions and had sufficient time to prepare, evidenced by the Intervenors’ timely 30-page answer and objections.

  2. Morris v. Morris

    282 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kim v. McCullom, 222 Ga. App. 439, 440 (2) ( 474 SE2d 654) (1996). 4. The estate contends that the trial court erred in finding that there was a mutual mistake in the preparation of the option contract.

  3. McLeod v. Robbins Assn

    260 Ga. App. 347 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 7 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Kim v. McCullom, 222 Ga. App. 439, 441(3) ( 474 S.E.2d 654) (1996), citing Tyler v. Bennett, 215 Ga. App. 87, 88(2) ( 449 S.E.2d 666) (1994). Compare Mullis v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., 234 Ga. App. 27, 28 ( 505 S.E.2d 818) (1998) (issue raised on motion for summary judgment).

  4. Ford's Gantt Co., Inc. v. Wallace

    249 Ga. App. 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 6 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kim v. McCullom, 222 Ga. App. 439, 440 (2) ( 474 S.E.2d 654) (1996) (full concurrence on Division 2); Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 208 Ga. App. 286, 289 (8) ( 431 S.E.2d 115) (1993). The trial court expressly found that the attempt to amend the answer to add the defense of condemnation came too late and was not supported by the evidence.