*1 659 “This result would be use. as a business store, be construed this could individu- among reliance destroy good faith and would intolerable agreements.” their with act accordance them to permits als which 390) (1980). Further- Brownlee, SE2d Ga. 820 246 Brack the situation a recognized previously more, has this court building leased where the from that shopping center differs shop- store not want a vacаnt “Obviously would landlord alone: solvent and remained original tenant though the center even ping v. Jacobs monthly rental.” minimum pаid the Buford-Clairmont (1) (206 Co., App. 647 Pharmacy summary judgment correctly granted follows that PWS on the issues summary judgment and denied the landlords sublеase the continuously occupy or implied covenant express and therein under the revenue-producing business а and conduct premises terms of the lease. reserved for later determination expressly
2. Since the trial court аwarded, final enumeration appellant’s damages to be the amount of percent- damages past based on calculation of concerning the of error by this court. nothing for consideration payment presents age rent (1985). 593) Philliрs, App. 517 See Crawford JJ., Judgment Pope affirmed. 1990 November Decided
Rehearing 20, 1990 denied November Snow, George Grant, C. Ed- Martin, Nаpier, Grant & C. John wards, Bloch, Elliott, Jr., Hall, Meyer, Benjamin Garland
J. Sewell Garland, appellees. M. ACOUSTICS, v. CURRAHEE
A90A1069. WALTON INC. COMPANY, INC. CONSTRUCTION of the motion of grant This is an frоm the trial court’s (Currahee) arbi- Company, Inc. to vacate an Currahee Construction (Walton) Acoustics, en- Inc. and Currаhee had tration award. Walton them. pursuant construction contract between tered arbitration to a contract, $13,756.47 $728.81 The arbitrator awarded Walton expenses. Currahee fees and attorney fees and administration $305.61 improp- that it the award on the basis moved the trial court to vacate erly attorney fees. Held: included pro- otherwise provides: “Unless
We affirm. OCGA § arbitrate, expenses and the arbitrators’ agreement in the vided fees, in including counsel expenses, nоt fees, other together with paid provided shall conduct of curred Co., Contracting award.” fees this court held App. аrgues that attor action. Walton are not recoverable *2 disagree. We OCGA OCGA 13-6-11. under ney fees are recoverаble § 13-6-11 because it is over OCGA 9-9-97, in controls enacted § § attorney fees subject the of legislature the on expression of the expression of guided by the last are to be “The courts in this context. Christy, Board Trustees subject.” Assembly on a the General of persuasive do not find We West, App. 431 that Jamison argument Walton’s pursu attorney fees 170) (1989), proposition that for the stands аction, if recovered may be OCGA 13-6-11 ant to § Rather, that Jamison we hold pleaded. timely properly and fees, may exрenses, but not proposition that only for the portion of OCGA pertinent the specifically § We note recoverеd. in incurred the conduct (a) expenses” recovery of “other 9-9-97 allows of the arbitration. simply set power the to trial court has agree we that the
Nor can remaining award. As attorney fees and confirm the award of aside permit nоt it. be, statutory scheme does logical as this would (b) (3) may if the an award be vacated provides that 9-9-93 OCGA § in this case. The dis- authority, as was done oversteps his arbitrator (b) misplaced. That Code section is reliance on OCGA 9-9-97 sent’s § expenses it found fees or to reduce or disallow allowed the trial court expenses However, “excessive” the fees or qualify аs excessive. This is Attorney fees were not authorized. authorized. must have been Peden, Hughes (b) is not discussed 9-9-97 the reason OCGA § Pedеn, Hughes supra, the trial of following the mandate supra. award. set aside the entire properly court Banke, J., J., P. Deen, J., McMurray, P. P. Judgment affirmed. J., Sognier Beasley, J., Birdsong, and Carley, C. Cooper, and JJ., dissent. dissenting. Judge, case. How- this attorney fees are nоt awardable agree
I entirety” “in its vacating the award ever, erred new arbitra- with a begin AAA “to anew remanding the case to the tor.” dis involved this expenses” “other governs 9-9-97 OCGA § (b) Subsection fees. expressly precludes counsel
pute. Subsection or disallow may court reduce “[u]pon application, provides that justice them as may or allocate еxpenses it finds excessive any fees or by award. This subsection vacate the moved to Currahee requires.” ex over “аrbitrators’ authority of the court contemplates broad terms even al of the expenses” and “other fees” penses and spe As to these its own discretion. allocation based lowing its own the award vacating alone, it is not restrictеd items cific incidental its subsection the strictures of nor limited to under OCGA § Contracting Co., (b). The court applicability did not rule App. 656 (b). subsection OCGA 9-9-97’s § see authority was eliminated broader Although this court to empowers It 9-9-17, in this case. it was extant OCGA § is entitled to beсause Walton fees as excessive the counsel disallow done, a matter of have the court should attorney fees. This zero law. any purpose useful justice nor and serves neither is wasteful new arbitrator back, with a for rearbitration mаtter
send the whole appeal, and a new to the trial court applications potential and new clear. the law is when Judge Sognier Birdsong and state that
I am authorized in this dissent. join 20, 1990.
Decided November Storrs, Fleming, Richard J. Smith Cornwell, Jr.,
Cornwell, appellee. E. Heаly, James Church BYRD. A90A1411. THE STATE v. following facts and en- stipulated the parties
The to this 1989, March, Jury Grand “In stipulation tered the the record. summoned, The Grand charged. sworn and County for Catoosa was 6, 1989, ju- at which time Jury during the week of March served 17,1989, again met at May On the Grand Jurоrs discharged. rors were Marilyn Byrd. In this against which time the indictment was returned however, to be recon- not order the Grand Jurors case the Court did The Jurors back into session. The Clerk did not summons the vened. were not The Grand Jurors Grand Jurors were not resworn. May faсt, began meeting on when the Grand Jurors recharged. the court- at Superior Judge Court was even attendance no 10:00 a.m. day. prior arrived house until The indict- May The Jury meeting still 1989. while the Grand was