345 Ga. App. 130
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- James and Mary Hanham sued their neighbor Marie Berthe-Narchet, her landscaper, and Access Management Group (community management agent) after a landscaping project allegedly diverted significant water onto the Hanhams’ property and obstructed their golf-course view.
- Access Management managed the homeowner application process for landscaping modifications for the St. Marlo’s community; it collected and reviewed applications for compliance with the architectural standards manual and forwarded them to the architectural committee.
- Narchet’s July 2012 application failed to comply with the architectural standards manual in several respects; Hanhams alleged Access Management approved or processed the project improperly and delayed responding to complaints.
- At trial, the court granted directed verdicts for Access Management on trespass and nuisance but denied directed verdicts on negligence, breach of contract, and invasion of privacy; jury awarded damages and attorney’s fees totaling $96,500 against defendants (including amounts allocated to Access Management).
- On appeal, Access Management challenged denial of directed verdicts (negligence and breach of contract), the special verdict form (confusion about attorney’s fees and nuisance), and alleged the final judgment allowed double recovery; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted on breach of contract | Hanhams: Access Management breached duties arising from its management contract (third-party beneficiary) by mishandling the application | Access Mgmt: Contract limits duties to common areas; alleged duties relied on non-contractual practices, so no contractual breach | Reversed directed verdict denial as to breach of contract — trial court should have granted directed verdict for Access Management because alleged duties extended beyond written contract |
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted on negligence | Hanhams: Access Management owed them duties (extended by practice) separate from contract and negligently performed them | Access Mgmt: No duty to Hanhams beyond following architectural committee; no independent duty in law | Denied — sufficient evidence of an independent duty (by testimony of extended responsibilities) to submit negligence to jury |
| Whether verdict form incorrectly suggested attorney’s fees were automatic | Hanhams: fees were separate and only available if jury found bad faith/stubborn litigiousness | Access Mgmt: verdict form confused jury into awarding fees automatically | Rejected — court instructed jury fee recovery was discretionary and explained verdict form; no error |
| Whether verdict form/final judgment permitted double recovery (contract + tort) or retained nuisance against Access Mgmt | Access Mgmt: jury awarded both contract and tort damages and included nuisance despite directed verdict on nuisance | Access Mgmt sought reversal of duplicative awards and nuisance inclusion | Moot in part — because breach-of-contract award reversed, double-recovery claim rendered moot; court found nuisance inapplicable to Access Mgmt given instructions and form |
Key Cases Cited
- Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Boykin, 174 Ga. App. 269 (standard for directed verdicts)
- Park v. Nichols, 307 Ga. App. 841 (standard of review on directed verdict denial)
- Cordell & Cordell, P.C. v. Gao, 331 Ga. App. 522 (definition of breach of contract)
- DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC v. Clemente, 294 Ga. App. 38 (duty as threshold in negligence and contract-vs-tort analysis)
- Lee v. Washington Square Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 392 (when duties arise from covenants/declaration vs. independent duties for tort)
- Waldrip v. Voyles, 201 Ga. App. 592 (requirement that tort duties be independent of contractual obligations)
- S. Water Technologies, Inc. v. Kile, 224 Ga. App. 717 (standard of review for submission of special verdict forms)