Lexplug logoLexplug

Gust v. Flint

Supreme Court of Georgia
257 Ga. 129, 356 S.E.2d 513, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 833 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Georgia's long-arm statute, personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant cannot be established solely through telephone communications and a single transaction resulting from an out-of-state advertisement, absent other regular business, persistent conduct, or physical presence in the state.


Facts:

  • Gust and Twin Grove Trailers, located in Wisconsin, placed an advertisement for a customized truck and trailer in a trade paper published in Nebraska.
  • Flint, a resident of Georgia, received the trade paper in the mail and contacted Gust in Wisconsin regarding the advertisement.
  • The parties negotiated a purchase agreement for the truck and trailer via long-distance telephone.
  • Flint mailed a $6,000 deposit from Georgia to the sellers in Wisconsin.
  • After receiving the money, Gust informed Flint they could not deliver the specific truck ordered and attempted to substitute a different vehicle.
  • Flint refused the substitute vehicle, but Gust refused to return the $6,000 deposit.
  • Gust and Twin Grove had no offices, employees, or other business transactions in Georgia, nor did they derive substantial revenue from the state aside from this isolated incident.

Procedural Posture:

  • Flint sued Gust and Twin Grove Trailers in a Georgia trial court claiming fraud and breach of contract.
  • The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
  • The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the case.
  • Flint appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding jurisdiction existed for the tort claim but not the contract claim.
  • The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the determination of jurisdiction.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Georgia long-arm statute confer personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants whose only contacts with the state consist of placing a customized trade advertisement, engaging in telephone negotiations, and accepting a deposit from a Georgia resident?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Weltner

No, the Georgia long-arm statute does not confer jurisdiction because the defendants did not commit the requisite acts of doing business within the state. The court reasoned that the long-arm statute (OCGA § 9-10-91) explicitly lists the acts required to subject a non-resident to jurisdiction. The uncontested evidence showed the defendants did not regularly solicit business, engage in persistent conduct, or derive substantial revenue from Georgia. The court rejected broader jurisdictional theories (like the 'New York' or 'Illinois' rules), holding that the strict language of the Georgia statute controls. Since the defendants performed none of the statutory acts within Georgia, the courts lack authority over them.


Dissenting - Justice Smith

Yes, jurisdiction should exist because the defendants committed an intentional tort (fraud) directed at a Georgia resident. The dissent argued that it is illogical to allow jurisdiction over a manufacturer who negligently sends a defective product into the state (under stream of commerce theories) while denying jurisdiction over a defendant who intentionally directs fraudulent misrepresentations into the state via telephone and mail. The dissent advocated for a broader interpretation of the statute to prevent the state from becoming a safe haven for out-of-state deceptive business practices.


Concurring - Justice Gregory

Yes, the majority is correct under the current statute, but the legislature should amend the law. The concurrence agreed with the majority's textual analysis that the current statute does not reach these defendants. However, the author suggested that Georgia should adopt a 'maximum limits' statute that extends jurisdiction as far as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution allows, eliminating the gap between what is constitutional and what the state statute permits.



Analysis:

This case illustrates the tension between 'long-arm' statutes and constitutional Due Process. While the U.S. Constitution sets the outer limit of where a defendant can be sued (minimum contacts), states must first authorize their courts to exercise that power through legislation. Here, the Georgia Supreme Court applied a strict statutory construction approach. Even if it might have been constitutionally permissible to sue the Wisconsin defendants in Georgia (a debatable point, but one the dissent argues for), the Court held that the state legislature had not granted the courts that power in the statute's text. This decision serves as a warning that statutory gaps can leave plaintiffs without a local forum, even in cases of alleged fraud.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gust v. Flint (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"