ELLINGTON, P. J., BETHEL, J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE
Scott appeals from the trial court's entry of a default
judgment after Prestige Financial Services, Inc.
("Prestige") brought a purported suit on account.
Prestige filed a verified complaint in the suit alleging that
Scott defaulted under the terms of a retail installment sale
contract for the purchase of an automobile. The complaint
alleged that, following Scott's default, the vehicle had
been repossessed. The complaint went on to allege that
Prestige had complied with various requirements, including
that it had provided certain notices to Scott, that the sale
of the vehicle had been commercially reasonable, that the
proceeds of the sale had been applied to the account, and
that fees incurred in the recovery and disposition of the
vehicle were necessary and reasonable. The complaint alleged
that Scott owed a current account balance of $18, 326.09.
verified the complaint, but Scott's responsive pleading
was not verified. Prestige then filed a motion to strike
Scott's unverified answer and for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that because Prestige's suit sought
liquidated damages on an account, the answer was deficient
under OCGA § 9-10-112. Scott filed no response to
Prestige's motions. The trial court proceeded to grant
Prestige's motions and entered a default judgment in
favor of Prestige. This appeal followed.
Scott first argues that the trial court erred by finding that
the verification procedures set forth in OCGA § 9-10-112
applied to the suit at bar. Scott asserts that Prestige was
not making a claim for a suit on account but for the recovery
of a balance due on a repossessed automobile purchased under
a sale of goods contract.
§ 9-10-112 provides that
Whenever an action is brought on an open account and the same
is verified by the plaintiff as provided by law, the answer
either shall deny that the defendant is indebted in any sum
or shall specify the amount in which the defendant admits he
may be indebted and it shall be verified as required by law.
verified complaint is brought on an open account and the
defendant's answer does not comply with the pleading
requirements of OCGA § 9-10-112, the answer is properly
struck. See Harper v. Carroll Tire Co., 237 Ga.App.
767, 767 (516 S.E.2d 811) (1999).
An open account is defined as an account which has not been
finally settled or closed, but is still running or open to
future adjustment or liquidation[.] Open account, in legal as
well as in ordinary language, means an indebtedness subject
to future adjustment, and which may be reduced or modified by
Altacare Corp. v. Decker, Hallman, Barber & Briggs,
P.C., 316 Ga.App. 718, 719 (730 S.E.2d 12) (2012).
A suit on open account is available as a simplified procedure
to the provider of goods and services where the price of such
goods or services has been agreed upon and where it appears
that the plaintiff has fully performed its part of the
agreement and nothing remains to be done except for the other
party to make payment.
Id. (citations and punctuation omitted).
action on open account may be brought for materials furnished
and work performed. See Watson v. Sierra Contracting
Corp., 226 Ga.App. 21, 27 (b) (485 S.E.2d 563) (1997);
see also Hickey v. Kostas Chiropractic Clinics,
P.A., 259 Ga.App. 222, 222 (1) (576 S.E.2d 614) (2003)
(approving suit on open account for collection of unpaid
amounts for chiropractic services). Cf. Gator Exp. Serv.,
Inc. v. Funding Sys. Leasing Corp., 158 Ga.App. 92,
92-93 (3) (279 S.E.2d 332) (1981) (distinguishing suit
brought to recover amounts due on written lease of forklift
equipment from a suit on open account). A suit on account
must be based either on an express or an implied contract.
See Watson, 226 Ga.App. at 27 (b). However,
nonpayment of the account is the only issue that is to be
considered in a suit on account. See Altacare, 316
Ga.App. at 719. When there exists a bona fide dispute as to
the amount due or the receipt of goods, open account is the
wrong theory of recovery because such simplified action is
for cases where a party seeks to recover what he justly and
equitably is entitled to without regard to any special
agreement as to payment. Zampatti v. Tradebank Int'l
Franchising Corp., 235 Ga.App. 333, 343-44 (10) (508
S.E.2d 750) (1998).
question before us, then, is whether Scott's non-payment
of amounts due under the installment contract for the
automobile is the proper subject of a ...