Hipes & Norton PC v. Pye Auto. Sales of Chattanooga Inc.

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in its suit to recover outstanding legal fees and costs under the parties' retainer agreement since plaintiff provided the signed retainer agreement and detailed monthly billing statements and defendants failed to point to any evidence of inaccurate charges.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted Hipes & Norton, P.C. an interlocutory appeal to review whether the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment on its suit on account against Pye Automobile Sales of Chattanooga, Inc., Pye Buick-Oldsmobile, Inc., Pyco Reinsurance, Ltd., Pye Nissan, Inc., Pye Motor Company, and Pye Automobile Sales, Inc. collectively, “the companies”. For the reasons which follow, Hipes & Norton is entitled to summary judgment. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand.

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c; Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff-movant must produce evidence the defenses pleaded by the defendant are insufficient as a matter of law. Hurston v. Dealers Service Plan, Inc., 141 Ga. App. 148 2 232 SE2d 641 1977. “Where a plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment, and evidence is offered on the issue, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie right to summary judgment, a defendant may not rest upon conclusory allegations or defenses in his pleadings, but must come forward with facts showing a genuine issue remains for trial.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Electrical Distrib., Inc. v. Turner Constr. Co., 196 Ga. App. 359, 361 1 395 SE2d 879 1990. In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review and consider the evidence with all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Birnbrey, Minsk & Minsk v. Yirga, 244 Ga. App. 726 535 SE2d 792 2000.

Hipes & Norton PC v. Pye Auto. Sales of Chattanooga Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report