Jones v. White
311 Ga. App. 822
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Five consolidated appeals arise from Jones's claim for unpaid consulting fees on the Perry Homes project.
- Jones sued Brock, Khalil, Drury, White, and PHR (and Alisias) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and fraud.
- PHR, Brock Built, Columbia Residential, and Alisias are the entities involved; AHA funded Perry Homes redevelopment.
- Evidence shows an oral fee-splitting understanding among Jones/White and the developers, with a later Fee Share Agreement involving Alisias.
- The trial court granted some defendants’ summary judgments and denied others; on appeal, the court reversed some grants and affirmed others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a mutual agreement to pay consulting fees to Jones/White. | Jones asserts an oral contract to split fees. | White/Alisias argue no enforceable contract existed. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; non-summary-judgment valid. |
| Whether Jones's unjust enrichment claim survives absence of a contract. | Jones benefited from her services and seeks recovery. | No contract means unjust enrichment cannot apply. | Issue for the jury; not proper for summary judgment. |
| Whether promissory estoppel supports payment despite lack of a binding contract. | White promised to split fees; Jones relied. | No enforceable promise or reliance. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether Khalil acted as an undisclosed agent of Columbia and liable personally. | Jones relied on Khalil as an individual; agency not disclosed. | Khalil may be acting for Columbia; agency issue for jury. | Issue of fact remains; liability not decided at summary judgment. |
| Whether cross-appeals were properly entertained; jurisdiction issues on cross-appeals. | Jones attempted to challenge partial grants via cross-appeal. | Cross-appeals to cross-appeals not permitted; no direct appeal taken. | Cross-appeals dismissed; appeal timing rules applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rushin v. Ussery, 298 Ga.App. 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Arby's Inc. v. Cooper, 265 Ga. 240 (Ga. 1995) (mutuality sufficiently definite contract formation)
- Kerwood v. Dinero Solutions, 292 Ga.App. 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (definiteness of profits contract; enforceability)
- Swanson v. Hodges, 96 Ga.App. 540 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957) (unsigned proposal admissible to corroborate oral contract)
- Denton v. Etheridge, 73 Ga.App. 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945) (unsigned agreement admissible for corroboration)
- Turner Broadcasting System v. McDavid, 303 Ga.App. 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (extrinsic evidence relevant to mutual assent)