Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BRIDGES Et Al. v. COLLINS-HOOTEN Et Al.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 1, 2016No. A16A1029Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFADDEN, Judge

I concur in Divisions 1 and 2. Because the Tax Director is entitled to reasonable attorney fees only for discharging the limited role of a plaintiff in interpleader, I respectfully dissent from Division 3.

A requirement for a plaintiff to file an interpleader action is that she “must not have or claim any interest in the subject matter.” Almand v. Reese, 209 Ga. 138, 142 (2) (71 SE2d 223) (1952). Once she is no longer disinterested, she loses the right to require the other parties to interplead. See Gardner v. Haas, Howell & Dodd, Inc., 178 Ga. 685, 687 (173 SE 863) (1934).

And although OCGA §…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Almand v. ReeseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  2. Cheek v. Savannah Valley Production Credit Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
  3. Midland National Life Insurance v. EmersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  4. Gardner v. Haas, Howell & Dodd Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API