She stated that she had personal knowledge of Cornerstone's obligations under the leases and that those obligations had been met. See Yalanzon v. Citibank (S. Dakota) N. A. , 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (1), 315 S.E.2d 677 (1984) (creditor was not entitled to summary judgment on its claim on account where debtor averred in affidavit that the amount of debt claimed by the creditor was wrong and included with the affidavit copies of checks paid to the creditor during the relevant period); Andrews v. Adams Drive, Ltd. , 142 Ga. App. 32, 34 (4), 234 S.E.2d 835 (1977) (issue of liability on account is a question for the factfinder where the creditor established a prima facie case that the defendants owed a certain amount on accounts and the defendants testified "that they did not believe they owed the money and that some of the accounts had been paid"). The bookkeeper's testimony was not vague or conclusory, as Pitney contends.
Trebor Corp., supra at 697–698(1), 431 S.E.2d 402 (affirming grant of summary judgment in action on account where defendant's opposing affidavit failed to refute evidence including defendant's president's admission that the sum had not been paid); Big Sandy Partnership v. BB & T Co., 313 Ga.App. 871, 872(1), 723 S.E.2d 82 (2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment where debtors failed to produce or point to facts proving their affirmative defenses); Int'l Furniture, supra at 103(2), 335 S.E.2d 628 (affirming grant of summary judgment in action on account where defendant's affidavit failed to set forth facts showing that he was entitled to certain credits). Compare Yalanzon v. Citibank, 169 Ga.App. 961, 962(1), 315 S.E.2d 677 (1984) (consumer's affidavits alleging that he had not been credited with various payments made on an account were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the actual balance due). Judgment affirmed.
Shaw v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 143 Ga. App. 416 ( 238 SE2d 719) (1977).Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota), 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (1) ( 315 SE2d 677) (1984).Judgment affirmed.
The trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to Hopson-Broker for the amount it claims is due.Yalanzon v. Citibank (S. D), 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (1) ( 315 S.E.2d 677) (1984). 2.
OCGA § 51-12-6. See, e.g., Tuggle v. Wilson, 248 Ga. 335 (2) ( 282 S.E.2d 110) (1981); Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota), 169 Ga. App. 961 ( 315 S.E.2d 677) (1984). These decisions lend persuasive weight and principled undergirding to the belief that the physical trauma requirement is unnecessarily restrictive; therefore, it has outlived its usefulness.
See Jackson v. Meadows, 153 Ga. App. 1 (1) ( 264 S.E.2d 503). The contract being entirely parol and the parties having presented conflicting evidence as to the terms of the contract, genuine issues of material fact remain for jury determination. Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota) N. A., 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (1) ( 315 S.E.2d 677). See also OCGA § 9-11-56.
Appellee, as the party moving for summary judgment on the grounds that the opposing party has no valid claim, has the burden of producing evidence which negates that claim. Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota), 169 Ga. App. 961, 962 (2) ( 315 S.E.2d 677) (1984). Appellee has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to appellant's complaint for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and, accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to appellee.
ts of ARMC in the instant case. See Cummings v. Walsh Constr. Co., 561 F. Supp. 872 (S.D.Ga. 1983) ("repeated solicitations for sex along with threats of discharge" occurring over a long period of time, both on and off the job site, sufficient to state an actionable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Carrigan v. Cent. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 468 (N.D.Ga. 1980) (plaintiff stated claim for emotional distress by showing that he received several harassing phone calls from the defendant even after he had denied the debt and had instructed the defendant not to call him again); Greer 176 Ga. App. at 409, 336 S.E.2d at 329 (patient stated claim for emotional distress by showing that his physician repeatedly swore at him and his wife while he was in a hospital bed, and following the statements his wife began to cry, and he "experienced episodes of uncontrollable shaking, for which he required psychiatric treatment"); Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 169 Ga. App. 961, 315 S.E.2d 677 (1984) (plaintiff "could conceivably recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress" if he could show defendant made several harassing phone calls with the intention of causing emotional distress); Dunn v. W. Union Tel. Co., 2 Ga. App. 845, 59 S.E. 189 (1907) (actionable claim for emotional distress stated where agent of defendant used strong and abusive language in unlawfully evicting plaintiff from the premises). Ms. Sweeney made no allegations that the officials at ARMC used abusive language when informing her of their decision, nor has she alleged that she was otherwise harassed by these officials.
Such conclusory showings will not prevent the grant of summary judgment.”); see also Bogart, 321 Ga.App. at 495(3), 739 S.E.2d 465; Trebor Corp., 208 Ga.App. at 697–98(1), 431 S.E.2d 402.Cf. Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 169 Ga.App. 961, 962, 315 S.E.2d 677 (1984) (“[Appellant] asserted in his answer that his liability would not exceed the approximate amount of $300.00, and he submitted affidavits alleging that he had not been credited with various payments made on the account. Attached to one of these affidavits were seven checks totalling in excess of $600.00, all endorsed by Citibank and dated between November 1980 and April 1981. Citibank has not submitted any detailed statement of the account from which it might be determined whether these payments were properly credited to [appellant].”).
Such conclusory showings will not prevent the grant of summary judgment.”); see also Bogart, 321 Ga.App. at 495(3), 739 S.E.2d 465; Trebor Corp., 208 Ga.App. at 697–98(1), 431 S.E.2d 402.Cf. Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 169 Ga.App. 961, 962, 315 S.E.2d 677 (1984) (“[Appellant] asserted in his answer that his liability would not exceed the approximate amount of $300.00, and he submitted affidavits alleging that he had not been credited with various payments made on the account. Attached to one of these affidavits were seven checks totalling in excess of $600.00, all endorsed by Citibank and dated between November 1980 and April 1981. Citibank has not submitted any detailed statement of the account from which it might be determined whether these payments were properly credited to [appellant].”).