CAMPBELL v. AILION Et Al.
338 Ga. App. 382
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Jolaunda Boone Campbell sued Bruce Ailion and two LLCs, alleging Ailion controlled the entities and promised to reimburse her for renovation expenses on an Atlanta rental property.
- Parties allegedly had an oral agreement: Campbell would oversee renovations, hire and pay contractors (not paid for her time), and Ailion would reimburse budgeted expenditures. Campbell spent $43,000; Ailion reimbursed $26,000, leaving $17,000 unpaid.
- Campbell pleaded two counts titled “Theft of Labor and Materials” and “Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress and Attorney Fees,” seeking compensatory and punitive damages, interest, costs, and fees.
- Ailion moved to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6), arguing Georgia recognizes no civil cause of action for theft, emotional-distress damages are improper where pecuniary damages are claimed, and the fraud claim was not pled with particularity.
- The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice, concluding civil theft is not recognized, there was no enforceable contract because Campbell was not to be separately compensated, and emotional-distress damages were unavailable alongside pecuniary claims.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and held the complaint fairly alleged breach of an oral contract and alternative equitable claims (unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel) and that dismissal with prejudice was improper; fraud pleading defects (if any) should be remedied by a more definite statement, not dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia recognizes a civil cause of action for "theft" or whether Campbell adequately pleaded a claim | Campbell alleged Ailion agreed to reimburse her for budgeted repairs and failed to pay; complaint put defendant on notice of a contract-based claim | Ailion: Georgia law recognizes no civil "theft" cause; Count I must fail as a matter of law | Court: Even if "civil theft" is not recognized, the complaint fairly pleads breach of an oral contract or alternative theories; dismissal improper |
| Whether the oral agreement lacked consideration because Campbell was not to be paid for her services | Campbell: Consideration existed (her agreement to oversee and fund repairs) and non-monetary consideration is valid | Ailion: No compensable consideration; thus no enforceable contract | Court: Non-monetary acts can be valid consideration; allegations suffice to state breach of an oral contract |
| Whether equitable claims (unjust enrichment / promissory estoppel) are barred by alleging an express oral contract | Campbell: May plead alternative theories; if express contract fails, equitable claims remain | Ailion: Unjust enrichment applies only if no express contract exists; inconsistent with pleading a contract | Court: Plaintiff may proceed on alternative theories; if contract fails, fact issues remain for unjust enrichment/promissory estoppel |
| Whether fraud was pled with the particularity required and whether dismissal with prejudice was proper | Campbell: Complaint alleges intentional promise to reimburse made without intent to perform, reliance, and damages | Ailion: Fraud not pleaded with requisite particularity under OCGA § 9-11-9(b) and (c) | Court: Any particularity deficiency should be cured by ordering a more definite statement, not dismissal with prejudice; trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Wylie v. Denton, 323 Ga. App. 161 (review standard for motion to dismiss) (2013)
- Babalola v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 324 Ga. App. 750 (pleading and motion-to-dismiss principles; more definite statement guidance)
- Cline v. Lee, 260 Ga. App. 164 (oral contract enforceability and consideration)
- Lathem v. Hestley, 270 Ga. 849 (notice-pleading sufficiency)
- Jones v. White, 311 Ga. App. 822 (elements and theory of unjust enrichment)
- Vernon v. Assurance Forensic Accounting, 333 Ga. App. 377 (elements of promissory estoppel and fraud)