Anderson v. Jones
323 Ga. App. 311
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Anderson sued Norton and Jones for fiduciary duties and legal malpractice relating to a 1995 accident settlement.
- Jones represented the family; retainer: 33 1/3% if no suit, 40% if suit, plus expenses; settlements pursued for four family members.
- Family settled with Del Monte insurers for a total $4.5 million in 1997, including $1.75M for Anderson with a life annuity to fund care.
- probate court approved the $1.75M Anderson settlement and Norton/Cantey were appointed guardians of Anderson’s property.
- Norton later divorced Cantey; guardianship accounting proceedings occurred; a 2008 consent order resolved the accounting and payments to Anderson.
- Anderson filed this action in 2012; trial court granted summary judgment for Norton and Jones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones’s alleged conflict of interest supports malpractice claim | Anderson argues Jones allocated the $4.5M among family members unfairly | Jones contends there was no evidence he settled lump sum and allocated; no conflict shown | No reasonable evidence of a lump-sum settlement or conflict; no malpractice shown |
| Whether Anderson can establish damages from Jones’s alleged malpractice | Anderson would have been better off with separate counsel | No proof that different counsel would have yielded more for Anderson | Damage not shown; speculation not sufficient to sustain malpractice claim |
| Whether Norton’s fiduciary duties were barred by the court-approved settlement and collateral estoppel | Argues settlement approval does not bar fiduciary claim | Settlement under OCGA 29-2-16(j) binds the minor; collateral estoppel may apply | Settlement approval bars the fiduciary claim; collateral estoppel applies as to Norton |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Anderson’s claim about Norton’s misapplication of funds | Previous accounting proceeding adjudicated issues | Consent order resolved the accounting claim; identity of parties and issues present | Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the accounting-related issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Leibel v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 180 (Ga. 2012) (duty of care standard for professional conduct; expert testimony required)
- Szurovy v. Olderman, 243 Ga. App. 449 (Ga. App. 2000) (malpractice proof requires more than speculative damages)
- Zepp v. Toporek, 211 Ga. App. 169 (Ga. App. 1993) (attorney settlement bar to malpractice not controlling where attorney not party to judgment)
- Shields v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp., 273 Ga. 774 (Ga. 2001) (collateral estoppel requires identity of parties or privies and adjudicated issue)
- Playnation Play Systems v. Hammer, 277 Ga. App. 675 (Ga. App. 2006) (collateral estoppel applied in similar interrelated claims)
- Jackson v. Cavalry Portfolio Svcs., 314 Ga. App. 175 (Ga. App. 2012) (hearsay/expert issues in summary judgment context)
- Kaylor v. Atwell, 251 Ga. App. 270 (Ga. App. 2001) (hearsay and conclusory statements insufficient to rebut sworn statements)
- City of Atlanta v. City of College Park, 292 Ga. 741 (Ga. 2013) (statutory construction principles applied to settlement provisions)