From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ludy v. Giddens

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 11, 1987
354 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

73343.

DECIDED MARCH 11, 1987.

Medical malpractice. Whitfield Superior Court. Before Judge Pannell.

Thomas E. Maddox, Jr., for appellant.

John T. Minor III, L. Hugh Kemp, Stephen B. Farrow, for appellees.


William Ludy brought this medical malpractice action against defendants on March 26, 1985. Defendants answered the complaint and denied the material allegations set forth therein. Thereafter, on September 20, 1985, William Ludy's attorney notified the court and all parties that plaintiff died on September 13, 1985. No motion for substitution of parties was made within the next 180 days. Accordingly, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Service of the motion to dismiss was made upon William Ludy's attorney.

Ludy was not married at the time of his death. He was survived by an adult child and his mother, Mamie Ludy. Mrs. Ludy became executrix of the estate of her son and on June 2, 1986, she moved, through her own counsel, to be substituted as the plaintiff in this case. Holding that no showing of excusable neglect was made by the executrix, citing Jernigan v. Collier, 234 Ga. 837, 840 (2) ( 218 S.E.2d 556), the trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint since the motion for substitution was not brought within the 180-day time period. OCGA § 9-11-25 (a) (1). This appeal followed. Held:

Notice is the pulse beat of due process. "When notice is required by law to be given to a party who has the right or is required to in some way act or respond to the notice within a prescribed period of time, the date of the notice must run from the date of its receipt unless there is express statutory provision to the contrary." Hamilton v. Edwards, 245 Ga. 810, 812 ( 267 S.E.2d 246).

"The record shows no personal service of the suggestion of death upon the non-party representative of [William Ludy's] estate. Thus, the 180-day limitation of OCGA § 9-11-25 (a) (1) never commenced. The trial court erred in dismissing the action under OCGA § 9-11-25 (a) (1). Dubberly v. Nail, 166 Ga. App. 378 ( 304 S.E.2d 504); Anderson v. Southeastern Capital Corp., 243 Ga. 498 ( 255 S.E.2d 12)." Bledsoe v. Sutton, 174 Ga. App. 248 ( 329 S.E.2d 589).

Judgment reversed. Pope, J. concurs. Carley, J., concurs in the Judgment only.

DECIDED MARCH 11, 1987.


Summaries of

Ludy v. Giddens

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 11, 1987
354 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Ludy v. Giddens

Case Details

Full title:LUDY v. GIDDENS et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 11, 1987

Citations

354 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)
354 S.E.2d 703

Citing Cases

Vincent v. Casey

It is well established that the 180-day period during which a motion to substitute must be made to avoid…

Northside Corporation v. Mosby

The record as to the suggestion of death is not complete until the non-party representative is served with…