A Georgia appeals court has thrown out a six-figure default judgment in a disputed home building project. It ruled that the trial courts never gained proper legal power over a construction company. It also ruled that they used the wrong steps when they worked out the money award. Presiding Judge Sara L. Doyle of the Court of Appeals of Georgia issued the decision on 27 October 2026. It set aside the judgment that had been given to homeowner representative Jionel E. Pierre against contractor Juan Ramirez and Big Sky Remodel and Construction, LLC. According to court filings described in the opinion, the dispute began in September 2021. That month, Ramirez and Big Sky signed a renovation agreement with real estate firm Cadenas Ventures, LLC. The job was to remodel a house in Powder Springs, Georgia. The working relationship broke down over claims that the work was not done properly. Cadenas Ventures then passed its legal rights to Pierre. On 17 May 2022, Pierre filed a breach of contract lawsuit in state court. He named Ramirez and Big Sky as joint defendants and asked for tens of thousands of dollars in damages. Neither defendant filed a written defense on time. The lower trial court then entered a default judgment against both. It ended up awarding about $186,000 to the plaintiff.
Procedural errors in serving corporate entity
Presiding Judge Doyle wrote for the Second Division of the appeals court, along with Judges Jeffrey A. Davis and Amanda H. Whitaker. She found that the trial court made a basic legal error. It issued a binding judgment against Big Sky without proof that the company was properly served. Under Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section 9-11-4(e)(1)(A), a company or limited liability company must be served in person. The summons and complaint must be handed to an executive officer, a named managing director, or an officially registered agent of the company. The appeals record showed that process servers did not deliver the papers to an authorized agent of Big Sky. Nothing showed that Ramirez was formally served as a representative of the company. “Under these circumstances, the trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over Big Sky, and thus, the default judgment entered against Big Sky is void,” Presiding Judge Doyle stated in the written ruling. The court repeated that under state procedural law, a judgment made without valid personal jurisdiction because of faulty service is void. It can be challenged at any point in the case.
Premature damages and evidentiary requirements
The Court of Appeals also found that the trial court moved too soon. It finalized judgment and set money damages against Ramirez as an individual. The court confirmed that Ramirez had defaulted by not filing an answer to the first complaint. But it noted that Pierre’s lawsuit clearly claimed that Ramirez and Big Sky shared joint and several liability under the building contract. Under settled Georgia case law, a lawsuit may claim joint liability against several defendants. If service is incomplete or disputed for one of them, the trial court cannot right away enter a final money judgment against the defaulting party. Claims against the co-defendant must be settled first. “While the trial court’s finding of default against Ramirez was proper, the entry of judgment thereon was premature,” Presiding Judge Doyle wrote. She explained that the lower court had to settle the question of jurisdiction over the co-defendant first. The appeals panel also pointed out that the lawsuit involved unliquidated damages. This means the contract itself did not fix exact dollar amounts. State law therefore required the plaintiff to present formal, checkable evidence at an evidentiary hearing. That evidence had to prove the exact cost of repairs or financial losses before any court could grant an award.
Rejection of standing challenge
The appeals court ruled for the contractor team on service and damages procedures. But it turned down a separate argument from Ramirez and Big Sky, who wanted the whole case thrown out for lack of standing. The defense team argued that Pierre had no legal right to bring the suit. They said the original assignment contract from Cadenas Ventures was not attached as an exhibit to the first court filing in May 2022. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument. It stressed that standing depends on whether the legal right was properly held on the date the complaint was started. It does not depend on whether paperwork was attached to the first court filing. Court records showed that the assignment agreement passing rights from Cadenas Ventures to Pierre was signed on 1 May 2022. That was two weeks before the lawsuit was filed in court. Because the assignment happened before the lawsuit began, the court held that Pierre had valid legal standing to pursue the claims. The Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s judgment order. It sent the case back to the trial judge for more proceedings that follow the rules on service and evidentiary hearings.
