CBS, Inc. F/K/A CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Anointed Hair Studio, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 16, 2014
DocketA13A2140
StatusPublished

This text of CBS, Inc. F/K/A CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Anointed Hair Studio, Inc. (CBS, Inc. F/K/A CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Anointed Hair Studio, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CBS, Inc. F/K/A CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Anointed Hair Studio, Inc., (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

January 16, 2014

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A2140. CBS, INC. v. ANOINTED HAIR STUDIO, INC.

RAY, Judge.

CBS Inc. sued Anointed Hair Studio, Inc., alleging nonpayment of fees due for

the rental of advertising space on two billboards. After a bench trial resulting in

judgment for Anointed Hair, CBS appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in (1)

admitting testimony, over objection, involving a different contract from the one at

issue in CBS’s suit; (2) basing its decision not to award damages to CBS in part on

testimony about what CBS contends is the irrelevant contract; and (3) finding that

CBS failed to prove damages by a preponderance of the evidence because its

documentation was incomplete. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. “The trial court is the trier of fact in a bench trial, and its findings will be

upheld on appeal if there is any evidence to support them. The plain legal error

standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of

law, not fact.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Slaick v. Arnold, 316 Ga. App.

141, 142 (728 SE2d 782) (2012). “However, the court’s judgment in a non-jury trial

will be reversed where it is apparent that it rests on erroneous reasoning or on an

erroneous legal theory.” (Citations omitted.) CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 213

Ga. App. 710, 721 (4) (445 SE2d 782) (1994) (finding that judgment must be

reversed where trial court’s factual findings were inconsistent).

Properly viewed, the facts show that CBS and Anointed Hair entered into an

agreement in 2010 in which CBS sold advertising space on two billboards to

Anointed Hair. In 2011, CBS and Anointed Hair entered into a separate contract,

which by its own terms cancels and supersedes the 2010 contract. The 2010 contract

was not before the trial court, nor is it in the record before this Court. The 2011

contract states that CBS will provide two billboards for 13 periods, running from

February 7, 2011, through February 5, 2012, at a total cost of $1,700 per period. In

addition, the 2011 contract also provides that a “space available bonus billboard

should be installed on Memorial Drive when space allows” at no additional cost to

2 Anointed Hair. (Emphasis supplied). It is undisputed that Anointed Hair never

received advertising space on any free, bonus billboard.

On August 27, 2012, CBS filed suit on the 2011 contract only, alleging that

Anointed Hair had failed to pay for six of the seven billboard rental periods between

July 1, 2011, and January 1, 2012, and claiming damages of $10,200. Anointed Hair

answered, but the trial court struck that answer because it was not filed by a licensed

attorney, entered a default judgment in favor of CBS as to liability only, and

scheduled a hearing for presentation of proof of the amount of damages.

After the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that CBS had failed

to prove its damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The order, in granting

judgment to Anointed Hair, also appears to find that Anointed Hair is due a “pro-rated

credit” under the terms of the 2011 contract, because it did not receive free billboard

advertising space under the terms of the 2010 contract. Specifically, the trial court’s

order finds that the parties negotiated a contract for billboard advertising services in

January 2010, and that as an additional contract term, CBS was to provide a bonus

billboard at no cost to Anointed Hair. The trial court further found that in January

2011, the parties executed a new contract for the remainder of the term that

superseded the original contract, and that the new contract provided that Anointed

3 Hair would receive free advertising space on a Memorial Drive billboard “when space

allows.” The trial court’s order states that “[a] copy of the initial contract, executed

in January 2010, has not been provided to the Court” but found that a witness for

CBS “admits the 2010 contract did not limit the provision of the bonus billboard to

a ‘space available’ basis.” The trial court then determined that CBS failed to prove

its damages by a preponderance of the evidence, listing as one of the bases for its

decision that CBS provided itemized transactions from 2011 only, and not from 2010,

and that because “payments appear to be assigned haphazardly to prior and current

invoices” it needed the records from 2010. Then, the trial court found that because

CBS did not provide a free, bonus billboard under the guarantee of the 2010 contract,

the only available remedy under the 2011 contract was for a “pro-rated credit.” The

trial court found that it could “only presume . . . [that CBS] chose to provide pro-rated

credit as compensation for its failure to provide the bonus under the 2010 contract.

[CBS] has provided no evidence this credit was provided. . . . The Court awards

judgment to [Anointed Hair].”

1. The trial court’s order is unclear. As an initial matter, in basing portions of

its order on the 2010 contract, the trial court appears to be ruling on an amended

answer and counterclaim that Anointed Hair filed contemporaneously with a motion

4 to set aside the default judgment. The counterclaim was filed after the trial court

struck Anointed Hair’s answer and entered a default judgment, and about seven

months after the time to file defensive pleadings had passed. Neither a compulsory

nor permissive counterclaim may be filed after the time to file defensive pleadings,

absent permission by the court to assert such an amendment. See C. J. Aycock v.

Household Finance Corp. of Ga., 142 Ga. App. 207, 208 (1) (235 SE2d 578) (1977);

OCGA § 9-11-13 (f). Also, the late filing of counterclaims “is permitted only as an

amendment to pleadings already on file.” Ragan v. Smith, 188 Ga. App. 770, 771 (1)

(374 SE2d 559) (1988), citing Electro-Kinetics Corp. v. Wilson, 122 Ga. App. 171,

172 (2) (176 SE2d 604) (1970). Because the trial court in the instant case had granted

CBS’s motion to strike Anointed Hair’s answer and had entered a default judgment

in CBS’s favor, it is unclear whether the trial court’s order means to grant the motion

to open default and allow the counterclaim.

This ambiguity in the trial court’s order goes directly to CBS’s first

enumeration. CBS argued that because its damages claims revolved only around the

2011 contract, the trial court erred in admitting, over its objection as to relevance,

testimony related to the 2010 contract. If the trial court meant to set aside the default

and allow Anointed Hair’s counterclaim, evidence of the 2010 contract could be

5 relevant such that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such

evidence over objection. If the trial court did not mean to allow the counterclaim,

evidence of the 2010 contract could be deemed irrelevant and the trial court could

have abused its discretion in admitting it. See Corey v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.,

299 Ga. App. 487, 492 (2) (683 SE2d 27) (2009).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Aycock v. Household Finance Corp.
235 S.E.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Electro-Kinetics Corp. v. Wilson
176 S.E.2d 604 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp.
445 S.E.2d 782 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Corey v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
683 S.E.2d 27 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Ragan v. Smith
374 S.E.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Slaick v. Arnold
728 S.E.2d 782 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
CBS, Inc. F/K/A CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Anointed Hair Studio, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cbs-inc-fka-cbs-outdoor-inc-v-anointed-hair-studio-inc-gactapp-2014.