Wylie v. Denton
323 Ga. App. 161
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Angie Denton, Lynette Kearney, Donna O’Berry, Krystal Sikes, and Terri Smith were SunTrust Bank tellers in Waycross and were terminated; they sue SunTrust and supervisor Wylie for Georgia RICO, RICO conspiracy, common law fraud, and defamation.
- Allegations center on Wylie directing cashing Clayton Homes checks without proper identification during Ursery embezzlement; plaintiffs allegedly questioned but were told to ignore banking practices.
- SunTrust reimbursed Clayton Homes after discovery, reported to regulators/DOJ, and terminated plaintiffs for cashing checks contrary to bank policy; plaintiffs claim termination was to cover up the scheme.
- Clayton Homes suit was filed and later dismissed against Clayton Homes; SunTrust allegedly confiscated notes reflecting Wylie’s role.
- Trial court denied some motions; appellate court reversed RICO and fraud rulings, vacated/ remanded defamation rulings, and remanded for more definable pleading context; case involves two related schemes and proximate cause concerns.
- Standard of review is de novo; plaintiffs must show direct nexus between predicate acts and injuries for RICO; claims rely on indirect injuries from acts directed at third parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs state a Georgia RICO claim | Plaintiffs allege predicate acts aimed at Clayton Homes/DOJ. | Predicates aimed at third parties, not directly at plaintiffs; no direct nexus. | RICO proximate cause not shown; claims dismissed. |
| Whether plaintiffs state a common law fraud claim | Wylie/SunTrust made assurances of job security. | Promises of continued employment unenforceable for at-will employees. | Fraud claims dismissed; Balmer controlling. |
| Whether plaintiffs adequately plead defamation | Wylie/SunTrust allegedly made statements imputing crimes to plaintiffs. | Need more specifics on content and context of statements. | Defamation claim pleading insufficient; remand for amendment with content/context details. |
| Whether trial court erred in denying dismissal as to RICO/fraud | Amended pleadings sufficient to state claims. | Plaintiffs lack proximate causation; pleadings insufficient. | Reversed as to RICO/fraud; remanded for defamation-related proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morast v. Lance, 631 F. Supp. 474 (N.D. Ga. 1986) (instruction on direct nexus for RICO proximate causation (abrogated in part))
- Nicholson v. Windham, 257 Ga. App. 429 (Ga. App. 2002) (no direct nexus; indirect injury cannot support RICO claims)
- Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2003) (test for direct nexus in RICO under Eleventh Circuit)
- Balmer v. Elan Corp., 278 Ga. 227 (Ga. 2004) (oral promises of continued employment unenforceable; fraud requires justifiable reliance on enforceable promise)
- Benedict v. State Farm Bank, FSB, 309 Ga. App. 133 (Ga. App. 2011) (dismissal proper where allegations concede no relief under 9-11-12(b)(6))
- Crosby v. Pittman, 305 Ga. App. 639 (Ga. App. 2010) (notice pleading; liberal construction to give fair notice)