This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Anthony v. Gator Const. Co. , 299 Ga. App. 126 682 SE2d 140 2009, to address whether that Court properly applied the law regarding an allegedly inconsistent verdict in a civil case. Determining that it did not, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court for further proceedings. Gator Cochran Construction, Inc. “Cochran”, filed suit to recover for unpaid invoices in the amount of $685,135.86 against Ray G. Anthony and a number of businesses it contended he controlled, Anthony Family Limited Partnership, Aqua Toy Store, Inc., Anthony Trucking, L.P., Anthony Aviation Center, Inc., Houston Equipment Company, Century Steel Erectors Company, and Anthony Holdings International, L.L.C. collectively “Anthony Entities”. Using a special verdict form, the jury returned a verdict for Cochran in the amount of $606,747.96, and the Anthony Entities appealed. Further facts may be found in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Anthony , supra.
In the second Division of its opinion,1 the Court of Appeals addressed the argument that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent and therefore void. In a civil case, ” ‘a verdict that is contradictory and repugnant is void, and no valid judgment can be entered thereon. A judgment entered on such a verdict will be set aside.’ Cit.” Thompson v. Ingram , 226 Ga. 668, 671 2 177 SE2d 61 1970. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals has crafted a rule of appellate procedure that when a special verdict form is used, and the potential for an inconsistent verdict is evident from the face of the form submitted to the jury, a party must object to that verdict form or waive review of any inconsistency resulting from the form. That rule first appears in Brannan Auto Parts v. Raymark Industries , 183 Ga. App. 82 357 SE2d 807 1987. As authority, Brannan cites Frostgate Warehouses, Inc. v. Cole , 244 Ga. 782, 783 262 SE2d 98 1979. However, Frostgate does not provide such authority; no question of an inconsistent or void verdict was presented therein. Frostgate addressed only the statutory procedures for submitting interrogatories to the jury in a declaratory judgment action currently found in OCGA § § 9-4-6 & 9-11-49, and it merely ruled upon a party’s preservation of error in that context; its statement that “ in the absence of a specific and timely objection, a party waives error relating to the manner in which questions are submitted to the jury,” id. at 783, is not to be given the more general reading that Brannan adopted. Brannan’s misreading of Frostgate has been recognized in the Court of Appeals since Brannan was issued, see Overground Atlanta v. Dunn , 191 Ga. App. 188, 194-195 381 SE2d 137 1989 Sognier, J., dissenting, and in at least one case in which there was a failure to object to a verdict form as it was submitted to the jury, and a failure to object to the verdict as returned by the jury, the Court of Appeals has continued to recognize that a verdict that is contradictory is void, and the consequent judgment must thus be set aside. See Lynas v. Williams , 216 Ga. App. 434, 438 3 b 454 SE2d 570 1995.
