Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Veterans Parkway Developers, LLC (“VPD”) appealed a Superior Court order granting injunctive relief and requiring an accounting in this suit by RMW Development Fund, II, LLC (“RMW”) stemming from VPD’s management of Veterans Parkway Apartments, LLC (the “Company”). The order at issue granted RMW an interlocutory injunction: (1) enjoining VPD from using funds in its possession or control to construct a second entrance to an apartment complex in Columbus (the “Property”), constructed and managed by the Company; (2) prohibiting VPD from using funds for any purpose other than the normal day-to-day expenses of the Property; and (3) requiring VPD to submit a monthly report of its expenses to the superior court, with copies to counsel for the parties. RMW filed suit against VPD alleging VPD’s breach of contract by its entering into an unauthorized management agreement and thereby paying an unauthorized management fee, and a claim for “promissory estoppel,” stemming from VPD’s alleged failure to use some of the Company’s funds for partial repayment of a development loan; RMW asked for VPD’s removal as manager of the Company and for the costs of litigation. Prior to the filing on the complaint, the Company had purchased a 60-foot strip of land for the purpose of creating a second entrance to the Property. At a hearing on the injunction, RMW argued that it could not undo any construction of the second entrance to the Property. VPD countered that RMW was, in reality, concerned about money being spent on the construction of the second entrance instead of being used to repay the loans made by RMW, and that any appropriate redress was monetary damages. Ultimately the injunction was granted and VPD appealed. The Supreme Court found after review of this matter that the trial court's injunction was not supported by the record, and that court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Veterans Parkway Developers, LLC v. RMW Development Fund II, LLC" on Justia Law

These cases involved the repeated efforts of Willie Wright (“Husband”), who was incarcerated and filing pro se, to vacate and set aside the divorce decree entered in 2010 in the divorce action filed by Kenya Young Wright (“Wife”). In an earlier appearance of this case, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the trial court order denying Husband’s motion to set aside the final decree and remanded for the trial court to make findings on the issue of whether notice of the decree was given to Husband. On remand, the trial court scheduled a hearing, and Husband filed a request for an order requiring the authorities to produce him to the court to attend the hearing, but this request was denied. The trial court denied Husband’s motion to set aside. Husband filed both a notice of appeal and an application for discretionary appeal, and the Supreme Court granted the application, stating it was concerned with whether the trial court erred in concluding it had satisfied its duty under OCGA 15-6-21 (c) to provide notice of the entry of the final judgment and decree. This appeal was docketed as Case No. S16A1250. Prior to the date the case was docketed, the trial court entered an order purporting to dismiss the "action" (apparently meaning the appeal of Husband's failing to file a notice to appeal within a ten-day deadline). Husband appealed the dismissal order and an application for discretionary appeal. The Supreme Court granted review of dismissal of the "action," which was docketed as Case No. 16A1248. Husband applied to appeal the trial court's order denying an order to produce him at the motion hearing. After review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in 16A1248 for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that in case No. 16A1250, the trial court made no findings with respect to whether the trial court provided notice as required by statute. The Order was therefore reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration of Husband's motion to set aside. View "Wright v. Wright" on Justia Law

Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente submitted a nomination petition to the Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, seeking to have his name placed upon the ballot for the 2016 general election as an independent candidate for President of the United States. That same day, De La Fuente also filed notices of candidacy for his slate of presidential electors. The Secretary of State rejected the notices of candidacy because they were submitted eleven days after the deadline set forth in OCGA 21-2-132 (d) (1). The Secretary of State also rejected the nomination petition, finding that the counties had verified only 2,964 of the signatures submitted with the petition, a number far short of the 7,500 verified signatures needed to validate the petition pursuant to a recent federal court order. After a superior court dismissed De La Fuente's subsequent lawsuit, the matter was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of De La Fuente's suit. View "De La Fuente v. Kemp" on Justia Law

In cases consolidated for review, the issues presented for the Supreme Court involved the scope of the State’s authority to regulate so-called “payday loans” pursuant to OCGA 16-17-1, et seq., known as the Payday Lending Act. Pursuant to the statute, the State filed suit alleging that CashCall, Inc. (“CashCall”), Delbert Services Corporation (“Delbert Services”), Western Sky Financial, LLC (“Western Sky”), and Martin A. Webb (collectively “Defendants”) violated OCGA 16-17-2 (a) by engaging in a small-dollar lending enterprise that collected illegal usurious interest from Georgia borrowers. Defendants operated outside the State of Georgia and their dealings with Georgia borrowers occurred telephonically or over the Internet, and when a loan is funded, the funds are transferred to the borrower via electronic transfer to the borrower’s bank account. The State sought civil penalties and injunctive and other equitable relief. Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action. The trial court referred the case to a special master who recommended the case be dismissed, but the trial court rejected the special master’s recommendation and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the State’s claim was not barred by the language of OCGA 16-17-1 (d). Because the trial court found a substantial likelihood that the State would prevail on the merits of the claim at trial, and found a substantial threat existed that the State would suffer irreparable injury in that there might not be sufficient funds available to satisfy a judgment should the State prevail at trial, the trial court ordered Defendants to deposit a $15 million sum into the court’s registry and to make quarterly deposits of any additional amounts that could be collected from Georgia borrowers in the future. The trial court, however, agreed to stay the granted relief during an appeal, upon the Defendants’ deposit of an additional $1 million into the escrow account created following entry of the consent order requiring the deposit of $200,000. In a separate order, the trial court denied the State’s motion to add as defendants J. Paul Reddam and WS Funding, LLC (“WS Funding”). Defendants filed a notice of appeal and the State filed a notice of cross-appeal. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, affirmed the modification of the injunction order, and reversed the order denying the State’s motion to add defendants. View "Western Sky Financial, LLC v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to decide a question left open in its recent decision in "Ames v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.," (783 SE2d 614 (2016)), with reference to the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case: whether a plaintiff property owner who alleges that he is no longer a debtor because the security deed on his property has been cancelled has standing to challenge an alleged assignment of the security deed. Appellee Bobby Johnson made concessions to the Court, however, that made it unnecessary for the Court to decide that question. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on other grounds. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Out-of-state attorney Frederick Fein appealed a final order of the Superior Court of Fulton County granting the motion of state court judge Diane Bessen, to dismiss Fein’s “Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus” for failure to state a claim. The mandamus petition, as amended, sought to compel Judge Bessen to rule on default motions and to enter a final judgment in a civil action pending before her so that Fein might pursue his alleged “clear legal right to appeal Judge Bessen's revocation of his pro hac vice admission in that action.” In granting the motion, the superior court ruled that Fein failed to state such a claim because Judge Bessen was precluded from entering the requested orders inasmuch as a bankruptcy petition filed in the matter acted as an automatic stay, which had not been lifted, thus barring Judge Bessen from entering any other orders in the Chenault case. Finding no error in that decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Fein v. Bessen" on Justia Law

Appellant Frederick Whitney owned a piece of property located in Habersham County. Whitney became delinquent on his property taxes. As a result, Habersham County sold the property at a tax sale to Appellee Lanier 5, LLC. Over a year later, on August 15, 2014, Lanier sent a notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem the property by certified and first class mail to Whitney at his residence in Forsyth County, giving Whitney until September 21, 2014, to exercise his right of redemption. While the certified mailing sent to Whitney went unclaimed, the first class mail notice was never returned as undeliverable. Meanwhile, on August 29, 2014, a security deed was created between Whitney and Appellant Reliance Equities, LLC. Two days after the September 21 foreclosure date, Whitney’s agent attempted to redeem the property. After confirming its certified and first class mailings were sent to the proper address, Lanier rejected the tender as untimely. Receiving no other tenders for redemption, Lanier filed a “Petition to Remove a Cloud on Title – Conventional Quia Timet” in the Superior Court of Habersham County, requesting the court remove the cloud of title in Lanier’s favor. Whitney filed a counterclaim requesting the trial court quiet title in his favor and also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that he did not receive sufficient notice of Lanier’s foreclosure of his right of redemption. The trial court denied Whitney’s motion. On November 19, 2015, the trial court entered an order granting Lanier’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied Reliance’s motion to intervene, Whitney’s motion for reconsideration and Whitney’s motion for summary judgment, finding all motions to be moot. On appeal, Reliance argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion to intervene; Whitney argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings and quieting title in favor of Lanier. The Supreme Court agreed with Whitney (based on the plain language of the applicable statute, Lanier could not foreclose Whitney's right to redeem until all conditions enumerated in the statute were met), and reversed the trial court in case S16A1014. Because the decision effectively ended the underlying litigation between Whitney and Lanier, Reliance’s appeal in case S16A1013 was rendered moot and dismissed. View "Reliance Equities, LLC v. Lanier 5, LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of the passage of two weapons related bills passed by the Georgia General Assembly during the 2013-2014 legislative session. Appellant GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc., (“GCO”) filed a complaint against the Code Revision Commission and its members, David Ralston, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives of Georgia, Lowell Cagle, in his official capacity as President of the Senate of Georgia, and Governor Nathan Deal, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Code Revision Commission (CRC) to amend the text of OCGA 16-11-127.1 and a judgment declaring that it was not a crime for a person with a weapons carry license to carry a firearm within a school safety zone. After motions to dismiss filed by both the Governor and CRC were granted in separate orders, GCO appealed the order granting CRC’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court found that GCO was not entitled to relief under "any state of provable facts" alleged in its amended complaint, there was no actual controversy which would have authorized a declaratory judgment, and the trial did not err in granting CRC's motion to dismiss. View "Georgiacarry.org v. Code Revision Comm'n" on Justia Law

Iselda Moreno, wife of Rudy Robles, received liposuction, buttock augmentation, and abdominoplasty surgery performed by Dr. Patricia Yugueros of Artisan Plastic Surgery, LLC on June 24, 2009. Moreno went to the ER experiencing abdominal pains. Five days after the surgery, she died. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the appellate court was correct in holding that deposition testimony of an organizational representative taken under OCGA 9-11-30(b)(6) could be admitted into evidence at trial under OCGA 9-11-32(a)(2), without regard to the rules of evidence governing admissibility of expert testimony. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Yugueros v. Robles" on Justia Law

Appellant Pandora Franchising, LLC was a foreign limited liability company. In its application for certificate of authority to transact business in Georgia, Pandora identified its principal place of business in Maryland. Appellee Kingdom Retail Group (“Kingdom”) filed suit against Pandora in Thomas County Superior Court, alleging Pandora wrongfully withheld its consent to Kingdom’s bid to acquire a number of Pandora franchises. Kingdom alleged venue was proper in Thomas County pursuant to OCGA 14-2-510 (b) (4) because the cause of action originated in Thomas County. Over Kingdom’s objection, the trial court granted Pandora’s request to remove the complaint to Gwinnett County where, Pandora claimed in its notice of removal, “it maintains its registered office as its principal place of business in Georgia.” The Court of Appeals granted Kingdom’s application for interlocutory review and reversed the grant of removal. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly construed OCGA 14-2-510 (b) (4) to mean that, in a claim in which the basis for venue was the allegation that the cause of action originated in the county where the claim was filed, only a corporation with its worldwide principal place of business, or “nerve center” in Georgia had the right to remove the claim to the county in Georgia where that principal place of business was located. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and adopted the reasoning set forth in that court’s opinion. View "Pandora Franchising, LLC v. Kingdom Retail Group, LLLP" on Justia Law