First Bank of Georgia v. Robertson Grading, Inc.
328 Ga. App. 236
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Robertson Grading sought damages on promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation after completing paving for R&B in a subdivision foreclosed by Bank.
- Bank appealed, arguing trial court erred in denying directed verdict on all theories.
- July 2007, Robertson Grading contracted with R&B to pave; Bank listed as a credit reference for R&B.
- Bank representative Hugh Hollar indicated funds remained in loan to cover paving and that Robertson would be paid upon completion.
- Substantial delays occurred due to R&B’s requests for extra work; completion occurred just before November 7, 2007.
- Bank foreclosed in December 2008 after R&B defaulted; Robertson Grading later sought remedies against Bank and R&B in bankruptcy proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promissory estoppel reliance and original undertaking | Grading relied on Bank promises | No exclusive or reasonable reliance; no original undertaking | Directed verdict on promissory estoppel reversed |
| Negligent misrepresentation damages | Bank misrepresented loan funds to induce contract | Damages caused by R&B default, not Bank misrepresentation | Directed verdict on negligent misrepresentation reversed |
| Unjust enrichment against a lender | Bank unjustly enriched by foreclosure profits | No contractual relationship; lien remedies only | Directed verdict on unjust enrichment reversed |
| Attorney fees award | Fees permissible under OCGA § 13-6-11 | No basis due to lack of recoverable theories | Attorney-fees award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holcombe v. Parker, 99 Ga. App. 616 (1959) (original undertaking considerations; guidance on contract substitution)
- White House, Inc. v. Winkler, 202 Ga. App. 603 (1992) (original undertaking and statute of frauds implications)
- Reeves, 257 Ga. 51 (1987) (promissory estoppel; reliance in absence of bargained-for consideration)
- Lovell v. Ga. Trust. Bank, 318 Ga. App. 860 (2012) (promissory estoppel requires reasonable reliance; undefined terms inadequate)