Tyler v. Thompson
308 Ga. App. 221
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Thompson sued Herman and Ernest Tyler to recover funds Thompson entrusted to Herman as a financial advisor.
- Claims included money had and received, fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty; Ernest allegedly conspired with Herman using funds to buy/sell real property in Ernest's name.
- Trial court granted Thompson summary judgment for $1,224,499.66 and $47,493.08 in attorney fees/costs under OCGA § 13-6-11; both Tylers appealed pro se.
- Court affirmed the judgment against Herman for the entrusted money and reversed against Ernest for that same sum; also reversed the attorney fees/costs portion.
- Court held discovery/summary judgment procedures were proper to some extent, but Ernest's case raised genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
- Ernest argued there were factual disputes about conspiracy and authority to act; the court found triable issues and reversed for Ernest on the money.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for the entrusted sum against Herman was proper | Thompson contends Herman misappropriated funds as entrusted property | Herman asserts no genuine issues and proper management of funds | Affirmed as to Herman |
| Whether summary judgment for the entrusted sum against Ernest was proper | Thompson shows Ernest joined scheme and benefited from funds used in Ernest's name | Ernest contests the sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy and participation | Reversed; genuine issues of material fact remain |
| Whether attorney fees and costs under OCGA § 13-6-11 were properly awarded | Thompson sought fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 | Awarding fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 is improper; issue for trier of fact | Reversed; improper summary-judgment award for fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington Square Assoc. v. Ingles Markets, 287 Ga. 445, 696 S.E.2d 649 (2010) (summary-judgment expenses treated as issue for trier of fact)
- Green v. Sun Trust Banks, 197 Ga.App. 804, 399 S.E.2d 712 (1990) (implicit denial of discovery-related relief when not expressly denied)
- Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, 266 Ga. 472, 467 S.E.2d 517 (1996) (trial court has wide discretion to manage discovery; abuse requires clear showing)
- Scott v. LaRosa & LaRosa, Inc., 275 Ga.App. 96, 619 S.E.2d 787 (2005) (discovery delays and discretion in scheduling depositions)
- Outside Carpets v. Industrial Rug Co., 228 Ga. 263, 185 S.E.2d 65 (1971) (conspiracy doctrine; torts and damages standard)
- Thomas v. DeKalb County, 227 Ga.App. 186, 489 S.E.2d 58 (1997) (OCGA § 9-11-56 findings not always required)
- Parrish v. Jackson W. Jones, P.C., 278 Ga.App. 645, 629 S.E.2d 468 (2006) (essential element of conspiracy is mutual design; jury issue when fact-intensive)
- Cook v. Robinson, 216 Ga. 328, 116 S.E.2d 742 (1960) (historical rule on joint and several liability in conspiracies)