Kenan S. Thompson sued Herman Tyler and his brother, Ernest Tyler, to recover money Thompson entrusted to Herman Tyler as a financial advisor to manage and invest. Thompson claimed on various grounds, including money had and received, fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, that Herman Tyler unlawfully took the entrusted money. Thompson claimed that Ernest Tyler conspired with Herman Tyler to unlawfully take the entrusted money when a portion of the money was used to buy and sell real property in Ernest Tyler’s name. Herman Tyler (Case No. A11A0019) and Ernest Tyler (Case No. A11A0020) appeal pro se from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Thompson in the amount of $1,224,499.66 of the entrusted money, plus attorney fees and costs pursuant to OCGA § 13-6-11 in the amount of $47,493.08. 1 As to the grant of summary judgment for $1,224,499.66 of the entrusted money, we affirm the grant of summary judgment against Herman Tyler, and reverse the grant of summary judgment against Ernest Tyler. We reverse the grant of summary judgment against Herman and Ernest Tyler for attorney fees and costs in the amount of $47,493.08.
1. Both Tylers claim that the grant of summary judgment for attorney fees and costs pursuant to OCGA § 13-6-11 was error, and Thompson concedes this was error. We agree. As set forth in
Covington Square Assoc, v. Ingles Markets,
2. As to the grant of summary judgment for the sum of $1,224,499.66, both Tylers claim that procedural errors in the grant of summary judgment require reversal. 2
(a) There is no merit to the Tylers’ claims that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. “The trial court is not required to make express findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on motions for summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Thomas v. DeKalb County,
(b) There is no merit to the Tylers’ claims that the trial court erred by refusing to hear and grant a motion to compel discovery before ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The record shows that, after the complaint was filed in April 2001 and answers were filed by the Tylers in May 2001, the time for discovery was extended by court order through August 1, 2002. Thompson moved for summary judgment in July 2004. After notice was sent setting the summary judgment motion for hearing in November 2004, the Tylers sent notices stating that they intended to take the depositions of Kenan and Elizabeth Thompson a few days prior to the summary judgment hearing. The parties agreed to delay the November 2004 hearing on the motion for summary judgment to allow completion of this discovery. After a series of e-mails were sent between the parties in November 2004 attempting to agree on a date to schedule the depositions, Herman Tyler’s attorney sent a letter in November 2004 to the Thompsons’ attorney offering a deposition date in December
2004, and stating, “I will await your reply.” The record reflects no further communication regarding the depositions. In May 2007, the
No express order was entered by the trial court denying the motion to compel discovery. Nevertheless, on these facts, we will not presume that the court failed to consider the motion to compel before ruling on summary judgment.
Green v. Sun Trust Banks,
“A trial court has wide discretion to shorten, extend, or reopen the time for discovery, and its decision will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.”
Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills,
[i]n order for a party to utilize the court’s compulsory process to compel discovery, any desired discovery proce dures must first be commenced promptly, pursued diligently and completed without unnecessary delay and within 6 months after the filing of the answer. At any time, the court, in its discretion, may extend, reopen or shorten the time to utilize the court’s compulsory process to compel discovery.
Assuming the trial court properly exercised its discretion at the September 2007 hearing date to delay the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and extend the time allowing Herman Tyler to take the depositions, there is no evidence that Herman Tyler made any effort to schedule the depositions before the court rescheduled the hearing. Although Herman Tyler filed a motion to compel the depositions ten days before the November 2007 hearing on summary judgment, he did not contend in the motion or at the hearing that he attempted to take the Thompsons’ depositions at any time after the discovery period was extended at the September 2007 hearing date. Rather, he simply argued that three years had passed after his attorney exchanged communications with the Thompsons’ attorney in 2004 attempting to schedule the depositions. Given Herman Tyler’s lack of diligence with regard to taking the depositions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to compel discovery and ruling on the motion for summary judgment.
Woelper,
3. Ernest Tyler contends that genuine issues of material fact preclude the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against him under OCGA § 9-11-56 for the sum of $1,224,499.66. Thompson’s suit alleged that
To recover damages based on a claim of civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show that two or more persons combined “either to do some act which is a tort, or else to do some lawful act by methods
which constitute a tort. . . . [T]he conspiracy of itself furnishes no cause of action. The gist of the action ... is not the conspiracy alleged, but the tort committed against the plaintiff and the resulting damage.” (Punctuation omitted.)
Savannah College of Art & Design v. School of Visual Arts of Savannah,
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part in Case No. A11A0019. Judgment reversed in Case No. A11A0020.
Notes
The suit was originally brought by Kenan Thompson and his mother, Elizabeth Thompson. Summary judgment was sought by and granted to Kenan Thompson.
Herman Tyler asserts only procedural error and does not claim that any genuine issue of material fact precluded award of summary judgment against him for the sum of $1,224,499.66 under OCGA § 9-11-56. Accordingly, Herman Tyler waived any claim of error with respect to the substance of this portion of the summary judgment award.
Garner v. Roberts,