Memar v. Jebraeilli
310 Ga. App. 173
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This is the third appellate appearance; Memar v. Jebraeilli concerns damages on a counterclaim and a joint venture dispute.
- In 2001 Memar and Jebraeilli formed a joint venture (Tract 1) to own and rent property at 4423 Buford Highway; profits were split after expenses.
- In 2002 the partners acquired Tract 2 at 4408 Buford Highway; Jebraeilli acted as general contractor for renovations; Memar promised $65,000 for his work.
- Memar alleged Jebraeilli collected rent on Tract 1 without paying Memar his share and sought various damages. Jebraeilli counterclaimed for his costs and $65,000 for Tract 2 work.
- The trial court awarded Memar $29,375.63 on his complaint and $15,000 to Jebraeilli on his counterclaim, offset by some prior amounts.
- On remand, the court recalculated: Memar’s direct award increased by moving $12,332.76 to Memar’s side, and Jebraeilli’s counterclaim was set at $51,246 after offsets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages on remand consistent with original order? | Memar argues remand damages inconsistent with original findings. | Jebraeilli contends recalculation supported by evidence and aligns with Memar I. | Remand awards are consistent and properly supported. |
| Was a hearing required before the remand decision? | Memar claims the trial court should have heard arguments before deciding on remand. | Jebraeilli argues no mandatory hearing necessary absent explicit remand directive. | No mandatory hearing required; no error in not conducting one. |
Key Cases Cited
- CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 213 Ga.App. 710 (1994) (appellate court will not disturb fact findings if any evidence supports them)
- Rabern v. State of Ga., 231 Ga.App. 84 (1998) (remand procedure and mandatory hearing distinctions when remittitur states explicit direction)