Latham v. Faulk

Supreme Court of Georgia

Latham v. Faulk

454 S.E.2d 136, 265 Ga. 107

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1995

DocketS94A1656

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 454 S.E.2d 136 (Latham v. Faulk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Latham v. Faulk, 454 S.E.2d 136, 265 Ga. 107 (Ga. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

Fletcher, Justice.

Charles Faulk sued Saralyn Latham for specific performance of a contract to make a will that had been made by Faulk and Latham’s respective predecessors-in-interest. Following a verdict by an advisory jury in favor of Faulk, the trial court entered judgment enforcing the contract and awarding Faulk damages and attorney fees pursuant to [108]*108OCGA § 13-6-11. We reverse the award of attorney fees, but affirm on the remaining issues.

1. After reviewing the record, we hold that the court’s judgment regarding the enforceability of the contract and damages flowing therefrom is supported by sufficient evidence. Scott v. Scott, 243 Ga. 472, 473 (254 SE2d 852) (1979). We, therefore, affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment.

2. Where a bona fide controversy exists, attorney fees may be awarded under OCGA § 13-6-11 only where the party sought to be charged has acted in bad faith in the underlying transaction. Dimambro Northend. Assoc. v. Williams, 169 Ga. App. 219, 224-225 (312 SE2d 386) (1983). A review of the record demonstrates that there was a bona fide controversy regarding the existence and terms of the contract because there was no extant signed copy of the contract that Faulk sought to enforce. In completing the special verdict form, the jury did not find that Latham had acted in bad faith. In the absence of bad faith, the award for attorney fees cannot stand.¹

3. Faulk’s request for damages for a frivolous appeal is denied.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, P. J., who concurs specially.

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

Fletcher, Justice.

Charles Faulk sued Saralyn Latham for specific performance of a contract to make a will that had been made by Faulk and Latham’s respective predecessors-in-interest. Following a verdict by an advisory jury in favor of Faulk, the trial court entered judgment enforcing the contract and awarding Faulk damages and attorney fees pursuant to [108]*108OCGA § 13-6-11. We reverse the award of attorney fees, but affirm on the remaining issues.

1. After reviewing the record, we hold that the court’s judgment regarding the enforceability of the contract and damages flowing therefrom is supported by sufficient evidence. Scott v. Scott, 243 Ga. 472, 473 (254 SE2d 852) (1979). We, therefore, affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment.

2. Where a bona fide controversy exists, attorney fees may be awarded under OCGA § 13-6-11 only where the party sought to be charged has acted in bad faith in the underlying transaction. Dimambro Northend. Assoc. v. Williams, 169 Ga. App. 219, 224-225 (312 SE2d 386) (1983). A review of the record demonstrates that there was a bona fide controversy regarding the existence and terms of the contract because there was no extant signed copy of the contract that Faulk sought to enforce. In completing the special verdict form, the jury did not find that Latham had acted in bad faith. In the absence of bad faith, the award for attorney fees cannot stand.¹

3. Faulk’s request for damages for a frivolous appeal is denied.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, P. J., who concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 S.E.2d 136, 265 Ga. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latham-v-faulk-ga-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack