Gobeil, Judge. Cardea Corporate Holdings, Inc. (“Cardea”) appeals from the superior court’s order granting Carolyn LaRocco the right to inspect its corporate books and ordering Cardea to pay costs. Cardea argues that the superior court erred in granting LaRocco’s application to compel inspection before giving it an opportunity to respond. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. In December 2020, LaRocco, a wealth management advisor and investment consultant, joined Cardea Capital Group, Inc. (“CCG”), an entity affiliated with Cardea, as its president. She later became CCG’s CEO and was appointed to serve on CCG’s board of directors. As part of her offer to join CCG, LaRocco was issued shares in Cardea. After some discord between LaRocco and Cardea, in February 2023, CCG terminated her employment. On March 3, 2023, LaRocco sent a demand letter requesting inspection of Cardea’s corporate records pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-1602(a) and (c),[1] but the letter was sent to a person unauthorized to receive service. On March 6, 2023, LaRocco sent a second demand letter to Cardea’s registered agent requesting inspection of the corporate records. Also, on March 10, 2023, LaRocco filed a verified complaint in Cobb County against Cardea, CCG, and various other affiliated entities (“the Cardea defendants”), asserting claims for, inter alia, unpaid compensation/breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, defamation, and tortious interference with business and/or contractual relations. Cardea’s board of directors subsequently adopted a resolution on March 13, 2023 forfeiting the shares issued to LaRocco as part of her employment with CCG.[2] After her demand for inspection went unanswered, on March 29, 2023, LaRocco filed an application to compel inspection of corporate records pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-1604 in the Bibb County superior court.[3] That same day, the clerk of court issued a summons, and Cardea was served with the summons and application on March 30, 2023.[4] On April 21, 2023, 22 days after service of the summons and without a hearing, the superior court granted LaRocco’s application and ordered Cardea to pay costs. Cardea subsequently answered the application on May 1, 2023,[5] asserting, inter alia, that LaRocco lacked standing and is not a shareholder authorized to seek inspection. Cardea then filed this appeal. In related enumerations of error, Cardea argues that the superior court violated its due process rights by denying it the right to respond to the application and erred in ruling on LaRocco’s application before the response deadline set forth in the summons. Pretermitting whether the superior court erred in ruling before Cardea’s 30-day deadline to file an answer, it did violate Cardea’s due process rights by doing so without affording Cardea a right to be heard or otherwise prove its defenses. In her application, LaRocco sought corporate documents under both subsections (a) and (c) of OCGA § 14-2-1602. If a corporation does not allow a shareholder who complies with subsection (b) of OCGA § 14-2-1602 to inspect and copy any records required by OCGA §14-2-1602 (a) to be available for inspection, a superior court may “summarily” order access to such records.[6] With respect to records requested pursuant to OCGA §14-2-1602 (c),[7] the superior court is directed by OCGA § 14-2-1604 (b) to dispose of such application “on an expedited basis.” OCGA § 14-2-1604, however, does not specify the form, content, or timing of notice that must be provided to a corporation before it can be ordered to permit access to its records or to pay costs and attorney fees. Further, we lack case law directly addressing the due process requirements for a corporation to respond to an application pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-1604. Nonetheless, the statute allows the superior court to order production of subsection (a) corporate documents to a shareholder who has given five days written notice of the date on which the shareholder wishes to inspect and copy, and of subsection (c) corporate documents to a “shareholder” who meets the four requirements of subsection (d).[8] These statutory requirements necessitate some form of evidentiary showing on the part of the applicant as to shareholder status, the making of a written demand, and depending on the documents requested, whether the demand was made in good faith and for a proper purpose; they further contemplate potential defenses to production and to the payment of costs by the respondent corporation.[9] Here, the application was not verified and the trial court had received nothing from Cardea at the time it ruled. As a result, the superior court could not have properly determined whether the statutory requirements for production were met. Furthermore, in Westbury Square Townhouses Assn. v. Bryan, 223 Ga. App. 885, 887-890 (2) (479 SE2d 190) (1996) (physical precedent only), this Court did interpret the due process requirements of a virtually identical statute (OCGA § 14-3-1604) and we find its reasoning applicable here. Like OCGA § 14-2-1604, OCGA § 14-3-1604[10] (which applies to non-profit corporations and contains almost identical language to OCGA § 14-2-1604) does not specify the form, content, or timing of notice that must be provided to a corporation. In Westbury Square, this Court analyzed the due process requirements for OCGA § 14-3-1604. 223 Ga. App. at 887-890 (2). In Westbury Square, this Court found that even though the statute provides that the superior court can “summarily” order an inspection or dispose of an application on an “expedited basis,” a non-profit corporation must be “given a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present” potential defenses against a demand for records. Id. at 889 (2) (d). The Westbury Square Court set forth the following as what it found to be the most expeditious procedure that complies with due process: (1) A corporate member aggrieved by a corporation’s refusal of, or failure to respond to, a demand for inspection and copying of records may file an application with the superior court for an order requiring access and awarding costs and attorney fees; (2) the application shall be served on the corporation pursuant to OCGA § 9114; and (3) the court shall expedite a hearing on the matter, as the statute requires, and the hearing may be set by rule nisi. Id. Because the rights and the statutory language are virtually identical,[11] we find no reason to consider the due process requirements under OCGA § 14-2-1604 for a for-profit corporation differently from those under OCGA § 14-3-1604 for a non-profit corporation. Accordingly, we find that prior to the court ordering production of the records and payment of costs, Cardea was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present potential defenses against LaRocco’s application.[12] The superior court’s failure to do so was error. Thus, we vacate the grant of LaRocco’s application to compel inspection of Cardea’s corporate records and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Judgment vacated and case remanded. Doyle, P. J., and Senior Judge C. Andrew Fuller concur.
