vif/valentine Farms Building One, LLC v. J. B. Wright
341 Ga. App. 17
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dispute over the boundary of a 60.85-acre tract (the Tract) and a 0.86-acre crescent-shaped Disputed Property allegedly marked by a hog‑wire fence; Wright claims his father’s 1950s fence marked the line, defendants rely on a straight-line survey from a beech stump.
- Valentine sold to Possum Creek Properties (PCP); the Tract passed through several developers (GSP → VFL → VIF → FI, Inc.) and was developed for a warehouse that Wright claims encroached on his land.
- Wright admitted to removing hog‑wire fence and disturbing the site contrary to court orders; trial court sanctioned him for spoliation and dismissed all claims against FI, Inc. as a sanction; this dismissal was later affirmed on appeal (Wright I).
- Defendants moved to limit Wright’s damages based on the spoliation dismissal, arguing the dismissal adjudicated title against Wright as to FI, Inc., eliminating any post‑dismissal damages or mesne profits claims.
- Trial court denied the motion for partial summary judgment; on appeal this Court considered whether the dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits and the collateral effect on Wright’s remaining damage claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spoliation dismissal of claims against FI, Inc. operates as an adjudication on the merits and fixes title | Wright contends sanctions do not preclude his damages claims against other defendants | Defendants argue the dismissal adjudicated title in favor of FI, Inc., negating Wright’s right to the property after the dismissal date | Held: Dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits; title established in favor of FI, Inc.; Wright cannot assert damages arising after May 14, 2009 |
| Whether Wright may recover “post‑ejectment” tree‑replacement costs after his ejectment claim was dismissed | Wright seeks restoration costs for trees removed on the Disputed Property | Defendants assert Wright lost ejectment rights and so cannot pursue post‑ejectment restoration damages | Held: Wright cannot recover post‑ejectment tree replacement costs because he no longer has an ejectment claim or title |
| Whether Wright can recover mesne profits separate from an ejectment claim | Wright seeks mesne profits arising from wrongful possession | Defendants argue mesne profits are tied to and contingent on ejectment recovery and thus barred | Held: Mesne profits are derivative of ejectment and unavailable once ejectment claim is adjudicated against Wright |
| Whether denial of defendants’ motion to limit damages should stand | Wright opposes limitation of damages despite sanction dismissal | Defendants sought partial summary judgment limiting damages to pre‑dismissal period | Held: Reversed denial; damages claims limited as to post‑May 14, 2009, period and mesne profits barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. VIF/Valentine Farms Bldg. One, LLC, 308 Ga. App. 436 (2011) (first appeal summarizing facts and upholding spoliation sanctions)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (2010) (standard of review for summary judgment described)
- Bagwell v. Bagwell, 290 Ga. 378 (2012) (dismissal as sanction functions as adjudication on the merits)
- Georgia Cash America, Inc. v. Greene, 318 Ga. App. 355 (2012) (striking defenses for discovery violations operates as adjudication)
- Brantley v. Sparks, 167 Ga. App. 323 (1983) (dismissal for willful discovery violations adjudicates merits)
- Mathews v. Cloud, 294 Ga. 415 (2014) (plaintiff must show good record title to make a prima facie ejectment case)
- Evans v. Elder, 219 Ga. 566 (1964) (plaintiff in ejectment must show legal title and right of entry)