The affidavit in question in this case recited that it was based in part on bank records, and it is clear from the context that the portion of the affidavit which set out the amount owed by defendants was based on bank records. Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788 (6) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987), on which the Bank relies, is incorrect in holding that the balance owed on a debt could be established on summary judgment by means of a bank president's affidavit which referred to bank records but did not have the records attached. That holding is contrary to the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) and is disapproved.
Such note is due immediately after delivery, without further notice or demand. Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788 (1) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987), overruled on other grounds, Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755 (1) ( 400 S.E.2d 8) (1991). When this suit was filed in 1991, the UCC provisions concerning the statute of limitation for demand notes were substantially different than at present.
Although the affidavit referred to appellee's records regarding the note, the records were not attached thereto and they do not otherwise appear of record. Nevertheless, appellee urged below and urges on appeal that, under Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788 (6) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987), the affidavit of its president was sufficient to meet its evidentiary burden as the movant for summary judgment. "`Where records relied upon and referred to in an affidavit are neither attached to the affidavit nor included in the record and clearly identified in the affidavit, the affidavit is insufficient. [Cit.] [Appellee] should have attached copies of the records pertinent to [appellant's] debt. [Cits.
In my opinion, one who is given notice pursuant to OCGA § 13-4-4 must govern his future conduct by the literal terms of the contract and is not entitled to assume that, as in any prior instances, the exact terms of the contract will not be enforced against him. Having been given notice that his policy would be cancelled if the premium was not paid by August 10, 1988, appellant had no legal right under OCGA § 13-4-4 to assume that his policy would not be cancelled pursuant to that notice or that his cancelled policy would be reinstated. Since the undisputed evidence of record shows that appellee fulfilled any obligation that it may have owed to appellant under OCGA § 13-4-4, the trial court correctly granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. See Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788 (1) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987). Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
However, as appellant has cited to us no deposition testimony which raises a genuine issue of material fact, and our review of the testimony discloses no such factual dispute, this enumeration of error is without merit. Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788, 789 (5) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987); see Miller Grading c. v. Ga. Fed. c. Assn., 247 Ga. 730, 734 ( 279 S.E.2d 442) (1981). Judgment affirmed. Banke, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.
Even if the depositions were unavailable for the court's consideration, plaintiff has failed to show that this additional evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. Absent such a showing, any error in failing to consider the evidence is harmless. See Miller Grading Contractors v. Ga. Fed. Savings c. Assn., 247 Ga. 730 (3) ( 279 S.E.2d 442) (1981); Murphy v. First Nat. Bank., 182 Ga. App. 788 (5) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987). 3. Because we find summary judgment was properly granted, it is not necessary for us to address plaintiff's remaining enumerations of error.
It thus was not deficient for the reasons urged. See Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788, 789 (6) ( 357 S.E.2d 266) (1987); see also Georgia Grain c. Co. v. First Ga. Bank, 142 Ga. App. 709, 710 (3) ( 236 S.E.2d 913) (1977). 2.
However, as the defendants' motion for summary judgment was decided under the auspices of the Uniform Superior Court Rules, it was not error for the superior court to grant a summary judgment in accordance with Rule 6.3 without an oral argument hearing, where, as in the case sub judice, neither party requested such a hearing. Dallas Blue Haven Pools v. Taslimi, 256 Ga. 739 ( 354 S.E.2d 160); Kelley v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., 256 Ga. 622 ( 351 S.E.2d 443); Murphy v. First Nat. Bank, 182 Ga. App. 788, 789 (4) ( 357 S.E.2d 266); Spikes v. Citizens State Bank, 179 Ga. App. 479, 480 (1) ( 347 S.E.2d 310). Judgment affirmed. Sognier, J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.