Hosch v. Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp.

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, as such an objection is a matter in abatement that does not go to the merits of the action.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Colonial Pacific Leasing Company filed suit against Edward Hosch to collect money owed after Hosch had defaulted on four loans. After the parties filed opposing motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Colonial and entered final judgment against Hosch in the principal amount of $183,951, plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Hosch appeals, but because the evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and that Colonial Pacific is entitled to judgment, we affirm. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal from the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence de novo, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from the evidence are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Citations and punctuation omitted. Robinson v. Global Resources , 300 Ga. App. 139 684 SE2d 104 2009. So viewed, the evidence shows that between May 2006 and April 2008, Hosch entered into four loan agreements with Citicapital Commercial Corporation to finance the purchase of heavy construction equipment. In August 2008, Citicapital merged into Citicorp Leasing, Inc., which then changed its name to GE Capital Commercial, Inc. A year later, in August 2009, GE Capital transferred the loans to Colonial. Hosch defaulted under the loans, after which Colonial served a notice of default and demanded payment.

1. Hosch claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment on the ground that Colonial is not the real party in interest. However, summary judgment cannot properly be granted to a defendant on the basis of a real-party-in-interest objection because such an objection is a matter in abatement that does not go to the merits of the action. First Christ Holiness Church v. Owens Temple First Christ Holiness Church , 282 Ga. 883, 886 655 SE2d 605 2008.

Hosch v. Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp.

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, as such an objection is a matter in abatement that does not go to the merits of the action.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report