Betallic, Inc. v. Deavours
Opinions
We agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion in this case and with that court’s construction of OCGA § 9-15-14, except that part where the court finds that a claim for litigation costs and attorney [797]*797fees assessed for frivolous actions and defenses is available only to a “prevailing party.” Deavours v. Hog Mtn. Creations, 207 Ga. App. 557 (428 SE2d 388) (1993). OCGA § 9-15-14 does not limit recovery to a certain party, but permits any party to recover from another party who has “unnecessarily expanded the proceeding by . . . improper conduct, including, but not limited to, abuses of discovery.” OCGA § 9-15-14 (b).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
439 S.E.2d 643 (Betallic, Inc. v. Deavours) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.