We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly placed the burden on the non-movant plaintiff in this case to establish his contentions as a matter of law in order to defeat summary judgment. Pertinent to this appeal, the record reflects that Solomon brought suit against Barnett, Barnett’s sole proprietorship and several corporate entities to recover his share of profits from a joint venture/partnership arrangement formed in 1998. Barnett moved for summary judgment contending that he entered into the agreement not in his individual capacity but rather on behalf of a corporate entity. Evidence established that the corporate entities had been administratively dissolved; however, Barnett introduced his averral that he was unaware of the dissolutions at the time of the transactions in issue and also evidence that the corporations had been reinstated after the filing of Solomon’s suit. See Fulton Paper Company v. Reeves , 212 Ga. App. 314 2 441 SE2d 881 1994 reinstatement of corporation acts to treat dissolution as if it had never occurred. In response, Solomon argued Barnett was equitably estopped to raise corporate reinstatement. See generally OCGA § 24-4-27. The trial court rejected Solomon’s argument when it held that it was legally required to proceed as if the defendant corporations had never been administratively dissolved and that “all the evidence of record supports a finding that Defendant Barnett entered into the alleged joint venture/partnership agreement with Solomon in some capacity on behalf of a corporate entity and not as an individual.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Barnett in Solomon v. Barnett , 269 Ga. App. 779 605 SE2d 599 2004, but because it had improperly declined to address Solomon’s argument regarding equitable estoppel, see id. at 782 3, this Court in January 2005 granted Solomon’s petition for writ of certiorari and in the same order remanded the case with direction that the Court of Appeals resolve the matter. On remand, that court outlined the case’s procedural history, quoted general equitable estoppel principles of law and concluded: because the record here is replete with disputed facts concerning the dealings between Barnett, his corporations, and Solomon, there was no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Solomon had failed to come forward, in response to Barnett’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of corporate reinstatement, with sufficient evidence to show equitable estoppel as a defense to corporate reinstatement as a matter of law. See Eiberger v. West , 247 Ga. 767, 769 1 281 SE2d 148 1981; Smith v. Direct Media Corp. , 247 Ga. App. 771, 773 1 544 SE2d 762 2001. Solomon v. Barnett , 276 Ga. App. 210, 211 623 SE2d 4 2005. Because of this language we again granted Solomon’s petition for certiorari. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
Applying our holding in Lau ‘ s Corp. v. Haskins , 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991, we recognize that Barnett, as a named defendant, could prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 only by affirmatively disproving Solomon’s claim with his own evidence establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact or by showing from the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there was an absence of evidence to support at least one essential element of Solomon’s claim. Barnett had the burden of proof even as to issues upon which Solomon would have the trial burden. See Ringer v. Lockhart , 240 Ga. 82, 83 239 SE2d 349 1977. We accept the Court of Appeals’ factual finding in addressing the equitable estoppel issue in this case that “the record here is replete with disputed facts concerning the dealings between Barnett, his corporations, and Solomon.” Solomon , supra, 276 Ga. App. at 211. See Supreme Court Rule 40 certiorari generally not granted to review sufficiency of evidence; see generally Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games v. Hawthorne , 278 Ga. 116, 118 1 598 SE2d 471 2004 accepting factual findings by Court of Appeals where certiorari not granted to review those findings. This is consonant with the cases, cited by the Court of Appeals, acknowledging that the existence of estoppel is generally a question for the factfinder to resolve. Eiberger , supra, 247 Ga. at 769 a a; Smith , supra, 247 Ga. App. at 773 1.
