Nonetheless, pursuant to the two-prong test established by OCGA § 9-11-36 (b), a trial court may allow the withdrawal of admissions "when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits." Accord Turner v. Mize , 280 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006). "If the movant satisfies the court on the first prong, the burden is on the respondent to satisfy the second prong.
may permit withdrawal or amendment when [1] the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and [2] the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that the withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.Id. (citing OCGA § 9-11-36 (b). This statutory provision vests the trial court with broad discretion to permit withdrawal of the admission, and the trial court’s ruling on this issue will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Turner v. Mize , 280 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006)."If the movant satisfies the court on the first prong, the burden is on the respondent to satisfy the second prong.
(Citations omitted.) Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006). To prove that the presentation of the merits in this case would be subserved by the withdrawal, the County needed to establish that
Therefore, Carter had the burden of demonstrating that the merits of the action will be subserved by withdrawal, but VistaCare had the burden of showing that withdrawal would prejudice its defense. Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga.App. 256, 257(1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006). In order to carry her burden, Carter needed to show “the admitted requests either could have been refuted on trial of the issues by admissible evidence having a modicum of credibility or that the admitted requests were incredible on their face; and that the denials being tendered to the court in the motion to withdraw had not been offered solely for purposes of delay.
The original burden of showing that the presentation of the merits of the action would be subserved by allowing him to withdraw the admissions fell upon McGlothen. See Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga.App. 256, 257(1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006); Intersouth Properties v. Contractor Exchange, 199 Ga.App. 726, 728(1), 405 S.E.2d 764 (1991). He could meet this burden by showing that the admitted requests either were refutable " by admissible evidence having a modicum of credibility" or were " incredible on [their] face," and that his denial was " not offered solely for the purposes of delay."
See Sayers v. Artistic Kitchen Design, 280 Ga. App. 223, 226-227 (2) ( 633 SE2d 619) (2006).Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 633 SE2d 641) (2006). Neal made no attempt below to make either showing relative to the first prong. Rather, she simply claimed that State Farm had not met the second prong of showing prejudice.
This, however, is not the relevant inquiry. See Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga. App. 256, 258 (1) ( 633 SE2d 641) (2006); Intersouth Properties, 199 Ga. App. at 728 (1). Rather, in order to show that the presentation of the merits of this case would be subserved by the withdrawal, Fox Run was required to establish that "the admitted requests either could have been refuted on trial of the issues by admissible evidence having a modicum of credibility or that the admitted requests were incredible on their face; and that the denials being tendered to the court with the motion to withdraw had not been offered solely for purposes of delay." Whitemarsh Contractors v. Wells, 249 Ga. 194, 195 ( 288 SE2d 198) (1982); Intersouth Properties, 199 Ga. App. at 728 (1). This Fox Run has failed to do.
"If the movant fails to make the required showing to satisfy the first prong of the test, then the trial court is authorized to deny the motion to withdraw the admissions." Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga.App. 256, 257(1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006). Under such circumstances, "there is no need to address the second prong."
“If the movant fails to make the required showing to satisfy the first prong of the test, then the trial court is authorized to deny the motion to withdraw the admissions.” Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga.App. 256, 257(1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006). Under such circumstances, “there is no need to address the second prong.”
Crowther v. Estate of Crowther, 258 Ga. App. 498, 500 (1), 574 S.E.2d 607 (2002). See also Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1), 633 S.E.2d 641 (2006). "If the movant satisfies the court on the first prong, the burden is on the respondent to satisfy the second prong.