Duke Galish, LLC v. Manton
308 Ga. App. 316
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This is Lanier Lodge, Inc. v. Manton in Georgia Court of Appeals; prior Manton I affirmed summary judgment for fraud and tortious interference against Manton, with Lanier’s breach claim remaining.
- Lanier refinanced the Forsyth motel; Lanier defaulted and the Forsyth Litigation led to a consent judgment in 2004 requiring the Anglins to pay $400,000 within 120 days, in exchange for Manton’s claims settlement on the promissory note.
- Lanier dismissed its counterclaims with prejudice; Lanier’s status as a party to the Consent Judgment was initially disputed.
- During bankruptcy, Manton maintained a full-proof claim for the total amount owed; BNG’s payoff amounts and a pending sale created contested settlements for the motel property.
- The motel property was foreclosed; Forsyth County later purchased and redeveloped the property; Lanier and Duke Galish sued Manton and BNG for fraud, tortious interference, and breach of contract.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Manton on Lanier’s breach claim; the appellate court reversed, holding Lanier was a party to the Consent Judgment but damages may be nominal if breach is proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Lanier a party to the Consent Judgment? | Lanier contends it is included among the defendants. | Manton argues Lanier is not a party to the Judgment. | Lanier is a party. |
| Did Manton breach the Consent Judgment by maintaining a full-amount claim in bankruptcy? | Maintaining the full claim breached the Judgment. | No breach if the Judgment allowed such actions or if there are disputed facts. | Questions of fact remain; summary judgment improper. |
| If there is a breach, can Lanier recover actual damages or only nominal damages? | Lanier seeks at least $1.6 million in actual damages. | Under Manton I, actual damages are not shown; nominal damages may be recoverable. | Actual damages likely unavailable; nominal damages may be recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duke Galish, LLC v. Manton (Manton I), 291 Ga.App. 827, 662 S.E.2d 880 (2008) (fraud and tortious interference affirmed; breach damages unresolved; guiding precedent)
- Safe Shield Workwear v. Shubee, Inc., 296 Ga.App. 498, 675 S.E.2d 249 (2009) (contract interpretation and parol evidence guidelines)
- Pomerance v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., etc., 288 Ga.App. 491, 654 S.E.2d 638 (2007) (contract interpretation principles)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gault, 280 Ga. 420, 627 S.E.2d 549 (2006) (contract construction and meaning of terms)
- Lay Bros., Inc. v. Golden Pantry Food Stores, 273 Ga.App. 870, 616 S.E.2d 160 (2005) (interpretation of general vs. specific contract provisions)
- Brock v. King, 279 Ga. App. 335, 629 S.E.2d 829 (2006) (damages, accord and satisfaction consideration)