329 Ga. App. 178
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hagan contracted to buy 70 acres from Townsend and agreed to assign that purchase agreement to Keyes for $100,000. Ten days after execution, Hagan assigned the agreement to Keyes, who paid $100,000 earnest money through Hagan.
- After assignment, Keyes learned some marshfront acreage (six acres) had been sold years earlier and thus was not part of the 70 acres he believed he was buying.
- Keyes demanded return of his funds; Townsend and Hagan both denied having the money. Keyes sued Townsend for specific performance or return of earnest money and alleged fraud; Townsend impleaded Hagan for failing to disclose the missing acres.
- Keyes separately sued Hagan for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. At trial the jury awarded Keyes $200,000 in damages against Hagan and Townsend jointly and severally, plus $12,000 in attorney fees and costs.
- Hagan appealed, challenging (1) the sufficiency of the unjust enrichment claim, (2) the breach-of-contract damages given the verdict form, (3) denial of his motion for directed verdict on fraud (lack of scienter and justifiable reliance), and (4) the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keyes) | Defendant's Argument (Hagan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment claim sufficiency | Keyes pleaded unjust enrichment as alternative relief. | Hagan argued it fails as a matter of law. | Jury did not award on unjust enrichment; court rejects error claim as moot. |
| Breach-of-contract damages given verdict form | Keyes contended jury verdict supports damages flowing from the contractual agreement. | Hagan argued court erred awarding contract damages because verdict form did not specify theory. | Court affirmed judgment in part but held it cannot review whether breach was the basis because verdict form did not specify; no reversible error shown on this ground. |
| Directed verdict on fraud (scienter and justifiable reliance) | Keyes argued evidence showed Hagan knew some acreage was missing and Keyes reasonably relied on the assigned agreement given warnings not to contact seller. | Hagan argued no evidence of scienter and that Keyes failed to exercise due diligence so reliance was unjustified. | Denial of directed verdict upheld: evidence on scienter and whether reliance was justifiable presented factual issues for the jury. |
| Attorney fee award under OCGA § 13-6-11 | Keyes requested fees and testified he owed $12,000 to counsel. | Hagan argued no proof of reasonableness or allocation of fees to his alleged misconduct. | Fee award reversed: plaintiff failed to prove reasonableness or document fees; jury not charged on fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 277 Ga. App. 387 (discusses limits of appellate review where verdict form fails to specify basis for liability)
- Esprit Log & Timber Frame Homes v. Wilcox, 302 Ga. App. 550 (same principle about verdict forms and multiple theories)
- Goody Products, Inc. v. Dev. Auth., 320 Ga. App. 530 (standard for directed verdict; evidence construed for nonmovant)
- Nebo Ventures, LLC v. NovaPro Risk Solutions, 324 Ga. App. 836 (fraud elements and when reliance/diligence are jury questions)
- Smith v. Travis Pruitt & Assoc., 265 Ga. 347 (attorney fee awards require proof of reasonableness)
- Cannon Air Transp. Svcs. v. Stevens Aviation, 249 Ga. App. 514 (same: appellee must prove actual attorney costs and reasonableness)