Meadow Springs, LLC v. Ih Riverdale, LLC
307 Ga. App. 72
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Meadow Springs asserted slander of title, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with economic opportunities against IH Riverdale and Geoffrey Nolan based on a lis pendens and notice of lis pendens/complaint sent to Regions Bank in connection with a separate action.
- The prior action involved alleged issues with an LLC operating agreement and a claimed option to purchase real property; IH and Nolan filed lis pendens on Meadow Springs’ property.
- Regions Bank declined to fund a construction loan after receiving the lis pendens and complaint, contributing to Meadow Springs’ foreclosure loss.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the appellate court’s judgment as to the lis pendens validity, but did not resolve all summary-judgment questions that followed.
- This Court reviewed de novo the grant/denial of summary judgment, considering the Supreme Court’s reversal and evidence showing Regions Bank’s nonfunding and alleged interference.
- The court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion and the Supreme Court’s Meadow Springs decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lis pendens filing/publication was privileged | Meadow Springs argues lis pendens filing harmed property interest | IH and Nolan rely on OCGA § 51-5-8 privilege | Privilege does not extend to improper publication outside the pleading context |
| Whether IH and Nolan were entitled to summary judgment on slander of title/tortious interference | IH/Nolan acted wrongfully with lis pendens | Defendants satisfied privilege or defenses | Not entitled to summary judgment on these grounds; issues remain on damages and privilege scope |
| Whether OCGA § 51-5-7(3) privilege applies to IH/Nolan’s publication to Regions Bank | Publication to Regions Bank was privileged | Defendants lacked the requisite interest to defend with the privilege | Privilege not shown as a matter of law; not entitled to summary judgment on this ground |
| Whether Meadow Springs may obtain partial summary judgment on slanderous utterances if lis pendens invalid | Invalid lis pendens equals slanderous publication | Court should consider whether to grant partial summary judgment | Court vacated denial of Meadow Springs’ partial summary judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion and Supreme Court decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Meadow Springs, LLC v. IH Riverdale, LLC, 286 Ga. 701 (2010) (Supreme Court reversed lower ruling on lis pendens validity; affected summary-judgment analysis)
- Sanders v. Brown, 257 Ga.App. 566 (2002) (defining privilege scope for statements in pleadings)
- O'Neal v. Home Town Bank of Villa Rica, 237 Ga.App. 325 (1999) (privilege limitations for publishing court documents outside judicial process)
- Choice Hotels Intl. v. Ocmulgee Fields, Inc., 222 Ga.App. 185 (1996) (privilege for statements in letters asserting protected interests)
- City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834 (2002) (nondefinitive facets of defamation/tort privilege analysis)