Wright v. Apartment Investment & Management Co.
315 Ga. App. 587
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- AIMCO and OP Property Management sued Wright, Wrights, and S & D Associates for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud; jury found for AIMCO and awarded damages, fees, and punitive damages.
- Wright, as AIMCO's Senior Director of Construction Services and on-site manager for three AIMCO projects, had broad authority as AIMCO's agent and owner’s representative.
- Wright recommended SHEP Services for multiple projects, leading to over $15.5 million in contracts awarded to SHEP Services.
- SHEP Services allegedly paid Wright kickbacks; AIMCO investigation revealed large cash deposits into Wrights' shared accounts and substantial purchases by Wright and wife.
- AIMCO paid about $2.13 million to settle subcontractors' claims unpaid by SHEP; evidence linked Wright's payments to the fraud.
- OP Property Management, though managing the projects, was a pass-through entity; the court later held it lacked its own damages and reversed judgment against it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OP Property Management damages standing | OP had damages from the breach/fraud | OP suffered no losses and had no standalone damages | OP lacked recoverable damages; j.n.o.v. reversed as to OP |
| AIMCO's damages and causation | Damages were proximately caused by Wright's breach | Damages not proven or properly allocated | Damages supported; within range; jury reasonable in allocation |
| Wright's fiduciary duty | Wright owed fiduciary duty as AIMCO's agent | No fiduciary duty owed by Wright | Wright owed fiduciary duty to AIMCO and breached it |
| Aiding/abetting and civil conspiracy by Mrs. Wright and S & D | They aided and conspired with Wright | No liability for aiding/abetting or conspiracy | Evidence supported aiding/abetting and conspiracy liability |
| Admission of Shepard's Declaration and investigator testimony | Declarations/testimony admissible to show Shepard's participation | Hearsay and fairness concerns | Declarations/testimony admissible; waiver for best-evidence issue; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gold Kist v. Base Mfg., Inc., 289 Ga.App. 690 (2008) (damages within range may be upheld even if not proven by exact formula)
- City of Atlanta v. WH Smith Airport Svcs., 290 Ga.App. 206 (2008) (where damages fall within range, verdict not disturbed)
- Insight Tech., Inc. v. FreightCheck, LLC, 280 Ga.App. 19 (2006) (procure liability doctrine for fiduciary breaches)
- Nash v. Studdard, 294 Ga.App. 845 (2008) (plaintiff must prove actual damages from fraud; lack of damages defeats claims)
- Walker v. Aderhold Properties, 303 Ga.App. 710 (2010) (admissions of one defendant may be used against that party; not imputed to co-defendants)