CASE 1: Franchise Law / Corporations / Partnerships
Fayette County Superior Court
Fayetteville, Georgia
The client was a wealthy former stock broker. He wanted to buy some restaurant franchises. He contacted a pizza franchisor, and purchased a pizza franchise.
Under the agreement the franchisor was required to provide my client the franchisor’s manual. Months after the opening, and my client’s repeated requests, the franchisor supplied a franchise manual. The manual was incomplete, and lacked detail on how to conduct the business.
Securities filings obtained from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington, D.C., revealed that the pizza franchisor had had at least one bankruptcy prior to the sale of the pizza franchise. The pizza franchisor was required to disclose that under O.C.G.A. Sect. 10-1-413, but had failed to do so.
My client closed his pizza franchise and sued the franchisor’s corporation based on fraud. My client also sued the corporate officers personally, and asked the court to pierce the corporate veil to allow personal liability against the officers.
The defendants (i.e., the pizza franchisor’s corporation, and the individual corporate officers) did not answer my client’s interrogatories and request for the production of documents as required under O.C.G.A. Sect. 9-11-33, and O.C.G.A. Sect. 9-11-34. I brought a motion to compel the answers and documents under O.C.G.A. Sect. 9-11-37.
The Court granted my motion to compel discovery, and ordered the defendants to turn over everything my client had requested “including their underwear”. The defendants turned over the documents and answered the questions that I had requested for my clients.
I took depositions of persons in Atlanta, and in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The Court then set the jury trial date.
At trial, one of the corporate officer-defendants showed up, but the other one did not. During my cross examination of the corporate officer-defendant I highlighted the fact that the other one was not present at trial.
The corporate officer testified he was not aware of the bankruptcy listing section, but also quoted other passages from the franchise documents. On cross examination I pointed out the discrepancy between knowing one but not the other part of the franchise documents.
Outside the hearing of the jury, the judge held a hearing on my request to pierce the corporate veil to allow the jury to consider liability against the corporate officers personally.
I argued fraud allowed this. The judge said he was not aware the law allowed this based on fraud. I showed the judge the case law. The judge then allowed piercing the corporate veil.
The trial lasted four days, ending on a Friday. The jury returned a verdict in favor of my client. The total verdict was $985,000.00 (which included $385,000.00 in punitive damages).
By coincidence I ran into the jury foreman the next morning, Saturday, at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. I was flying to Portland, Oregon, to take a deposition of a corporate witness in another case. The jury foreman, also a Delta Airlines pilot, was flying to his class reunion at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. He asked “where was the corporate officer who did not show at trial”. I said I did not know. He said the jury had speculated that he was anywhere from the Bahamas to several other countries around the globe.
The jury foreman also said he hoped that they had awarded enough money in punitive damages against the defendants. He said the jury had considered awarding an even higher amount of punitive damages and finally agreed on the figure of $385,000.00.
The firm that handled most of the case for the Defendants was a major defense firm in Atlanta.
Back To Top | Email Us | Call Us Today 770.886.7207
CASE 2: Divorce
Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta, Georgia
My client was the wife. She had been married for twenty (22) years. She and her husband had three minor (3) children. The husband worked for a corporation in Atlanta.
My client said the husband had beaten her. I took the husband’s deposition. The husband denied the claim.
I did medical research and obtained medical records of my client from an Atlanta hospital. The medical records showed bruises and other injuries to my client.
I also took the deposition of one of my client’s physicians. The physician was able to lay the foundation for some of my client’s medical records.
Immediately before trial the husband made a settlement offer to my client amounting to several hundred thousand dollars. The opposing attorney arranged for the judge to call both attorneys and both clients into the judge’s office. The opposing attorney pushed to have my client accept his client’s settlement offer. The judge told my client that he had never seen anyone on this type of fact pattern get a jury verdict more than what the husband was offering. My client rejected the settlement offer and the trial began.
At trial the court admitted into evidence my client’s medical records and the deposition of my client’s physician.
At trial the husband again denied he had beaten my client. On cross examination I used the medical records to cross examine the husband. The husband was unable to come up with a plausible explanation for my client’s injuries listed in the medical records.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of my client that was more than what the judge had said was possible (i.e. the husband’s settlement offer). The jury awarded my client sixty-six percent or more of the marital property, including the marital house, and also awarded child support and alimony.
My client also received full physical custody of the children.
The opposing law firm was a Buckhead (Atlanta), Georgia, law firm which also represented a well-known national corporation.
Back To Top | Email Us | Call Us Today 770.886.7207
CASE 3: Construction
Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta, Georgia
My clients both worked for well-known national corporations. They bought an upscale home in North Fulton from one of the largest nationwide homebuilders. Within a short time my clients realized there were several problems with their new home. One problem included the strong smell of urine in the bathroom area. My clients later discovered that the builder had left a cup of urine behind one of the walls/covered areas in the master bathroom. Another problem included the builder’s representation that the builder was going to build the entire neighborhood consistently with three-sided brick or three-sided stucco. This was an enticement to buy the home on the premise that having the uniform brick or stucco would aid in maintaining the property values.
My clients placed a protest sign in their yard against the builder, and told potential home buyers that the builder had defrauded them. The sign was visible for other potential home buyers to see when looking for the display home in this new, upscale neighborhood.
The builder sued my clients for an injunction, and at least $300,000.00 in damages.
My clients filed an answer denying the builder’s claims. My clients also filed a counterclaim for at least $942,460.65 in damages against the builder. My clients’ counterclaim was for fraud, and the right of privacy, specifically the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts.
The builder tried to have my clients’ fraud counterclaim dismissed by filing a motion to dismiss under O.C.G.A. Sect. 9-11-12(b). The builder alleged my client had failed to attach a professional affidavit of a builder. The builder said my clients had alleged construction defects, thus requiring a professional affidavit under O.C.G.A. Sect. 9-11-9.1.
The national builder made two (2) legal mistakes in making its motion to dismiss, and I pointed that out to the court in my clients’ answer. The builder’s first legal mistake was that it made a motion to dismiss, but then included materials outside the pleadings, which instead converted it to a motion for summary judgment under O.C.G.A. Sect. 9-11-56. The builder’s second legal mistake was that it said a professional affidavit was needed when in fact my clients’ claim was for the builders’ fraud, not just for the builder’s negligent construction.
The builder did not pursue its motion to dismiss my clients’ counterclaim after I filed the answer for my clients.
Mediation occurred connected with the lawsuit. The builder agreed to drop its lawsuit against my clients completely.
The opposing law firm was a downtown Atlanta firm.
Back To Top | Email Us | Call Us Today 770.886.7207
CASE 4: Construction
Forsyth County Superior Court
Cumming, Georgia
My clients bought a home in an upscale Forsyth neighborhood. The home’s sewage backed up into the home.
The builder did not correct the problem. My clients sued on breach of warranty. The warranty said the builder would “fix the problem”. The builder denied liability.
I sent interrogatories and document requests to the builder, which were answered.
I took depositions of the county officials regarding housing soil inspection, the builder, and the soil scientist the builder had used.
The builder took depositions of my clients and their civil engineer.
The builder then hired an engineer as their expert. I took the builder’s engineer’s deposition. During my cross examination the builder’s engineer admitted several facts and scientific and mathematical principles that showed the builder was liable. The cross examination showed the lot the builder had chosen for my clients’ house would not work with a septic tank.
I then worked toward setting a trial date.
The builder then offered to settle by buying back the house from my clients for the original purchase price of $215,000.00. My clients accepted the builder’s settlement offer and settled the case.
Back To Top | Email Us | Call Us Today 770.886.7207
TRANSACTION 5: Commercial Real Estate Closing
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
My client and I flew to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We met the buyer, who was from Europe, and other affiliated business persons and their attorneys in a downtown bank. This was a commercial real estate closing. My client was selling an apartment complex to the buyer for $6,000,000.00.
The partnership agreement that was involved with the apartment complex had named a person as, in essence, an “Additional Partner”. Legally, that had no binding significance, and did not require any payment from the partnership.
However, despite not having a valid legal interest, the “Additional Partner” came to Philadelphia for the closing. He demanded payment for his “partnership interest” as an “additional partner”. This created a cloud on title, and stopped the closing.
The buyer’s attorney and I went into another, private, area of the bank. For several hours we discussed this legal problem back and forth with the title company’s legal staff. The title company’s legal department determined, also, that this “additional partner” was not legally entitled to compensation from the partnership despite the fact he was listed in the partnership agreement. However, the legal department concluded also that, nevertheless, the additional partner had created a cloud on title.
Negotiations continued for hours back and forth between the buyer, seller, partners, the additional partner, and their attorneys. After approximately eight (8) hours, the problem was resolved, and the apartment complex closing was completed.
Back To Top | Email Us | Call Us Today 770.886.7207
|
