TAFEL v. LION ANTIQUE CARS & INVESTMENTS, INC.; And Vice Versa
297 Ga. 334
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Dec 2007 Race Car Loan Agreement; Lion Antique to purchase two Ferrari F430 GTs and loan them to Tafel with Lion holding title.
- End of 2008, Lion alleges technical default for failure to insure; Lion sues in California and obtains stipulated judgment ~US$1.5 million (including US$1,443,603.38 for cars).
- Jan 14, 2009, Lion files ne exeat petition in Georgia and seeks turnover of cars; Turnover Order issued Jan 20, 2009; Tafel transfers cars to Lion on Jan 22, 2009.
- June 2009, Lion’s California judgment domesticated in Georgia; 2010, Tafel moves for satisfaction arguing Turnover Order violation; court schedules jury on car value as of Turnover Order date.
- June 2013, jury values cars at US$693,000 as of Turnover Order; discovery reveals Lion insured cars at US$450,000 each; June 10, 2014 final hearing; June 30, 2014 final order fixes combined value at US$900,000 and offsets against Lion’s judgment; judgments affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turnover Order and ne exeat were proper relief | Tafel argues ne exeat improper; seeks satisfaction. | Lion contends equitable turnover power supports relief. | Turnover Order upheld; style vs. substance governs pleadings; no reversible error. |
| UCC applicability to satisfaction/deficiency | Tafel asserts UCC governs and Lion forfeited deficiency for non-sale. | Lion did not forfeit if value<debt and proper offset applies. | UCC analog applied; no forfeiture; trial court's offset allowed. |
| Adequacy of equity remedy and value adjust. | Value should be $693,000 (jury); no adjustment. | Equity permitted adjusting to $900,000 using evidence from 2014 hearing. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; held value $900,000. |
| Contempt issue regarding Turnover Order | Lion violated Turnover Order; contends contempt. | Tafel did not move for contempt; sua sponte addressed but harmed parity needed. | Court could not find contempt sua sponte without motion; remedy satisfied via equitable offset. |
| Attorney-fee evidence admissibility | Billing summary admissible under OCGA 24-10-1006. | Original billing statements not produced; summary improperly admitted. | Summary excluded; proper evidentiary procedure required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589 (2010) (pleading substance governs; equity analysis remains valid)
- Contestabile v. Business Dev. Corp. of Ga., 259 Ga. 783 (1990) (foreclosure rule; equity and presumption rules explained (Contestabile I))
- Contestabile v. Business Dev. Corp. of Ga., 261 Ga. 886 (1992) (Contestabile II; clarifies Emmons presumption governing deficiency after commercially unreasonable sale)
- Emmons v. Burkett, 256 Ga. 855 (1987) (emphasizes rebuttable presumption in deficiency recovery after unreasonable sale)
- Barngrover v. City of Columbus, 292 Ga. 486 (2013) (trial court has broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies)
- Knott v. Evans, 280 Ga. 515 (2006) (equity court may empanel jury; advisory findings not binding)
- Reliance Trust Co. v. Candler, 294 Ga. 15 (2013) (issues never raised at trial not reviewable on appeal)
- Lee v. State, 265 Ga. 112 (1995) (issues not ruled on below not reviewable)