Terrell v. Pippart
314 Ga. App. 483
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Terrell and Pippart were engaged to marry and built a house on Terrell’s father’s land with funds from Pippart and his mother; Terrell’s father deeded the land to Terrell after construction; Terrell terminated the engagement.
- Pippart sued for breach of contract, specific performance, quantum meruit, and attorney fees; only quantum meruit and attorney fees went to the jury.
- Jury awarded Pippart $94,000 on quantum meruit and $12,000 in attorney fees.
- Terrell moved for judgment n.o.v. or new trial; the trial court denied.
- On appeal, the court affirms quantum meruit, vacates attorney fees, and remands for apportionment of fees; exclusion of hearsay-based moving-cost testimony was considered harmless error.
- Evidence showed Pippart expected compensation via joint ownership of the house and land after marriage; trial court’s fee ruling requires factual apportionment for fee recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum meruit elements sufficient? | Pippart proves services were valuable and accepted with expectation of compensation. | Terrell argues failure to prove expectation of compensation. | No reversible error; jury verdict supported by evidence of expected compensation. |
| Attorney fees under OCGA 13-6-11 properly awarded? | Fees lump-sum; should cover only quantum meruit claim. | Lump-sum award valid as reflected by trial record. | Fee award reversed; remand to apportion fees to the successful quantum meruit claim. |
| Admissibility of Terri Parker’s moving-cost testimony? | Exclusion not reversible error; even if error, harmless because moving cost not tied to quantum meruit value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Memar v. Jebraeilli, 303 Ga.App. 557 (Ga. App. 2010) (elements of quantum meruit)
- United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Peacock, 267 Ga. 145 (Ga. 1996) (attorney fees must be tied to successful claims)
- Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise v. Leon, 282 Ga.App. 439 (Ga. App. 2006) (fee award must be limited to successful claim)
- David C. Joel, Attorney at Law, P.C. v. Chastain, 254 Ga.App. 592 (Ga. App. 2002) (apportionment of fees when multiple claims)
- B & L Svc. Co. v. Gerson, 167 Ga.App. 679 (Ga. App. 1983) (valuation may rely on hearsay if basis is explained)
- Four Oaks Properties v. Carusi, 156 Ga.App. 422 (Ga. App. 1980) (opinion based on hearsay may be admissible if explained)